The (Old) Bathroom Wall

This is a test of the new Bathroom Wall

bumping

bumping

Reed A. Cartwright: This is a test of the new Bathroom Wall

Dang; if only somebody had told me there wuz gonna be a test I could'a studied fer it... :p

Entries here show up on the main page's Recent Comments panel. Should they? I'm thinking that perhaps all the bathroom wall traffic will drown out the main PT comments rendering the Recent Comments panel less than useful.

I may not be able to prevent comments on pages from showing up in the recent comments box, but I'll look into it. Thanks for pointing that out.

BTW the Update function is really cool. I trust it will be featured on the main site soon?

Oops, ignore my last comment. The answer is implicit in your original post

This should be fun!

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/600991

Blog: Stages of denialism

Denialists never want to admit that they are wrong about anything, so they keep a debate going as long as possible to sooth their egos. Then, when their views are discredited by the mainstream scientific communities, they appeal to the prejudices of the general public instead.

Global Warming (GW) denialist stages:

"Global warming is not happening and may not happen. Why worry about it?"

"Global warming IS happening, but there is no evidence that humans are a factor in the problem."

"Global warming is happening, humans are a factor, but there is nothing we can do to stop it anyway."

'Global warming is happening, humans are a factor, we can stop it, but the costs of trying to stop it would outweigh the benefits."

Decades ago, most GW denialists were at stage one. Today, most of them are at stage two, with some already moving to stage three or four. Truly honest and fair people should have stopped at stage one.

Creationist (evolution denialist) stages:

"Species are eternal and unchanging, existing in their present form since Creation. There is no evidence for evolution."

"Species do change, but only within the limits of created kinds. Evidence cited for evolution can also fit within Creationism."

"Even if evolution occurs, an Intelligent Designer must have been involved, so complex are some biological forms."

"Evolution is as unscientific as Creationism."

The difference between a skeptic and a denialist, on any subject, is that a real skeptic knows in advance what evidence would convince him that something is real or that action of a certain kind is justified. A denialist has no such standards. His commitment to an ideology trumps any scientific standard. Gaps in scientific knowledge, which would motivate most scientists to look for more data, are wrongly used by denialists to reject completely a concept they do not like because of prejudice. This is dishonesty.

I've changed the panel size to ten to make it easier for y'all to play with it. We'll eventually settle on a larger number.

Great idea.

Besides color (and tabbing the BW from the main page) I would suggest keeping or increasing PT default font size - no reason to humor trolls ranting off masses of texts.

With this PT has evolved as a dynamic site on the web. Kudos!

PS: In preview I get the default font size. Yet another reason to keep posted comments as default size.

'Nuther thing: refreshed the 2nd page and got back to page 1. Saturday is cookie day, nom nom nom - but anyways.

There is cookie support, for the last viewed tab, but it may be iffy.

I'm not sure what you mean about font sizes. Are you asking for comments to have the same font size as the entries?

If you access the page normally via the url http://pandasthumb.org/bw/, then last page viewed will be properly retrieved. If you use the a link with a fragment ID, then it won't try to cookie. I'll try to patch the tabs library that we're using to change that.

The tabs also understand links to specific comments and will load the proper panel. Try it out.

http://pandasthumb.org/bw/#comment-149706

It seems Sal Cordova has matriculated back to UcD. He is now holding forth on how Fisher's Theorem is the death of Darwinism, on the back of Michael Lynch's new book on genetic architecture.

If by Darwinism, Sal means the strawman pseudo-religion invented by creationists, great! Kick it down, Sal, just don't erect Kimuraism in its place when you find that we haven't all become YECs.

If, OTOH, Sal means a theory composed of strands assuming Deep Time, common descent, variability, and selection, then he should increase his dosage. Nothing in Lynch affects those things. As I understand Lynch's work, the relatively small populations of eukaryotes and multicellular organisms coupled with neutral drift is the key source of variation upon which selection operates.

Sal also does a quick switch in his post between 'biodiversity' as used in a quote from Lynch, and 'diversity' as used in a discussion of Fisher's Theorem. The two terms mean vastly different things.

Are you asking for comments to have the same font size as the entries?

Comment preview is going to become 2.0ified as well. The preview will be displayed on the entry page, probably under the update button.

Wesley R. Elsberry apparently couldn’t stand being proved wrong about the propaganda film Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, so he just deleted a comment of mine that illustrated exactly how wrong he was. He claimed to have moved them “to the bathroom wall” but I suspect he lied.

Bump test:

http://pandasthumb.org/bw/#comment-149706

Okay, I changed the hue of the default color scheme to fit with our bluish color scheme.

I provided a URL that just humiliated him!

I know the difference between the a Fourier Tranform (which is defined by an Integral symbol, upper case "S"), and an Fourier Series (represented by uppercase Sigma for Summation)

H fckng sshls. plgz t Dvsn NW bfr gt pssd ff nd strt fckng wth . dn’t wnt t mk m md. Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm.

H fckng sshls. plgz t Dvsn NW bfr gt pssd ff nd strt fckng wth . dn’t wnt t mk m md. Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm.

^
|
|
Oh good, it works.

Not only is his foolish behavior undermining his own credibility (what little there is left of it) but Wallace seems perfectly content in dragging down Christianity with him.

why oh why do you let people who are obviously not completely (or even partially) sane get to you so, Pim?

he certainly doesn't speak for xianity, or ID, or creationism, or anything other than the random delusions flitting through his skull.

I hope you at least can confine your non-arguments with him in this new locale.

Frankly, i still say he's not worth your effort.

What Ichthyic said. I made one final insult to whatever Wallace had been blubbering about, but he is not worth ANYONE's time, save as a crashtest dummy.

So why post a mention of him at all? Well, I feel that creationists reveal the seabed of asshole-ish stupidity (as opposed to crackpot asshole-ish-ness and stupidity, though there are PLENTY of those, more mundane, types of creationists, of course!), but the thing that mimics a human personality sometimes takes on compellingly repulsive forms, unique in their awfulness.
Anything unique is a treasure to be admired, at least for a very brief time. Or so I deeply believe. The wonder of the human mind, to this mere human, is that the most sickeningly ugly dross can be used to understand life (yes, and the UNiverse and everything.)
Sal Cordova represents one of these bizarrely ugly mounds of dishonesty that move along sifting through the intellectual/moral/spiritual feces that covers the bare idiocy of standard creationism. I believe W. Wallace, like some self-poisoning pair of ragged claws, scuttling across the putrid floors of this silent poisoned sea represents another.

From a very, very distant point of view, William Wallace provides us all with a unique service, although thanking him for that service would be absurd: he provides it despite himself, and I would never wish his fate on the shittiest person I have ever met.

Booger!

Ben Stein pooped here.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and the rest.

I'm starting to understand why it is called the bathroom wall. I liked reading Tupolo's comment - and then I noticed the booger that someone stuck here.

Oh, well, public restrooms is an unavoidable phenomena of the modern large scale society. You like it when you have to use it, and as Tupelo noted you may learn a thing or two of life from observing scribble beneath the drool, but you avoid the stench when you can. [Makes hasty withdrawal.]

This is a code.
I am a coder.

I fixed a bug in IE that made the comments not showup correctly.

Interesting comment, Dale Husband, but does what you just did not count as blogspam?

I don't get it. What's the purpose? What are the features?

JLO: I don't get it. What's the purpose? What are the features?

Aerik: Interesting comment, Dale Husband, but does what you just did not count as blogspam?

Those who write on bathroom walls
Roll their shit in little balls.
Those who read these words of wit
Eat those little balls of shit!

FOR A GOOD TIME
DO NOT CALL ME
I AM VERY DULL

testing

If I had one wish for this website, it would be that people would be able to send private messages to each other.

I've added a bunch more stuff, including lower tabs, ajax comment submission and previewing.

http://scit.us/demo_dan/2008/03/test-enty.html

I plan on updating this blog when MT 4.2 comes out, or maybe earlier if I feel the 4.15 beta gets stable enough. I had a lot of difficulties install 4.15 beta on my home blog.

It looks tremendously functional to me, either you mean this version or the test demo site. (Minor complaint for next update would be that the tab function on this page circumvents back stepping in browser history. But I dunno if that is fixable - and the tabs brings a better structure.)

The browser history is not fixable by me. The people responsible for the tabs library that we're using have been working on it for a long time. It's partially done, but lack of support for Safari is holding them back.

bump

Reed A. Cartwright said: bump

bumpage

bumpage again

bumpage again

This is pretty cool. How does it work on the back end? More or less data processing than other methods?

Greg, are you referring to the comment paneling? Or the BW itself?

Is this supposed to have gone live yet? Posts seem to still be going to the AtBC's BW.

Yes, posts are still going to AtBC for now. We have to update our software to send stuff here, and haven't had the time to do that.

Hi from Canada, The new website looks great.

Frank J said: Continuing from my long-running complaint on another thread.. It's the anti-evolution activists who make biology a religion and concoct "Darwinism" strawmen to make up for the fact that they don't have a scientific theory of their own.

Just wondering whether this YouTube pearl has been posted here already (no, it's not one of the "Machine" videos ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwUCXkqn-dM

bobby said: Gould for one and many others.

It would be nice to think that the strawman disappears if and then anti-science activism disappear. But I think that would be unlikely.

— Torbjörn Larsson, OM

Agreed.

bump

bump

Global Warming has been going on for 10,000 years since the last ice age. No need to panic. It's just a good idea to form public policy centered on minimizing man's negative impact on his environment. Global warming will continue to occur until there is no ice. And then the cycle will start over. If anything, the data shows we've been cooling the last 10 years. Don't believe any hype on either side. Just look at the data over a large enough time span, meaning tens of thousands of years, instead of analyzing data from hundreds of years and you will see the bigger picture. Climate change results in winners and losers, we will lose some species as we have been and will gain new ones.

Any news on Yoko's suit against Expelled? I thought the hearing was today...

Hey all i was hoping someone could help me out

i was info snacking 1 day and stumbled onto someone making the point that ID can be construed as an insult to faith. But i tried searching through PT and NPR , cant find where i might have read it.

does anyone know of the context im trying to recall?

perhaps the context went along the lines of "they would not want ID on their side.." i am certain it was within an articulate post here on PT (but not in the forums).

it cant be more then 4 months old though, im pretty certain

it had to do with something undermining Gods power or perhaps legitimizing naturalism... i thought maybe it was within article about Heller getting the Templeton award, but i re-read most of it, didnt seem to be in there.

any help?

Sorry, I can't help you recall the exact instance. It's been said many times in many places that the IDist approach undermines the creative power of an omnipotent being. The basics boil down to this: why can't God have created a world that can take care of itself, without constant tinkering to make it keep running?
Have you tried the Categories entries for "Science and Faith" over there to your right?
Perhaps try the TalkReason.org site?

Oh gosh , yes the 1st one on that link i think is it exactly it!

"...that God must conform to or be comprehensible within the limits of human understanding"
and
"the experimenter would have to be able to control for God"

wow this was it, thank you so much for showing me that link! interesting though now that i get back to it, i suppose you could try to argue maybe god made science strong enough to understand it...

The Flat Earthers do hang together, don't they?

It's very fill-in-the-blank by now. Climate denialists say the same 5 things every time, ditto for creationists. And they try to drag everyone into the past when their claims were still semi-plausible. The evolutionary fossil record is more complete every year. The evidence for AGW is more complete every year. The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex and the only thing that's been cooling for 10 years is the stratosphere.

Tobacco, pesticide and pollution denialism: Saving money by poisoning people and habitats, and having scientists or fake scientists claim that's a healthy thing to do.

Creationism, modern version: Flattering and reassuring people with insufficient background in science so that companies and their government agents can pick their pockets. It has the bonus that you can pretend that species don't evolve resistance and tie it into pesticide denialism.

Climate denialism: Lying to the public, buttressed by fake science, hoping to delay any changes to the corporate and industrial structure until it's too late for them to do any good.

Market fundamentalism becomes more and more clearly identical to the other ones - the apres moi le deluge attitude is similar to the Rapture Rightists or 12th Imam Shi'a who expect the world to end anyway. The worship of Mammon is palpable, as is the beatification of the business executive. It even has a miraculous Invisible Hand, and "magic" and reifies and deifies the wisdom of the Almighty Market.

Only market fundamentalism explains this, because the dollar amounts involved are small compared to the externalities, and the unwillingness even to consider other lines of conservative or capitalist policies and enterprises is really striking. Well, fundamentalism on most of their parts, but sociopathy on the part of the non-ideologues. They really don't care if millions die and they make an extra $10k this year.

I dig how William Wallace - returning to his "Important Things" thread after a leisurely and LONG stroll to the criticism-free mudhole at FTK's - came up the a response to (not) rebuke all of us non-believers (in something-or-other) with the label "Nest of vipers."

The wascally wabbit had the appropriate term for him, of course: maroon.

It looks like things are being moved into the forum thread instead of here. Is this wall still being used? If not, why is it linked from every page?

phantomreader42 said: It looks like things are being moved into the forum thread instead of here. Is this wall still being used? If not, why is it linked from every page?

Just curious -- when will this Bathroom Wall be used as the dumping ground for off topic stuff from other PT threads?

SWT said: Just curious -- when will this Bathroom Wall be used as the dumping ground for off topic stuff from other PT threads?

Check out Answers in Genesis Busted:

http://aigbusted.blogspot.com

-TheAtheistBlogger

"Grout Grout let it all out." A ubiquitous sentence written in the grout of nearly every bathroom stall here at Portland State U. (at least in the Men's rooms, haven't checked the others). Other variations on the grout theme are growing without bound.

Flint said: Robin:

I don’t get it - why are people getting so bent around the axel about posting off-topic comments on an off-topic board?

Nobody has the slightest problem with posting off-topic on a board set up for that purpose. What is bothering people is not being permitted to post on-topic posts on an on-topic board. Why is that so hard to understand? If Lord High Sandefur doesn't wish his political opinions to be sullied by us unwashed peons, he should prohibit comments on a board set up to prohibit comments. PvM is censoring the victims of Sandefur's abuse.

But why not raise the issues of Sandefur’s abuse here instead of boards associated with other topics?

Robin:

While I'm at it, I encourage you to COUNT the number of posts actually addressing Sandefur's abuse, on the part of anyone in any position of ability to DO anything about it. You know, "raise the issue here" as you said, and hash it out, right?

Does your count match mine, at ZERO responses from PvM or anyone else? Do you realize that this is the TRASH BIN, where PvM gets to shove all complaints he doesn't want to hear so he can ignore them without being SEEN to ignore them?

Next, do you see the sticky thread where complaints to the moderators can be made off-line, so that exactly that sort of discussion will actually occur? What? there isn't one? Imagine that.

Flint said: Robin:

But why not raise the issues of Sandefur’s abuse here instead of boards associated with other topics?

Is this really a serious question? Issues raised here, should be answered here. Issues raised on PT, should be answered on PT.

Basically, we have three choices: 1) Reply here, where nobody ever goes (check the post dates), nobody ever notices, and no discussion takes place. If you consider that "discussing at the appropriate venue" you are at least creative. No discussion happens at all. Unless we are permitted to exchange links to our actual (off-topic) posts at PT on threads where comments are permitted. But how is this an improvement?

2) Reply on PT, on the nearest adjacent thread to the one where comments are not permitted. Yes, you will be off topic, but at least what you say will be seen by someone, and (you never know), maybe whoever is letting Sandefur prohibit comments will LEARN SOMETHING and correct this abuse. You can at least hope.

3) Like Harold, you can simply decide the PT site is too poorly run, and whoever is running it is too big an asshole, to bother making the effort, and you can find a saner place to talk to people with similar interests. Next Sandefur post that disables comments, and I'm outta here too. There are too many good sites on the net to get aggravated by jerks at PT.

Flint said: Robin: While I'm at it, I encourage you to COUNT the number of posts actually addressing Sandefur's abuse, on the part of anyone in any position of ability to DO anything about it. You know, "raise the issue here" as you said, and hash it out, right? Does your count match mine, at ZERO responses from PvM or anyone else? Do you realize that this is the TRASH BIN, where PvM gets to shove all complaints he doesn't want to hear so he can ignore them without being SEEN to ignore them? Next, do you see the sticky thread where complaints to the moderators can be made off-line, so that exactly that sort of discussion will actually occur? What? there isn't one? Imagine that.

I doubt geting mad about it here will do anything for your sanity or for the situation.

Flint said:

I doubt geting mad about it here will do anything for your sanity or for the situation.

Yes, there is a strong odor of "go fuck yourself" on the part of the owners of this place. NOT a community, by any means. And uncomfortably similar to the way creationist boards are run. I can't avoid the creepy feeling that the nuggets you glean are Officially Approved, and that the "trolls" have a valid point. Fundamentalism isn't a topic itself, it's a posture adopted toward a topic. It's adopted here.

I don’t agree with them, but I appreciate a place where there is freedom to express dissent.

Several comments to recent posts here:

1. This BW will become *the* BW as soon as I or Wesley can find the time to change our custom written plugin to send stuff here. The concept of moving comments doesn't exist in our blog software, and integrating such comment logic takes time and effort that we really can't find. If anyone wants to volunteer to write such a plugin, step forward.

2. A lot of stuff goes on in the PT backend that people don't know about. We have a flexible comment policy because our authors demand it. Some don't like comments. Others prefer comments to be sent to their personal blogs. Some would stop blogging here if they couldn't be flexible with comments. We've sort of managed to forge a truce with authors who like to disable comments. The truce is that posts can have their comments disabled if their main purpose is to link to another blog that has comment enabled. It is up to the authors' to decide what they want. People who want to comment on such posts can do so here or at ATBC.

3. Down the line we are going to conscript some of our regular readers to act as comment moderators and facilitators. But the back end needs some work before we can move forward with that plan.

Flint said:

I don’t agree with them, but I appreciate a place where there is freedom to express dissent.

Ah, I believe you have inadvertently placed your finger squarely on the problem we coincidentally happen to be discussing. I hope you notice that the complaint is very specifically that sometimes we DO NOT have exactly what you appreciate, and we DO NOT have board management willing to rectify this. It is people who "appreciate a place where there is freedom to express dissent" who are leaving, because that freedom is turned off.

Reed A. Cartwright said: Several comments to recent posts here: 1. This BW will become *the* BW as soon as I or Wesley can find the time to change our custom written plugin to send stuff here. The concept of moving comments doesn't exist in our blog software, and integrating such comment logic takes time and effort that we really can't find. If anyone wants to volunteer to write such a plugin, step forward. 2. A lot of stuff goes on in the PT backend that people don't know about. We have a flexible comment policy because our authors demand it. Some don't like comments. Others prefer comments to be sent to their personal blogs. Some would stop blogging here if they couldn't be flexible with comments. We've sort of managed to forge a truce with authors who like to disable comments. The truce is that posts can have their comments disabled if their main purpose is to link to another blog that has comment enabled. It is up to the authors' to decide what they want. People who want to comment on such posts can do so here or at ATBC. 3. Down the line we are going to conscript some of our regular readers to act as comment moderators and facilitators. But the back end needs some work before we can move forward with that plan.

Reed A. Cartwright said: Several comments to recent posts here: 1. This BW will become *the* BW as soon as I or Wesley can find the time to change our custom written plugin to send stuff here. The concept of moving comments doesn't exist in our blog software, and integrating such comment logic takes time and effort that we really can't find. If anyone wants to volunteer to write such a plugin, step forward. 2. A lot of stuff goes on in the PT backend that people don't know about. We have a flexible comment policy because our authors demand it. Some don't like comments. Others prefer comments to be sent to their personal blogs. Some would stop blogging here if they couldn't be flexible with comments. We've sort of managed to forge a truce with authors who like to disable comments. The truce is that posts can have their comments disabled if their main purpose is to link to another blog that has comment enabled. It is up to the authors' to decide what they want. People who want to comment on such posts can do so here or at ATBC. 3. Down the line we are going to conscript some of our regular readers to act as comment moderators and facilitators. But the back end needs some work before we can move forward with that plan.

Robin said: One thing though, I would like to note, as it is the subject of Flint and my discussion, that Sandefur's last posting on The Rise of Muslim Creationism has comments turned off AND no link to any site that allows comments. This really misses the spirit of PT I think and should be addressed at some point.

Yoko Ono Lawsuit Expelled!: Judge Rules in Favor of Expelled Producers; Film To Be Re-Released In Theaters This Summer July 17, 2008 - (Studio City, CA) - The producers of the controversial film, Expelled, are celebrating their first legal victory in the lawsuit brought against them by Yoko Ono, for including John Lennon's song Imagine in their documentary. Last month, a federal court in Manhattan denied Ono's request for an injunction against the film that would have forced it out of theaters nationwide. The producers are celebrating this victory by announcing that the film will be re-released theatrically this summer across the United States. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary exploring one of the nation's most contentious and longest running battles, the argument over where and how life began, starring author/actor/economist Ben Stein debuted at #10 at the box office but saw its theatrical run marred by the Ono lawsuit. "We had many individuals and groups who had planned to see the film, but decided not to because the cloud of doubt this lawsuit brought to the film," noted one of the film's producers John Sullivan. "We came out of the gate with strong momentum only to have our integrity questioned by this frivolous lawsuit. While we're thrilled with the film's having earned nearly $8 million dollars during its first run, we've heard from enough people and groups who want to see it in their theaters that we've agreed to re-release it-this time without an undeserved cloud over its head." Shortly after the film's release, Ono filed a suit against the film's producers, Premise Media, seeking damages for alleged copyright infringement because the song had not been licensed for use in the film. On May 19, 2008 the parties agreed to a voluntary temporary restraining order while they awaited Manhattan U.S. District Court Judge Sydney H. Stein's ruling on Ono's motion to enjoin the showing and distribution of the film. The restraining order prevented the producers from making additional copies of the film for distribution. However, on June 2 Stein denied the injunction and noted that Premise Media was likely to succeed on its fair use defense. In his decision Stein wrote, "the doctrine provides that the fair use of copyrighted work for purposes of criticism and commentary is not an infringement of copyright." "I'm not related to Judge Stein in any way," noted Expelled's star Ben Stein, "but we are related in this sense: we are both fans of the first amendment and I am grateful that the legal system set aside this attempt to shut our film up. We will not be silenced. In fact it will have the opposite effect: we will re-release it and allow millions of Americans to go to the box office and register their vote against Ms. Ono and her attempt to keep them from watching our film." The court ruling prevents Ono from interfering with the national re-release of the film this summer and the company has come up with an ambitious plan to make the film available to any group which would like to bring the film to a local theater. Working in conjunction with the film's distributor Rocky Mountain Pictures, Expelled will be made available to any group of 250-300 people at a cost of low as $6 per ticket. "We have 1,000 prints ready to be shipped out to any group that would like to bring the movie to their local theater," noted Premise's EVP-Sales Tripp Thornton. For more information or to schedule a screening please contact: Premise Media at (678) 546-5580 or email: Tripp@premisemedia.com For media inquiries or to schedule an interview please contact: laurakobbs@gmail.com.

J. Biggs said: I just received this e-mail about expelled and didn't know where else to put it, but somebody may find it interesting.

... "We had many individuals and groups who had planned to see the film, but decided not to because the cloud of doubt this lawsuit brought to the film," noted one of the film's producers John Sullivan. "We came out of the gate with strong momentum only to have our integrity questioned by this frivolous lawsuit. While we're thrilled with the film's having earned nearly $8 million dollars during its first run, we've heard from enough people and groups who want to see it in their theaters that we've agreed to re-release it-this time without an undeserved cloud over its head."

SWT said:

J. Biggs said: I just received this e-mail about expelled and didn't know where else to put it, but somebody may find it interesting.

... "We had many individuals and groups who had planned to see the film, but decided not to because the cloud of doubt this lawsuit brought to the film," noted one of the film's producers John Sullivan. "We came out of the gate with strong momentum only to have our integrity questioned by this frivolous lawsuit. While we're thrilled with the film's having earned nearly $8 million dollars during its first run, we've heard from enough people and groups who want to see it in their theaters that we've agreed to re-release it-this time without an undeserved cloud over its head."

1) I have never -- ever! -- encountered someone who didn't see a film due to concerns about fair use of copyrighted music, and I sincerely doubt anyone who is likely to be in the target audience for "Explelled" would worry about whether Yoko Ono was properly compensated for the use of "Imagine." 2) Wouldn't a greater concern about the filmmakers' integrity revolve around their misrepresentation of Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker, Marks, Winnick, and Egnor? And their mistrepresentations of the motivation behind ID? And the fact that they ignored the cases of mainstream biologists and teachers who have been threatened? (I'm thinking here of the list that a regular PT poster -- raven? -- compiled.) Or the fact that they misrepresent ID as some sort of credible alternative explanation? Or the fact that ID is misrepresented as a scientific enterprise? 3) I guess the accusation of copyright infringement regarding the XVIVO video didn't have the same impact as the Ono claim. I guess it's just not possible that the audience for the film just wasn't that big,or that the film just wasn't that good.

They had their integrity questioned? How does one question something that isn't there? :p

Henry

Reed, those "bumping bump bumping" sounds coming from the bathroom are starting rumors.

God lives in the left-half-plane of:

y = x^x

earle
*

Earle,
Is (y = x squared) the equation you meant to put there?
(If you'd said (y = square root x) I'd see a point to it.)

Henry

Henry J said: Earle, Is (y = x squared) the equation you meant to put there? (If you'd said (y = square root x) I'd see a point to it.) Henry

Did he intend the ^ to mean an exponential? Granted that's what the symbol ^ usually means when writing equations, but I didn't see what an exponential would mean in that context.

But he also said "left-half-plane", which I took to mean that he expected y to be imaginary when x was negative. (i.e., y = square root(x))

So I'll have to wait until Earle clarifies his comment.

Henry

The Sixth Intenrational Conference on Creationism was held from August 3-7, in Pittsburgh, PA.

Has the forum gone down? I'm getting a 404 error.

I had to take it down for a while because a DDOS attack was consuming all of our resources.

The links for getting all replies to a thread in one shot aren't working; they produce the first few replies in the thread and then quit.

http://pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.fcgi?__mode=xomment&id=3720&a=param

Only goes from April 4, 2008 3:59 PM
through April 4, 2008 7:29 PM

and those are all on the first page, let alone pp 2,3,4.

Would this be related to that attack you just mentioned?

Hnery

No, I've upgraded some of the boards features, and the old url won't work. I'll get a new url to you in a bit.

Henry, this format should work:

http://pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.fcgi?__mode=xomment&id=3720&a=0

Thanks, Reed!

Henry

Henry J said: Thanks, Reed! Henry

paragraph 1.

paragraph 2.

paragraph 3.

I get the same problem as Mike Elzinga. No paragraphs when I use two returns like I've done here (two returns between "...Elzinga." and "No para..."

Having to instert tags to do paragraphs will be a real PITA.

I got the rest of the paragraphs (there should be 6 total but it only shows as 5 in preview) only by using tags.

Also, when you preview, it kills your paragraph spacing in the comment window, which makes reading your own comment in order to do revisions very bothersome.

I'm using IE 6.0 with Windows 2000, 5.00.2195, Service Pack 4.

Mike from Ottawa said: I get the same problem as Mike Elzinga. No paragraphs when I use two returns like I've done here (two returns between "...Elzinga." and "No para..."

Having to instert tags to do paragraphs will be a real PITA.

I got the rest of the paragraphs (there should be 6 total but it only shows as 5 in preview) only by using tags.

Also, when you preview, it kills your paragraph spacing in the comment window, which makes reading your own comment in order to do revisions very bothersome.

I'm using IE 6.0 with Windows 2000, 5.00.2195, Service Pack 4.

Even old ID was once Creationism

Why they changed it I can't say

People just liked it better that way

Nah, it just evolved that way. It must have, since it certainly wasn't intelligently designed.

Henry

30 keys to being an effective atheist.

1. Focus on Christians, be careful to make Christians only, your constant target – you don’t want to get killed in a Jihad, do you?. However, be sure to ‘mention’ Islam and say that there is no difference between radical Muslims and ‘fundamentalist’ Christians.

2. Always talk about just being a good person remembering that, ‘being good’ is relative to each culture, like cannibals saying I really enjoyed Bill last night because ’he really was good’ or paedophiles saying they love little Janet ’she was sooo good’ or Hitler saying that killing Jews is ‘good’, remember you are allowed to define ‘good’ however you would like because there is no ‘one person’ who sets the objective moral standard. (note: you could express yourself like Michael Jackson and say you are ‘bad’ which really means good but then again Michael Jackson didn’t turn out to be so ‘good’ so not sure if that is the best idea after all)

3. Always use the crusades, the Salam witch hunts, and the inquisition which happened thousands of years ago to ‘prove’ how bad ‘religion’ is for the world.

4. Use step 9 through 11 to get away from any historical facts of all the good that the various Christian charities have done around the world.

5. Blindly ignore any questions about millions of Christians being killed by atheists in the last 200 years, but if questions persist claim that this was NOT done ‘in the name’ of atheism which makes it alright. Failing this, refer to step 9 through 11, this should get you past any awkward questions about atheists who are guilty for crimes against humanity, human genocide and ethnic cleansing.

6. Express disinterest and laugh out loud at the question “Isn’t it amazing that Christians continue to preach love and forgiveness given the historical fact atheists have committed the most ongoing blatant atrocities against them, shouldn’t these Christians, ‘who are the problem’ have wiped atheists from the face of the earth for these crimes, in retribution?”

7. Be sure to set your own moral standards and compass very very very low so that you’ll never look like a hypocrite in public. The lower the better.

8. Ensure you call Christians childish degrading names like, air-heads God-bother-ers and insult them with statements which include the terms like ignorant, clueless, uneducated, the goal here is to provoke and frustrate the Christian to the point they become angry, then you can then call them a hypocrite for not being ‘loving like Jesus.’

9. When referring to atheists always use power-filled terms like ‘intelligent, educated, strong minded and independent.’

10. Remember to call yourself a “freethinker” and “open minded” but ensure you do not practice such ‘virtues’ when it comes to Christianity, this is not acceptable.

11. Try to laugh out loud or make some disparaging noise every time a Christian makes a statement about what they believe even if you don’t know what they are talking about or you don’t think it is funny.

12. Always bring up the spaghetti monster, Zeus, and Santa Claus to prove that if you must believe in one God then you have to believe in all of them, right!

13. Never answer any justified question directly but quickly change the subject to make a completely different point. If you’re asked why you keep changing the subject just repeat this step as necessary.

14. Be as argumentative, loud, sarcastic and verbal as possible – there is no need to make sense or use logic in your arguments – just keep arguing.

15. Use words like “strawman,” “adhominem,” “fallacy,” “red herring” and non sequiturs” against every argument whether you understand those terms or not.

16. Claim that atheism is for intelligent people who are rooted in “rational, reasonable common sense” thinking even though less than 10% of the human population claim to be atheists and then use steps 9 through 11 to get away from the question: “what does that say about the other 90% of humanity?”

17. Reject all notions that you live by faith even though you must put your faith in the writings of your own atheist high priests and gurus like Darwin, Dawkins, Hitchens and Atkins and any other book that supports your ‘beliefs.’ Yes we put our faith in pilots, cars, food, doctors, evolution, and the next chair that you sit in but ignore this obvious flaw in our doctrine as well.

18. Always ask for ‘evidence’ for the existence of God but never accept anything presented to you especially when the Christians tell you God is a Spirit so you can not perceive Him with the physical senses or with any physical equipment. At the end of a discussion remind them that all you needed was some type of ‘evidence’ for God.

19. Confess to everyone that you were once a Christian but you saw that all Christians were just hypocrites and realised that reasonable scientific, rational, logical investigation is the only way to truly understand the world we live in. (note: ignore the hypocrisy in your own life when you pray in troubled times!)

20. Refuse to accept or believe anything in the Bible because MEN wrote it.

21. Believe and quote other writings of MEN to prove that the Bible is wrong. (note: completely ignore the inconsistency between steps 15 & 16)

22. When referring to the Bible use the words ‘myth,’ ‘fairytales’ and ‘opinion’ as often as possible.

23. Only use the Bible as the authority when it will advance the atheist religion and contributes to the atheist dogmas and doctrines. Ignore the question ‘If the bible is true in one place the entire bible must be true, so what about the scripture that says, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN or THE LORD IS GOOD AND HIS MERCY ENDURES FOREVER?’

24. Only quote the Bible verses that put God in a bad light, makes sure each scripture quoted makes God look like a mean, unfair judge and never ever allow anyone to quote scriptures which show Him in the positive light of a loving heavenly father.

25. Tell every one you have read the Bible and that you understand what it teaches whether you have or have not, even if you have only read the parts which support your argument and the atheistic religion, you have still ‘read the bible,’ right!?

26. Refer to step 9 through 11 when once you have stated that the problem in the world is religion, but it is then pointed out to you that atheism is a religion its self.

27. Remember that you are looking for faults in other religions (Christians) not trying to defend your own religion – do not try to prove atheism! Remember, it’s much easier to destroy than build up.

28. Make the claim that you only have one life and don’t want to waste it on religion, then ignore your own hypocrisy by living out your atheistic self-serving religion.

29. If your conscience begins to bother you because of moral guilt you can numb it with arrogance, self-deception, self-importance, judgement of the ‘religious’(Christians) people, delusions of NO coming judgement and if this fails try some drugs, alcohol, sex, rape, murder whatever you feel like, remember you only have one life, live it! and 'good' is relative to culture and best of all there is no hell, right?!.

30. If doing the drugs and stuff does not appeal to you and you want to appear as a morally upstanding person of the community, don’t do the all those things but never let go of your self righteous arrogance and pride. It is this pride that will get you through many a hard days when you are struggling with a question of conscience and of your atheistic faith.

errr… ummm … just in a final note, you never know, so just is case, every day … thank God for the free-will he has given you to express your religion of atheism as you see fit, there just maybe hell to pay but ignore that reality and replace it with your own atheistic reality …. for now maybe!

Wondering if this is disabled since there are only two days of posts on it...

Ah, nevermind

Obviously I can't read today, I blame lack of sleep -.-

Well, now, let's see.

1) I don't, but then again, I'm not an atheist. "Humanist agnostic" is about right, meaning that I don't know, and I don't think you do either. I get along with religious people - any kind - precisely in proportion to how dogmatic and smugly arrogant they are. I don't think I'd get along with you, RR.

2) "Good" means charitable, kindly, tolerant, gentle, patient, giving. It doesn't mean spiteful, condemnatory, vengeful and embittered. It certainly doesn't mean consigning people to eternal torment, which is your take on it. Jesus reiterated - the idea didn't originate with him - that it consists of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. It's a good idea. You should try it sometime.

3) The atrocities you mention occurred some centuries ago, not thousands of years, and they're not so far away as all that, even among Christians. Catholics and Protestants were blowing each other up in Ireland well within living memory. Atrocities have always been the default condition wherever religions rule minds. So what makes you think that the various Christian sects wouldn't still be committing atrocities, if they could? I suggest that the reason they're not doing it now is not because they wouldn't - it's simply because they can't. This is a humanist secular society, generally, and we humanists say it's not happening on our watch. You'll just have to content yourself with your fantasies about burning people. Enjoy!

4) Christian charity work is good. See (2). Refusing to teach people how not to get AIDS, or making conversion the price of charity, are among many things Christian charities do that aren't good. Incidentally, secular charities, like MCF or Oxfam, do good work too.

5) Well, here's a radical plan: perhaps the best answer is not to commit any atrocities at all. Crazy idea, but it just might work.

6) Oh, indeed. And if you can actually bring yourself to act charitably, kindly and tolerantly towards those who don't share your religion, rather than hectoring, insulting, threatening and abusing them, I promise not to laugh at you. Come to think of it, I'm not even laughing now, surprisingly enough. Perhaps it's because you're not funny.

7) Hmm. Wasn't there something said once about how it's the hypocrites who stand about ostentatiously preaching on street corners? Funny how definitions of hypocrisy change, isn't it?

8) Oh, I'm not trying to get you angry, RR. Who knows what might be the result? DOS attacks, hate mail, death threats - all pretty much the standard for the religious whackjobs we get here. The same guy who made the remark about hypocrisy, above, said that you tell them by their fruits. (I'm not implying that you're a fruit, RR, except in the cake sense.) So don't go away mad. Just go away.

9) Atheists (and agnostics) are, generally speaking, about as powerful as noodles. They haven't got public funding, they don't get tax exemption, they have no political parties truckling to them, they don't get the ear of government, they ain't got pulpits, bully or otherwise. So you won't catch me calling them powerful. Maybe brighter than you on average, RR, but that's no great trick.

10) I am what I called myself above, and I relate to religious people on the terms I stated. Deal with it. Or not, because, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

11) Oh, I don't do that. Mostly, they return the courtesy by not trying to browbeat me with their beliefs. That's if they're not total bigots. You getting my drift, RR?

12) Actually, RR, if you examine the idea - an activity that I know is a little foreign to you - what that's saying is that there is no more reason to believe in your god than in the FSM, or blue teapots in orbit around Mars. It's not saying you have to believe in them all. This is an example of what we over-educated smartasses call "logical deduction from premises". Surprising what we do for fun over here, isn't it? Still, we enjoy it.

13) Have you ever heard the expression "projection", RR? As used in psychology, I mean, not as in magic lantern slides. Try looking it up.

14) Argument? Sarcasm, RR? It'll be irony, parody and even litotes next. Oh, we know all the tricks. Ruthless, we are. But seriously, do I get the sense that you've tried your little tract out on other tough audiences, and been roughly handled for your trouble? There is a solution to this problem, you know. See (8) above.

15) See, here's the trick, RR. Where you detect these false steps in an argument, you point them out, showing the reasoning by which you have detected them. Otherwise, you're not saying anything worth saying. For the record, we don't like them, either.

16) I suppose I could point out that the ideas that atheism is for intelligent people, and that 90% of humanity are not atheists, are in no way in conflict. But let's not be snarky. Why do you think that the existence of god should be decided by majority opinion? No, don't tell me. I really don't think it'll impress me. Just go away and think about it, if you can. If you can't, omit the second part.

17) Yes, we all live by faith, I guess. I put my faith in different things to you. Engineers, pilots, designers, chairmakers. Sure, they're human and therefore prone to failure, but I can confirm by observation that they exist, which I prefer. So I'm of a different faith to you. Doesn't that just make you want to smite me?

18) Oh, I got past that one a while back. There are, as you say, no proofs of god. The difference between us is that I don't actually regard this as a point in his favour, and you do.

19) I don't pray in troubled times. I cover my bases by hoping that if there's a god to forgive me, I'll be forgiven my unbelief because I tried to make times better for others.

20 and 21) Or one might regard all writings as the writings of humans, to be critically examined for consistency with other evidence. It works for me.

22) Incomplete. The Bible is myth and narrative and practical philosophy and inspired teaching and racist polemic and epic poetry and erotic poetry and political ranting and instructions on how to avoid dysentry and demented raving, and much more. It's wise and it's horrifying, sublime and scabrous, transcendent and monstrously vile by turns. Above all, it's human, and everything about it confirms that fact.

23) I promise not to ignore your idea that "if the bible is true in one place the entire bible must be true", because it's too perfect an example of the huddled confusion of your thought to pass up. I shall taunt you instead, you silly person.

24) Oh, no. I'll quote both sorts of passages. To a reasonable mind they demonstrate that the Bible is inconsistent on the nature of god. Not to your mind, of course.

25) No. Oddly enough, I have read the whole Bible, several times.

26) Atheism is not a religion. It is a position on the existence of god. This is what we overeducated smartasses call "a definitional distinction". Don't worry about it, it can't possibly affect you.

27) I'm not looking for faults in the Christian religion. I don't have to. People calling themselves Christian keep drawing my attention to them, RR.

28) It's almost hilarious to hear someone call living by one's beliefs "hypocrisy". It's worse than confused. It's calling black white, and it bespeaks an estrangement from reality that teeters on the edge of comedy. But it only teeters there. Really, it's tragic.

29) No, there is no hell. Tell me, RR, how do you manage to live with the idea of a god you think is a loving heavenly father and also a monster who will cause us to be tortured for eternity? Have problems with your own dad, did you? Most psychological theorists seem to think that cognitive dissonance as great as this must sooner or later be resolved. I hope you manage it, some day. Soon, for the sake of your own sanity.

30) Words follow thought, RR, not the other way around. Babbling incoherencies like this only convinces people that you're losing it.

Engine engine number nine. The EF says it shows design.

Well done! You have just proved my points. Every one of your replies is a perfect example of what I have said on 30 keys to be an effective athiest! Well done, good job, thanks for being a perfect example of who I discribed in 30 Keys to being an effective athiest.

No hell? Think twice!

If you have ever seen the movie 'Time-Cop' you will remember that time travel has been mastered but it has one serious aspect which is 'the same person can not occupy the same space in two different time zones', if anyone does try to occupy the same space in two different time zones ... well watch the movie and see what happens to the bad guy at the end ... what a mess.

"How could a loving heavenly father send his creation to such a crule place of eternal punishment like hell?" I have had many people ask me this question. What these people do not want to answer is, "How can a righteous, holy and just judge not find sinners guilty and condemn them to the punishment they deserve?" Should we allow murderers get away with their crimes? If we know ourselves that murder is wrong and should be punished, how much more does a perfectly holy God understand this. Hence the eternal place of judgement called hell.

Just as in the film 'Time Cop, a righteous, holy and just God can not exist in the same space and time as sin. If the righteous judge of the universe were to overlook the sin of just one person this would make him an partner in that sin. Just as if I saw a crime being committed and did not phone the police, I then become part of the crime.

Sin is simply not doing what 'God knows' and not what 'we think' is right for each one of us on a personal level. Sin is like a spiritual acid which eats away at all the various aspects of our earth and the righteous nature of God demands that He judge all sin for what it is or the fabric of the earth will come apart which it already is doing. The scriptures says that 'all creation groans under the weight of sin'

God's character is balanced perfectly with both love and righteousness, mercy and justice. Those who live lives worthy of Him, seeking to please Him in all aspects of their lives will be rewarded in heaven.

Please visit www.spiritlessons.com and listen to the various messages they have on there. You will hear of individuals who have either died and gone to hell and come back or of others who Jesus has taken to hell to show them hell so that they can come and warn us. You will hear their testomonies of the time these people spent in hell and how they saw sinners, (you can hear them tell of seeing John Lennon upside-down in a calldron of fire) they tell of 'Christians' and even church pastors who are now in hell because they did not live right while here on earth even after Jesus tried to deal with them to live right but they refused to listen and God had to judge their sin and condemn them to hell.

I call on the cloud of witnesses unseen (this is the internet, after all) to observe the above outpouring of the spirit. After reading it, I think I'll go and outpour some spirit myself. I need to wash the taste of it out of my brain.

You can also read books about people who say they were abducted by aliens. They're crazy, too.

Question: Larry and Bob jump off a cliff at the same time, and both have different 'opinions' on gravity, which one will live?
Neither! Because a man's opinions on the physical laws does not change them. Also, a man's religions opinions on spiritual laws does not change them. God's laws are just as sure and trustworthy as physical laws, independent of mans opinions.

Question: Jim and Dave jump off the same cliff, Jim man puts his faith in a parachute, and the Dave puts his faith in an umbrella. Which man will survive?
Jim he was the one who trusted in the parachute. Because it does not matter that both men had faith, it only mattered what they had faith in. If you have all the faith in the world on something that is false, your faith is worthless.

Question: Bill is walking into the entrance of a train tunnel when he meets Steve who says to him 'I would not go down that tunnel, there a a train due in the next 4 minutes and you will get killed' the man responds, 'Firstly, I do not believe in trains, secondly every one who travels on trains are just money grabbing hypocrites, thirdly I have heard some people claim that they were abducted by aliens so I am not going to believe your story about a soon coming train' Does Bill's 'opinions' change the truth of the soon coming train? Will Bill's disbelief in trains exempt him from being hit and killed by the soon coming train?
The end of the the story is; as the train came rushing out of the entrance of the train tunnel with dead Bill on the front of it, Steve was heard saying, I tried to warn him but he would not listen.

Oh, I've listened, RR. I know I have, because what I've heard makes me sad and angry and sick to my stomach. You serve to remind me of why I'll never believe in your horrible god. Maybe the monster of your sick, sadistic fantasies actually exists. I can't tell. But I know for absolute stone-cold certain that I'll never worship such a thing, and that most people will look at your words and feel nothing but nausea and contempt.

So rage on, RR. Spread your word. Put it before as many people as you can, and don't hug to yourself your sweet, sweet certainty that many people are headed for hell and that you'll get to watch them in their agony. Shout it out, loud and clear. Tell them the truth about your god and your creed, RR. I think it would be the best service you could perform for humanity, don't you?

It occurred to me a while ago that a persection complex is the height of arrogance. RR, nobody hates you. You're just not important enough. Now go away, the grown-ups are trying to have a conversation.

I am laughing my head off here ... when you can not argue inteligently you resort to exactly what I said in my posting of 30 keys to be a effective atheist. What a projection complex you all suffer from trying to get me to take your arrogance saying things like 'the grown ups are trying to have a conversation and you are not important enough' what an sad uneducated statement to resort to when you see you are beaten, Highly amusing to see desperate atheists decieving themselves about their own self-importance. If you are the example, I was reminded by your postings why I would never be a atheist, intolerant atheists like you are the reason for the worlds worse atrocities against humanity. Check your history books, atheists have the worst track record and once again you displayed why they are the worse people to ever let into any place of power.

Yawn.

Keep on digging the hole, RR. We can still see you.

RationedReason said: I am laughing my head off here ... when you can not argue inteligently you resort to exactly what I said in my posting of 30 keys to be a effective atheist. What a projection complex you all suffer from trying to get me to take your arrogance saying things like 'the grown ups are trying to have a conversation and you are not important enough' what an sad uneducated statement to resort to when you see you are beaten, Highly amusing to see desperate atheists decieving themselves about their own self-importance. If you are the example, I was reminded by your postings why I would never be a atheist, intolerant atheists like you are the reason for the worlds worse atrocities against humanity. Check your history books, atheists have the worst track record and once again you displayed why they are the worse people to ever let into any place of power.

STANTON ... please read all the previous posts and pay attention before you put any further posts up!

Read my 30 Keys to being an effective atheist and check your history books ... The atheists Starlin, Po Pots and to many others to mention here, killed over 100 million in the last 200 years .. if you bothered to check the true history facts and not the made up ones you atheists use, you would see the crusades killed no more than 2000 people over a 350 year span, the witch hunts killed no more than 18 people ... So Stanton ... please pay attention in history class next time ... Oh and by the way ... hope you like things hot cause where you going it is really hot with alot of torment ...

DAVE LUCKET WROTE;
2) “Good” means charitable, kindly, tolerant, gentle, patient, giving. Jesus reiterated - the idea didn’t originate with him - that it consists of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself.

Let me tear this apart,
WHO!!?? (note the question carefully) WHO??? said what 'good is' .. you say good is charitable, kindly, tolerant, gentle, patient, giving .. but 'who' are you?? god? whoever this 'WHO' is, does he/she think they are a god to dictacte to me how I live. WHO!!?? says murder is wrong, WHO!!!?? even determines what is right and wrong? With no ultimate good supreme being setting the standard there is no right or wrong, good or evil, there is just 'if it feels enjoyable, do it!'

Let me Give you the 'WHO' ... in fact you quoted him, Jesus said in Mark 10:17 "Why are you calling me good? No one is good, only God. You know the commandments: Don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat, honor your father and mother."

We see here that the people around Jesus recognised Jesus was God as he had the GOODNESS of God proceeding from him and secondly we see that only God knows what is good ... not what a bunch of silly atheists say is their brand of 'good' which in fact is just coping what God in Jesus Christ said was good.

If there is no God there is no such thing as 'GOOD' because only God himself is 'GOOD' and that is the 'WHO' I asked you about. Now please stop coping Jesus/God and get your own ideas about what good is or just admit that God is right and you are wrong and shut up.

Keep right on going, RR. The more of this, the better. You tell us all about it. Tell us how your god's going to torture us for eternity, and this is how you know he's good. You're really impressing us with the absolute moral rightness of that, and with your unassailable logic, RR. I mean, who were those people to say what was good, anyway? Could they have thought that they had the knowledge of good and evil? What a strange idea! I simply can't imagine where they would get that from.

They were probably going on the silly notion that goodness is peace, justice, faithfulness and mercy, just because they make life more pleasant than war, injustice, perfidy and cruelty. Us agnostics and atheists still think that to this day, RR. You tell us how we're wrong.

But, no, on second thought, we're being selfish, RR, monopolising you like this. We're keeping you from your proper mission, RR. Go and tell everyone about it. Tell the whole world about what your god's going to do to us, and to everyone else who isn't of your religion. You've given us a great deal to think about, but we mustn't keep you. Your work here is done.

Now please stop coping Jesus/God and get your own ideas about what good is or just admit that God is right and you are wrong and shut up.

RationedReason said: Oh and by the way ... hope you like things hot cause where you going it is really hot with alot of torment ...

Dave, isn't it just absolutely wonderful watching a true Christian wank off about how God is going to torture everyone His follower didn't and doesn't like for ever and ever and ever and ever with flames and brimstone, and how the aforementioned true Christian offers this depraved revenge fantasy up as evidence that God is a kind, just being just exploding with love and mercy?

Stanton said: Dave, isn't it just absolutely wonderful watching a true Christian wank off about how God is going to torture everyone His follower didn't and doesn't like for ever and ever and ever and ever with flames and brimstone, and how the aforementioned true Christian offers this depraved revenge fantasy up as evidence that God is a kind, just being just exploding with love and mercy?

Santon Said: "if you claim to know the light, then why do you hate atheists and other Christians who do not hate atheists so much?"

When did I say that I hate atheists or even Christians who do not agree with my stand-point? Show me! When? This is typical of atheists ... They want Christians to fit in with their concept of Christianity and that Christians are hateful so then they accuse Christians of being hateful ... this is not the truth ...

As for me speaking to you of hell and torment being your final destination ... I am not going to back off from telling you of this truth .. it may be the one thing that strikes a cord with you in your final moments of life and realise you are lost and call on the name of Jesus Christ to save you.

Okay, RR, here:

Bullshit. Take your fairy tales elsewhere. Happy now?

RationedReason said: When did I say that I hate atheists or even Christians who do not agree with my stand-point? Show me! When? This is typical of atheists ... They want Christians to fit in with their concept of Christianity and that Christians are hateful so then they accuse Christians of being hateful ... this is not the truth ...

As for me speaking to you of hell and torment being your final destination ... I am not going to back off from telling you of this truth .. it may be the one thing that strikes a cord with you in your final moments of life and realise you are lost and call on the name of Jesus Christ to save you.

I think I should state clearly what I actually believe about Jesus of Nazareth, and say why I'm not an atheist, only a weak-kneed agnostic with doubts about everything.

Pace Stanton, I acknowledge the existence of Jesus. To my mind, there's sufficient historical evidence for a Galilean teacher of that name. I have read what is recorded of his words in at least half a dozen translations from the Greek - which is not the language he spoke them in - and read, also, at least a dozen commentaries and exegeses. As a result of that, I am convinced that he was one of the greatest, and perhaps the greatest, of all the teachers of mankind. I try, as much as I am able, to live by those words. Well, at least some of them. I part company from him when he describes the torments of hell, and on some other points.

How can I place my own judgement against his? Well, because it seems to me that hell is a monstrous injustice, an infinite evil. And I know the difference between good and evil. I can recognise justice when I see it, given time to reflect, and a chance to rise above my own human woes. If I can do that, then God can. (Not RR's god, of course. That's a monster, if ever there was one.)

It's that human ability to recognise justice and to prefer mercy that is the one thread attaching me to a form of deism, I think. It isn't always expedient - often to the contrary. Evolution explains it by saying that mercy actually has adaptive value in the long run, and perhaps that's right. But perhaps it is also true that there is something of the divine in us. Perhaps.

Jesus thought that, at least. He said to address God as "our father", and those words imply, and must imply, that if he was the son of God he had no special status in his own eyes, as far as that's concerned. He was the son of God, but if I am to address God as "Father", then I am also the son of God. We are all the children of God.

It's there that I depart from Christianity, for four hundred years after Jesus, the Christian Church decided that he, Jesus of Nazareth, was the only son of God, uniquely perfect and divine in his own person, of the same substance as God the Father. The Church has schismed many times, and broken into many differing - and sometimes warring - sects, but most of them still adhere to that idea. I say it's elephant gravy. I say Jesus himself would have furiously rejected it.

He did think he was the Messiah of the Jews, at least toward the end of his career, but that is a totally different thing. He was wrong to think that. The Messiah of Israel was unequivocally to be a political and earthly ruler, a governor, a prince. He was to rule his people Israel, not die for them. Jesus at his trial recanted such an idea, saying that his Kingdom was not of this world. Unfortunately he had undeniably entered Jerusalem in the manner laid down for the King and Messiah, as described by the prophet Joel, which is why the Roman authorities executed Jesus, in the horrible manner prescribed for rebellious slaves by Roman law. They knew a threat to their rule when they saw one, and they were proverbially merciless.

But God is not. He is merciful, or at the very least, just. How can hell be just? Yet RR is convinced that I'm bound there for having these opinions. His medieval forebears were required by law to burn alive anyone who uttered such ideas, thus to give heretics a foretaste of the fires that awaited them - but even they sometimes had doubts. There are records of medieval ecclesiastical courts performing interesting contortions to avoid burning people, at least on the grounds that it would create martyrs. Avoidance was difficult, though. There are always people like RR around, and in a state run by a religion, they are in the ascendant.

Yes, atheists like Stalin and Mao were the greatest criminals of all. Even the crimes of Adolf Hitler, nominally a Catholic Christian, pale beside their mega-genocides. It has many times been pointed out that their politics shared many of the characteristics of religion - rigid dogma, indifference to present suffering, rejection of compromise, a promise of a future idyll, the veneration of saints and martyrs, and a transfigured deity ("the people"). The latter even had a form of incarnation and Real Presence, but not one sufficient to actually restrain political action. Above all, those monsters had an absolute outward certainty that only this way - their way - was morally right, and that opposition was therefore not merely incorrect or the product of faulty logic. It was immoral, and to be punished with torment and death.

Theirs was a certainty not unlike RR's, in fact. Faced with a certainty like that, I prefer uncertainty. So I don't know. I have no knowledge. I am an agnostic.

1. Focus on Christians, be careful to make Christians only, your constant target – you don’t want to get killed in a Jihad, do you?. However, be sure to ‘mention’ Islam and say that there is no difference between radical Muslims and ‘fundamentalist’ Christians.

2. Always talk about just being a good person remembering that, ‘being good’ is relative to each culture, like cannibals saying I really enjoyed Bill last night because ’he really was good’ or paedophiles saying they love little Janet ’she was sooo good’ or Hitler saying that killing Jews is ‘good’, remember you are allowed to define ‘good’ however you would like because there is no ‘one person’ who sets the objective moral standard. (note: you could express yourself like Michael Jackson and say you are ‘bad’ which really means good but then again Michael Jackson didn’t turn out to be so ‘good’ so not sure if that is the best idea after all)

3. Always use the crusades, the Salam witch hunts, and the inquisition which happened thousands of years ago to ‘prove’ how bad ‘religion’ is for the world.

4. Use step 9 through 11 to get away from any historical facts of all the good that the various Christian charities have done around the world.

5. Blindly ignore any questions about millions of Christians being killed by atheists in the last 200 years, but if questions persist claim that this was NOT done ‘in the name’ of atheism which makes it alright. Failing this, refer to step 9 through 11, this should get you past any awkward questions about atheists who are guilty for crimes against humanity, human genocide and ethnic cleansing.

6. Express disinterest and laugh out loud at the question “Isn’t it amazing that Christians continue to preach love and forgiveness given the historical fact atheists have committed the most ongoing blatant atrocities against them, shouldn’t these Christians, ‘who are the problem’ have wiped atheists from the face of the earth for these crimes, in retribution?”

7. Be sure to set your own moral standards and compass very very very low so that you’ll never look like a hypocrite in public. The lower the better.

8. Ensure you call Christians childish degrading names like, air-heads God-bother-ers and insult them with statements which include the terms like ignorant, clueless, uneducated, the goal here is to provoke and frustrate the Christian to the point they become angry, then you can then call them a hypocrite for not being ‘loving like Jesus.’

9. When referring to atheists always use power-filled terms like ‘intelligent, educated, strong minded and independent.’

10. Remember to call yourself a “freethinker” and “open minded” but ensure you do not practice such ‘virtues’ when it comes to Christianity, this is not acceptable.

Warning: This area is full of Drop Bears. Be very careful and remember that all you need to do to stop them from attacking you is to

i saw some of your seminars and i just love them. they changed my life just there, the creation, evolution and science.

Also I love the 'ol Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10

The Bible shows that the dead know nothing, and even their very thoughts perish when they die

Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

What's that? King Solomon DOESN'T(?!?!?) think there's a hell? No thoughts? No hatred? No work? Craaaazy stuff but hey! if it's written in the bible it's gotta be true right?

Sorry Ecclesiastes 9:5 is actually 'For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten'
M'bad

Couldn't help but notice that Pandas Thumb was passed over by OpenLab 2008. :(

Not that binomial nomenclature and ID bashing isn't exciting, but have you guys noticed how much you suck lately?

chunkdz said: Couldn't help but notice that Pandas Thumb was passed over by OpenLab 2008. :( Not that binomial nomenclature and ID bashing isn't exciting, but have you guys noticed how much you suck lately?

John Kwok: Takes a lot of hard work for us to “suck”. Honestly doubt that the excellent posts started by the likes of Ian Musgrave, Nick Matzke, RBH and PvM, among others, fall into your delusional category.

John Kwok: You wouldn’t be a Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone lurking here, right?

I have a suggestion for a test of the idea that mutations can't increase information. Describe the effects for several mutations, but don't say in which direction they occurred. Creationists should always be able to tell the directions by considering the information/complexity change, unless they argue the complexity is exactly the same. If a mutation were reversible they should be able to realise and argue that it caused no change in complexity.

Referring to MrG:

Fat Freddy says (Just before getting tossed out of The Netherlands) "Give me $0.50 of cocaine and $0.25 of hashish"!

See in intersting chart at: http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13062613&source=features_box4

Belief in evolution

Untouched by the hand of God
Feb 5th 2009
From Economist.com

How people in various countries view the theory of evolution

Untouched by the hand of God Feb 5th 2009 From Economist.com

The US bar is, so far as I can see, completely symmetrical about the 50% mark. Maybe it's the very evenness of the split in public opinion that makes the "debate" so fraught.

While this blog takes no opinion on a stimulus package, most of its readers probably do.

Attempting to influence legislation through: • Directly contacting members of a legislative body • Encouraging the public to contact members of a legislative body • Advocating a position on a public referendum

Hey, Troll, you might want to read the entire powerpoint. Notice the words Limited and LTD.

I did not know how else to get this article from Newsvine into this blog.

On Darwin's Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution
News Type: Event — Seeded on Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:05 AM EST
Read ArticleArticle Source: Gallup
us-news, united-states, evolution, poll, ignorance, darwin
Seeded by Catch22

On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.

Stanton said: So, are you saying that it was atheists were the ones who started the Crusades, lead the Spanish Conquistadors into the New World to destroy the Aztec, Mayan and Incan civilizations and brutally mistreat and exploit the populations there, gave smallpox-infested blankets to the Plains Indians, convinced the British to manage their colonies by pitting ethnic groups against each other, as well as treat the indigenous ethnic groups as, at best, 4th class citizens, and it was atheists who convinced Adolf Hitler that it was his divinely appointed duty as a Christian to exterminate the Jews as according to Martin Luther's Of The Jews And Their Lies and put Gott Mitt Und on every Nazi soldier's belt buckle? Is it just me, or is RationedReason taking Martin Luther's diatribe about "reason is the pretty whore of the Devil" a little too far? You're right Stanton, atheists did not do all that stuff. And yes "Christians" have done some pretty nasty stuff in the name of God or in the name of Jesus. But that just goes to show that there are mislead people in the world, people who are messed up and who actually need God. The Bible says "You will know them by their fruit", and so you can really apply this to all Christians. Are they bearing good "fruit" - good deeds, et cetera? If not, then they probably aren't a real Christian. Just like I can call myself a Hindu but I'm really not...you'd know that I'm a Hindu by the things that I do. But there are things in history that are not done in the name of Christianity, or any religion for that matter. So should we attribute these things to all atheists, point the finger at the non-believers and accuse them of being horrible people too? Or do we have to weigh each individual person for their own individual beliefs and actions?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004591

Interesting! Dinosaur butt imprints and evolution.

Dinosaur butt imprints

Henry J said:

Dinosaur butt imprints

A new theory about the end of the dinosaurs? Henry

Ray Martinez said: Based on the presupposition used in your comment, that is, texts do not mean what they say and say what they mean, is your comment intended to be handled the same way and not to be taken literally? Ray

Ray Martinez said: Based on the presupposition used in your comment, that is, texts do not mean what they say and say what they mean, is your comment intended to be handled the same way and not to be taken literally? Ray

Since evolution explicitly says nature was not produced by Designer where do Christian evolutionists get the idea that God “created by evolution”?

Ray Martinez said: Since evolution explicitly says nature was not produced by Designer where do Christian evolutionists get the idea that God "created by evolution"?

Ray Martinez said: Creationism explains everything.

Creationism explains everything. Ray

stevaroni said:

Creationism explains everything. Ray

Um, then go ahead and explain it. Why do all mammals seem to be endlessly modified from a common ancestor, when it seems that, given their varied lifestyles, it would have been significantly better to just create more efficient structures de-novo?

stevaroni said: Why are there apparently generations of [snip....] fossil ancestors, and just plain fossils in the ground?

stevaroni said: Why is there absolutely no evidence of the biblical stories that should have left plenty, like [snip....] creation itself?

stevaroni said: Why does a kind, merciful, and just God allow things like the 9th season of American Idol to exist? So many questions. Never any answers.

Mammal phenomena, like Linnaean taxonomy, is explained to be the work of (listen closely): one Mastermind. We see *each species* to have direct vertical correspondence to said Mind (species are immutable).

As for fossils in the ground, I do not see your point?

Wrong. Creationism explains everything. Ray

Ray Martinez said: ... explained to be the work of (listen closely): one Mastermind.

Um, then go ahead and explain it. Why do all mammals seem to be endlessly modified from a common ancestor, when it seems that, given their varied lifestyles, it would have been significantly better to just create more efficient structures de-novo?

Why are there apparently generations of fossil fuels, fossil ancestors, and just plain fossils in the ground?

Why is there absolutely no evidence of the biblical stories that should have left plenty, like the great flood and creation itself?

Why does a kind, merciful, and just God allow things like the 9th season of American Idol to exist?

So many questions. Never any answers.

Kevin B said:

Thanatos said: Sorry diphthong not diphtong,when is this forum going to have an edit post-comment option? :-(

Given the number of times that certain commentors get called on statements made that are inconsistent with their earlier comments in the thread, allowing editing is merely a means of providing a spurious inerrancy. Anyway, although my dictionary says "diphthong", the Wikipedia says "dipthong", although it's possible that they've got it confused with a word for a type of swimwear. :)

Anton Mates said: You haven't actually explained anything yet. Why did this Mastermind choose to create the particular array of mammalian species we observe in this past and present? Why, for instance, do whales live in the ocean, yet have far more anatomical and physiological similarities to cows than to fish?

Anton Mates said: [SNIP....] Heck, even if it were true that species were immutable, how does that follow from the Mastermind hypothesis? Why couldn't a Mastermind choose to generate species through evolutionary processes?

Darwinists do not let logic and common sense get in their way:

I have come to point where I try to restrain myself from posting on PT, but I was so dumbfounded at RM's last post that -- after staring some period of time with my mouth open in sheer shock, literally, no theatrics -- I could only think:
"This person is mad. Everyone knows he is mad. His family knows he is mad. Anyone who meets him knows he is mad. His DOG knows he is mad. The only person who does NOT know he is mad is him."

Cheers -- (MrG) / http://www.vectorsite.net

Land-based mammals and sea-based mammals falsify common ancestry. The facts of land-based and sea-based explicitly say the concept of evolution *could not* have accomplished the feat—-impossible.

The concept of mammal, which we know exists in both land-based creatures and sea-based creatures, is a flamboyant fact that falsifies evolution and common ancestry—-that’s Why they were created this way.

The fact that cows are closer to whales than horses is evidence falsifying common ancestry. That is our logic-based explanation of the evidence.

Each species, because of the overwhelming appearance of design and organized complexity, tells us that Divine power is operating in reality causing their existence.

And there is no source for the concept of “Mastermind” creating by a process that assumes the “truth” of Naturalism: Supernatural not involved.

Land-based mammals and sea-based mammals falsify common ancestry. The facts of land-based and sea-based explicitly say the concept of evolution *could not* have accomplished the feat—-impossible.

The fact that cows are closer to whales than horses is evidence falsifying common ancestry.

“This person is mad. Everyone knows he is mad. His family knows he is mad. Anyone who meets him knows he is mad. His DOG knows he is mad. The only person who does NOT know he is mad is him.”

— mrg

OK, I’m calling Poe.

— stevaroni

stevaroni Wrote: OK, I’m calling Poe.

stevaroni said: Well, Poe, or just plain crazy person.

The hippopotamus is a land mammal that sleeps underwater. It is an aqueous cousin of the whale that looks like a cow with a glandular disorder, runs fast as a horse, and will bite off your head if you deny its evolutionary pedigree. Do NOT mess with the hippopotamus.

Do NOT mess with the hippopotamus.

Anton Mates said: Ray,

The concept of mammal, which we know exists in both land-based creatures and sea-based creatures, is a flamboyant fact that falsifies evolution and common ancestry—-that’s Why they were created this way.

So your Mastermind created whales with cow-like features in order to falsify evolution?

Anton Mates said: Okay, if you say so, but how does that follow from your Mastermind hypothesis? How are you coming up with this motivation on the Mastermind’s part—are you somehow deducing it from the bare claim of the Mastermind’s existence, or are you adding it to the hypothesis as an independent claim?

stevaroni said: I did a project ten years ago in South Africa, up in the Mpumalanga & Limpopo districts. I well remember the ubiquitous hippo warning signs warning signs near every body of water. I have no idea what "Gevaarlik Snags" actually means, but the accompanying pictograms of happy hippo silhouettes merrily doing all sorts of nasty, ugly, crunchy things to human silhouettes made the pertinent issue perfectly clear. I still have a picture of me standing next to one of these roadsigns hanging on my wall.

Please listen closely:

We see *each species* to have direct vertical correspondence to said Mind (species are immutable).

He created the concept of mammal in environments that are totally foreign to one another in order to show the logical impossiblity of evolution.

Where do you draw the line between land-based and water based given mink, otter, sea otter, seal and whale? If a seal gave birth in water where would you draw the line and why could this line not be crossed?

No, He created the concept of mammal in environments that are totally foreign to one another in order to show the logical impossiblity of evolution.

Creationism asserts that our explanation of nature is self-evidently superior. Connectedness is an illusion because each species, by virtue of the appearance of design and organized complexity, seen in each one, corresponds directly to Divine power operating in reality causing existence. The general pattern of species connectedness, in and by itself, corresponds to the concept seen in “Divine Mastermind.”

Ray Martinez, sticklebacks are your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Re Hippopotamus -

I recall an episode of Crocodile Hunter that dealt with hippos. Steve talked a bit, then had to leave the vicinity of that river, quickly. :lol:

I thought the word "hippopotamus" came from words meaning "river horse"?

Henry

Ray Martinez said:

Anton Mates said: You haven't actually explained anything yet. Why did this Mastermind choose to create the particular array of mammalian species we observe in this past and present? Why, for instance, do whales live in the ocean, yet have far more anatomical and physiological similarities to cows than to fish?

The concept of mammal, which we know exists in both land-based creatures and sea-based creatures, is a flamboyant fact that falsifies evolution and common ancestry----that's Why they were created this way. Land-based mammals and sea-based mammals falsify common ancestry. The facts of land-based and sea-based explicitly say the concept of evolution *could not* have accomplished the feat----impossible. Darwinists do not let logic and common sense get in their way: they simply yawn at this extraordinary antithesis and assume evolution-did-it-anyway. Since evolution is actually a presupposition that is NOT eligible to be falsified, the facts of logic and common sense just mentioned, never enter the minds of Darwinists. The only aspect of evolution eligible to be modified (not falsified) is HOW evolution allegedly occurs. The fact that cows are closer to whales than horses is evidence falsifying common ancestry. That is our logic-based explanation of the evidence.

Anton Mates said: [SNIP....] Heck, even if it were true that species were immutable, how does that follow from the Mastermind hypothesis? Why couldn't a Mastermind choose to generate species through evolutionary processes?

Each species, because of the overwhelming appearance of design and organized complexity, tells us that Divine power is operating in reality causing their existence. And there is no source for the concept of "Mastermind" creating by a process that assumes the "truth" of Naturalism: Supernatural not involved. Ray

Ray wrote:

"Creationism asserts that our explanation of nature is self-evidently superior. Connectedness is an illusion because each species, by virtue of the appearance of design and organized complexity, seen in each one, corresponds directly to Divine power operating in reality causing existence. The general pattern of species connectedness, in and by itself, corresponds to the concept seen in “Divine Mastermind.” We feel that this explanation of the phenomena trumps an evolutionary relationship explanation."

Please explain why your "mastermind" put the exact same genetic mistakes into cetaceans that he put into artiodactyls. Also, please explain why the nested hierarchy of genetic similarity seen between cetaceans and artiodactyls reveals exactly the same relationship as that provided by all of the other genetic and palentological evidence.

Some matermind. If this guy was a murderer he would be convicted by the evidence and sent to prison for breaking his own laws.

Anton Mates said: Ray,

No, He created the concept of mammal in environments that are totally foreign to one another in order to show the logical impossiblity of evolution.

If evolution is logically impossible, why would your Mastermind need to create anything in the physical world to demonstrate this fact?

Ray's thoughts here and at talk.origins have revealed him to be someone with obvious psychological problems. I admire and respect folks here for showing patience and restraint in communicating with him.

The sad thing is there are many "out there" like him.

gregwrld

Anton Mates said: And why did your Mastermind choose to demonstrate the impossibility of evolution by making whales and cows (apparent) evolutionary close cousins? Why not do it some other way?

Anton Mates said: And, again, how does your hypothesis imply that the Mastermind intended to show the logical impossibility of evolution at all?

Creationism says cows and whales have zero correspondence to one another since one lives on land and the other at sea. Based on this fact the concept seen in “cows” (= land-based mammals) and the concept seen in “whales” (= sea-based mammals)

gregwrld: Ray’s thoughts here and at talk.origins have revealed him to be someone with obvious psychological problems."

Richard Simons said: Ray said

We see *each species* to have direct vertical correspondence to said Mind (species are immutable).

I have not the slightest idea of what you mean by the part before the parentheses. Please elucidate. [SNIP....]

Ray Martinez said:

Richard Simons said: Ray said

We see *each species* to have direct vertical correspondence to said Mind (species are immutable).

I have not the slightest idea of what you mean by the part before the parentheses. Please elucidate. [SNIP....]

The biological species concept (BSC) is an incarnate expression of Mind or invisible Designer. That is our explanation of the BSC. Each concept (= species) owes its existence in nature to an act of special creation. Evolution is impossible and unnecessary; unnecessary and impossible. Ray

How do you reconcile Fatshedera lizei and Spartina anglica with ‘species are immutable’?

Ray wrote:

"Creationism says cows and whales have zero correspondence to one another since one lives on land and the other at sea. Based on this fact the concept seen in “cows” (= land-based mammals) and the concept seen in “whales” (= sea-based mammals)..."

Well then creationsism is conclusively falsified by the genetic and palentological evidence. Funny how Ray completely igonored my questions about the shared SINE insertions between whales and artiodactyls. Funny how he also ignored all of the genetic and palentological evidence. I guess he thinks that ideas should not be subject to testing against evidence. Go figure.

Get a clue Ray, you are not going to fool anyone who is at all familiar with the evidence. And quite frankly, anyone who is not familiar with the evidence doen not the right to an opinion.

Ray Martinez said: Evolution is impossible and unnecessary; unnecessary and impossible. Ray

AGAIN, for example, by creating the concept of mammal to eclectically exist in large land-based creatures and large sea-based creatures. If the concept of “evolution” and “common ancestry” were true, logically, these concepts should not exist on land and sea, that is, two totally foreign environments.

To highlight the falsity of connectedness (common ancestry); to provide phenomena—out of the blue (so to speak)—that tells persons that anyone who attempts to explain nature as connected is a moron. Ray

Henry J said: Well, when somebody is somehow convinced that a hundred thousand biologists are all morons, then I'm not about to trust anything that person says without independent verification from somebody with sense. Henry

It’s funny how, the more you study biology, the more stupid and ignorant you become.

Say, is this (starting about 2 days ago) the first official use of PT to PT-BW moves? (In contrast to the former PT to AtBC-BW moves that used to occur.)

Henry

If that is true for mammals, why is it not also true of amphibians?

It's using the same admin interface mechanism as before, so I guess that must be "official".

Henry J said: Say, is this (starting about 2 days ago) the first official use of PT to PT-BW moves? (In contrast to the former PT to AtBC-BW moves that used to occur.)

Can anyone recommend any materials or links that I could use to help my 10 year old son understand the science of evolution and would help him discern the difference between pseudoscience and real science?

I'm fairly well educated but I'm afraid that I may have a hard time getting down to his level on this one.

The issue is that his mother is enrolling him in a Christian school next year and I know he's going to get a heavy dose of Creationism. I intend on countering this propaganda with both barrels blazing. Your help would be greatly appreciated!

Regards.

Wayne F said: Can anyone recommend any materials or links that I could use to help my 10 year old son understand the science of evolution and would help him discern the difference between pseudoscience and real science? I'm fairly well educated but I'm afraid that I may have a hard time getting down to his level on this one. The issue is that his mother is enrolling him in a Christian school next year and I know he's going to get a heavy dose of Creationism. I intend on countering this propaganda with both barrels blazing. Your help would be greatly appreciated! Regards.

There's also the http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html Index to Creationist Claims.

Henry

You are too kind. Thanks Mike.

Do you monkeys want some nanners from nannerpuss?

do you really think an ape turned into a person? no way buddy

@ nannerpus -

I think eminent evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond has made a most compelling point by asserting that we - that is Homo sapiens - could be viewed as the "third chimpanzee". Check the extensive morphological, paleontological and molecular data that points to a strong kinship between us and the chimpanzee.

seems like the gap between mam and chimp is bigger than billions of years of small changes could cover

nannerpuss said: seems like the gap between mam and chimp is bigger than billions of years of small changes could cover

nannerpuss said: seems like the gap between mam and chimp is bigger than billions of years of small changes could cover

Dan said:

nannerpuss said: seems like the gap between mam and chimp is bigger than billions of years of small changes could cover

Please address the subject of this thread.

nannerpuss said: do you really think an ape turned into a person? no way buddy

Darles Charwin said: Do you monkeys want some nanners from nannerpuss?

James F said: (I know, I know, DNFtT)

mrg said:

James F said: (I know, I know, DNFtT)

I say that myself and break the rule anyway. It's futile talking to folks who are about as smart as a bag of hammers, but somehow tempting as well. Must be the old ape instincts at work.

"The concept of mammal, which we know exists in both land-based creatures and sea-based creatures, is a flamboyant fact that falsifies evolution and common ancestry—-that’s Why they were created this way."

Ray, I gotta tell ya....you are one funny-fvcking guy! I'm no scientist but, I know bullshit when I see it.

I am inspired by the famous commercials for Pace picante sauce when I humbly suggest "Get a rope!" Seriously, McLeroy at the very least should be FIRED. I personally believe he should be tried for treason and for child abuse.

Dang, I've done some further research and the specifics of what McLeroy has done don't seem to be treason as defined in the U.S. Constitution. Still, he IS responsible for contributing to the dumbing down of American schoolchildren thus harming America's competitiveness in the global market, and he did so while serving as an elected government official using the influence of his office to do these bad things. Why can't McLeroy be hanged or shot for this offense? Seems to me a government trial with massive publicity, followed by a public execution would do a lot to clear the air about this controversy.

Re: the suggestion that McLeroy be tried for treason and shot

I guess we can't be executing people for being stupid...otherwise most if not all of the human race would be executed. I do so hope for the lawsuits to take place in Texas now as they did in Pennsylvania, Kansas and elsewhere. When will those who mislead the creationists be held accountable for their lies, i.e. legally and financially responsible for the costs of these lawsuits? I refer to organizations such as the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis.

She'd probably just use it to start babbling about her opinions on the Texas BOE.

ben said: None of which, once again, has anything to do with the topic of this thread, or evolutionary biology, or anything coherent. I'm not referring to you being mentally ill because "they" say it's so, I'm saying that I think it's obvious based on the substance and tone of your comments. I'm not even sure who you think "they" are, and I don't know why you think anyone assumes they know "everything" about you (au contraire, I think the average reader of your comments here wishes they knew a lot less about you than they now do). What's happening is that people here are assessing you honestly based on your demonstrated behavior, and that you are reacting to that in a paranoid fashion because you are, I think, paranoid. I don't have anything against you, and I don't think anyone else here particularly does. I just wish you'd recognize that you're the only one who thinks that virtually any of your comments are related to the subjects being discussed in the threads you post on. I'm sorry your life experiences have sucked as much as you say they have, but I don't see why this site is the place for you to spew at length about it.

They are asking me for information, taking all my comments out of context, calling me a liar, and yes I have experienced telekinesis, so what? I didn’t claim that it was a “magical” abilty, and I didn’t claim it was “supernatural”, I just said I don’t care to “prove” it to anybody. If they want “proof” they can go look for it somewhere else, I’m not here to “prove” it. I offered something and suggested they look at objectively, which they refuse to do

You claimed, like many many other people have, that you can manipulate objects with your mind. Until you provide substantial documentation of this--something all of those other claimants have also failed to do--your extraordinary claims will be taken here to be unsupported by extraordinary evidence, or indeed by any evidence at all. I look at it this way: If you can move objects with your mind, it is highly unlikely that you are the only person who has this ability. If there were a significant number of people who possessed this ability, one of them, at least once, would have been willing to demonstrate this ability while science was watching. Nobody has ever done this and until you do, I think it's totally justifiable--actually, it's mandatory--to treat you as someone making a false claim. And what was it that you think you "offered" that people can go look "somewhere else" for proof of? How can we "look objectively" at a claim you made which you refuse to provide any evidence for? If I claim I can shoot laser beams out of my eyes but refuse to demonstrate that ability or provide any kind of evidence whatsoever for it, where is the "elsewhere" you would suggest one go to "look objectively" at my claim?

DS said: lissa, If Ben thinks that you are mentally ill then that is his perception. You have no right to question it and you have no right to demand any evidence or to insist that his perception is in error. In short, you must simply accept that that is his perception and that there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The fact that that perception is also shared by many others is nothing at all to be concerned about I'm sure. Ben, Don't be too hard on lissa. She apparently thinks that you are her doctor and she has many issues with her doctor. She also apparently thinks that she is a chicken but refuses to go to therapy because she claims that she needs the eggs. Whatever you do, don't point out that she is obviously schizophrenic, you know how she hates lables. Besides, if you do she will probably just reply - "I know I am but what am I".

ben said: None of which, once again, has anything to do with the topic of this thread, or evolutionary biology, or anything coherent. I'm not referring to you being mentally ill because "they" say it's so, I'm saying that I think it's obvious based on the substance and tone of your comments. I'm not even sure who you think "they" are, and I don't know why you think anyone assumes they know "everything" about you (au contraire, I think the average reader of your comments here wishes they knew a lot less about you than they now do). What's happening is that people here are assessing you honestly based on your demonstrated behavior, and that you are reacting to that in a paranoid fashion because you are, I think, paranoid. I don't have anything against you, and I don't think anyone else here particularly does. I just wish you'd recognize that you're the only one who thinks that virtually any of your comments are related to the subjects being discussed in the threads you post on. I'm sorry your life experiences have sucked as much as you say they have, but I don't see why this site is the place for you to spew at length about it.

They are asking me for information, taking all my comments out of context, calling me a liar, and yes I have experienced telekinesis, so what? I didn’t claim that it was a “magical” abilty, and I didn’t claim it was “supernatural”, I just said I don’t care to “prove” it to anybody. If they want “proof” they can go look for it somewhere else, I’m not here to “prove” it. I offered something and suggested they look at objectively, which they refuse to do

You claimed, like many many other people have, that you can manipulate objects with your mind. Until you provide substantial documentation of this--something all of those other claimants have also failed to do--your extraordinary claims will be taken here to be unsupported by extraordinary evidence, or indeed by any evidence at all. I look at it this way: If you can move objects with your mind, it is highly unlikely that you are the only person who has this ability. If there were a significant number of people who possessed this ability, one of them, at least once, would have been willing to demonstrate this ability while science was watching. Nobody has ever done this and until you do, I think it's totally justifiable--actually, it's mandatory--to treat you as someone making a false claim. And what was it that you think you "offered" that people can go look "somewhere else" for proof of? How can we "look objectively" at a claim you made which you refuse to provide any evidence for? If I claim I can shoot laser beams out of my eyes but refuse to demonstrate that ability or provide any kind of evidence whatsoever for it, where is the "elsewhere" you would suggest one go to "look objectively" at my claim?

It’s not really even something that even if I DID demonstrate on a webcam people would accept as proof, because it’s too easy to fake it

ben said: She'd probably just use it to start babbling about her opinions on the Texas BOE.

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: Science doesn't rule out telekenesis. Science merely says that if telekenesis operates by supernatural means, science is incompetent to explain how it works.

Actually, telekinesis has more problems than just the issue of it’s being supernatural. If objects can be moved, they go through an acceleration phase from zero relative motion to non-zero relative motion. Therefore, momentum has to be conserved between the source of the “force” and the object. Thus, Newton’s third law is violated if the brain, or whatever the source of the force, experiences no measurable force exerted by the accelerating object. Thus, if a person claims to move a relatively heavy object, his/her brain gets slammed up against the inside of the skull and this, in turn, could cause some serious brain damage. So the question we have to answer is, what object in the universe is interacting with the object being moved in order that momentum is conserved and Newton’s third law is not violated? Pseudo-science has so many pitfalls.

lissa said: I don't know anything about Dr. Lewis Stanton, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: It's been difficult to marshal scientific opposition to intelligent design and creation science and the like, because scientists simply don't see any sense in it or any utility in wasting time on obvious nonsense. The entire scientific method is so tightly interwoven with the presumption of natural phenomena that it's not even questioned or often even recognized.

This has certainly been the case with me and my colleagues. Throughout the late 1960s and well into the 1970s we frequently guffawed during lunch breaks at the stupidity of it all. We were certainly familiar with the phony arguments, but simply assumed that the rest of the public saw the stupidity also. Then in about the late 1970s I became acutely aware of the political tactics that they were using after I saw a debate between a creationist and a scientist. I have to admit I was stunned at the effectiveness of the creationist and the absolutely dumb tactics of the scientist. That’s when I started studying the creationist’s tactics in earnest and started a local campaign of my own to start countering not only the pseudo-science, but the slippery political tricks of the local creationists. I got hold of all the creationists' major writings and read all of them, Gish, Morris, Parker; the whole lot. I think most of the scientific community is awake now. Certainly all the major professional organizations have now issued strong statements and have been attempting to educate the public about ID/Creationism. I still think more needs to be done, but few people in the public know just how busy researchers are. Eighty to 100 hour weeks are quite common. There are proposals to write, equipment to design and build, students to teach and supervise, talks to give, meetings to attend; the list of demands on most working scientists is long. Wrangling with ID/Creationists is not going to be on the list of most researchers. And many of these researchers are probably not very good at dealing with the general public anyway. But a lot of the credit has to go to the National Center for Science Education. The careful accumulation of evidence from around the country over the years has been an invaluable service to the working scientific community. And with the Internet and Panda's Thumb, TalkOrigins, and other defenders of science, the process of uncovering and debunking the ID/Creationist fraud is getting more efficient and more effective.

They have really just gone too far with it.

You can't have your meds without therapy. I say BS. Does my Governor care? I don't think so. Not at all.

I can see the point of making only a psychiatrist able to prescribe them (it prevents over-prescribing) but when you got no psychiatrists working independently who would accept your insurance, and only psychiatrists working for a government run clinic that's BS.

I don't WANT therapy, and putting me in a position where I HAVE to have it whether I want it or not is BS, especially when all they are doing is telling me things I can do that I ALREADY do...

ps said: They have really just gone too far with it. You can't have your meds without therapy. I say BS. Does my Governor care? I don't think so. Not at all. I can see the point of making only a psychiatrist able to prescribe them (it prevents over-prescribing) but when you got no psychiatrists working independently who would accept your insurance, and only psychiatrists working for a government run clinic that's BS. I don't WANT therapy, and putting me in a position where I HAVE to have it whether I want it or not is BS, especially when all they are doing is telling me things I can do that I ALREADY do...

Stanton said:

ps said: They have really just gone too far with it. You can't have your meds without therapy. I say BS. Does my Governor care? I don't think so. Not at all. I can see the point of making only a psychiatrist able to prescribe them (it prevents over-prescribing) but when you got no psychiatrists working independently who would accept your insurance, and only psychiatrists working for a government run clinic that's BS. I don't WANT therapy, and putting me in a position where I HAVE to have it whether I want it or not is BS, especially when all they are doing is telling me things I can do that I ALREADY do...

Tell us again exactly how the government and your doctors forcing you to have medication with therapy directly relates to Evolutionary Biology and or the topic of this thread, which is about the head of the Texas BOE justifying his wanting to teach religious dogma in place of science in science classrooms because he thinks that there are alleged problems with the Theory of Evolution?

lissa said:

Stanton said: Tell us again exactly how the government and your doctors forcing you to have medication with therapy directly relates to Evolutionary Biology and or the topic of this thread, which is about the head of the Texas BOE justifying his wanting to teach religious dogma in place of science in science classrooms because he thinks that there are alleged problems with the Theory of Evolution?

It doesn't Stanton. Unless you LIKE having your tax money spent on BS therapy sessions that don't help a particular person, that's not to say it might not help somebody else, but as for ME, it doesn't help and it's a waste of somebody's money.

Stanton said:

ps said: They have really just gone too far with it. You can't have your meds without therapy. I say BS. Does my Governor care? I don't think so. Not at all. I can see the point of making only a psychiatrist able to prescribe them (it prevents over-prescribing) but when you got no psychiatrists working independently who would accept your insurance, and only psychiatrists working for a government run clinic that's BS. I don't WANT therapy, and putting me in a position where I HAVE to have it whether I want it or not is BS, especially when all they are doing is telling me things I can do that I ALREADY do...

Tell us again exactly how the government and your doctors forcing you to have medication with therapy directly relates to Evolutionary Biology and or the topic of this thread, which is about the head of the Texas BOE justifying his wanting to teach religious dogma in place of science in science classrooms because he thinks that there are alleged problems with the Theory of Evolution?

lissa said: Therapy itself has become some kind of a "religious dogma" or something if you ask me. The government is NOT competent to deal with all the social problems that we have in our society period. I bet there's a direct correlation and increase in what they would term "mental illness" to the divorce rate increase since the seventies. To put it bluntly, it's profitable for the government to tear families apart and then treat the poor kids who get caught in the middle and disturbed over it.

lissa said: Therapy itself has become some kind of a "religious dogma" or something if you ask me.

lissa said: The government is NOT competent to deal with all the social problems that we have in our society period.

lissa said: I bet there's a direct correlation and increase in what they would term "mental illness" to the divorce rate increase since the seventies.

lissa said: To put it bluntly, it's profitable for the government to tear families apart and then treat the poor kids who get caught in the middle and disturbed over it.

Dan said:

lissa said: I bet there's a direct correlation and increase in what they would term "mental illness" to the divorce rate increase since the seventies.

You lose this bet: The US divorce rate in 2005 was 3.6 per 1000 people -- the lowest since 1970, down from 4.2 in 2000 and from 4.7 in 1990. (The peak was at 5.3 in 1981.)

Dan said:

lissa said: To put it bluntly, it's profitable for the government to tear families apart and then treat the poor kids who get caught in the middle and disturbed over it.

The government loses tax income with every divorce and loses treatment money with every disturbed child.

Wayne Francis said:

Dan said:

lissa said: I bet there's a direct correlation and increase in what they would term "mental illness" to the divorce rate increase since the seventies.

You lose this bet: The US divorce rate in 2005 was 3.6 per 1000 people -- the lowest since 1970, down from 4.2 in 2000 and from 4.7 in 1990. (The peak was at 5.3 in 1981.)

But Dan, in lissa's universe where her perception is infallible the actual numbers and proof don't matter. What matters is the "Truthiness" of the matter.

Henry J said: Dang; if only somebody had told me there wuz gonna be a test I could'a studied fer it... :p

Edwin Hensley said: To see what kind of science these idiots propose, take a look at the Petrified Human Brain: http://petrifiedhumanbrain.com/ Institute for Creation Research is displayed prominently in the background of one of these pictures. The closeup of the "brain" reveals it is nothing more than a rock. Creationists use this as propaganda for "rapid fossilization" in an attempt to justify young earth creationism.

Hi i am just wondering how you know so much about dinosaurs just by looking at fragments of their skeletons. It's always funny that evolutionist play the creationist imagination card, but you yourselves state (facts) about dinosaurs eating, breeding, and personality habits, based on bone (fragments) that are millions of years old that is so amazing, i mean if you found one of my bones somewhere could you tell that i had chicken nuggets for lunch? it's always so funny to see "scientists" resort to personal attacks on people when the facts fail to prove their theory... I'm sure you will be happy to call me names and repost my email but when you do can you also put in there a logical and scientifically proven experiment showing that non-living matter can come to life? I would apreciate that. Thank you

Hey dude just wanted to give you some reading material here are some reports of Pre historic animals being reported in history it's funny because if these aren't real descriptions of animals that existed then the people of ancient times were psychic Plutarch clearly states that some of the immense bones of Samos were displayed as the remains of Dionysus’s war elephants. This is an astonishing moment in the history of paleontology, because the remains of mastodons (prehistoric elephants) do exist in the bone beds of Samos. Plutarch’s statement means that, some 1,700 years before Cuvier, fossil mastodons were correctly recognized as a species of elephant! 16 Either, that, or it means that mastodons were recognized as elephants because they were actually seen and used in war more than 1,700 years before Cuvier. Long before the Greeks knew about elephants, however, a different interpretation of the huge bones of Samos had prevailed. “Some also said that at Phloion the very earth had cracked open and collapsed upon certain huge beasts as they uttered great and piercing cries.” Here Plutarch refers to a much older legend about monsters unique to Samos called the Neades. The Neades supposedly inhabited Samos in primordial times, before human beings arrived. Our earliest source for that legend is Euagon, a historian of Samos who lived in the fifth century B.C., some five hundred years before Plutarch. According to surviving fragments of Euagon’s lost work, the Neades’ shrieking raised such a din that the ground was torn open and swallowed them. … The Neades were proverbial throughout the Greek world because of a humorous saying, “So-and-so shouts louder than the Neades!” 17 “Euphorion says that in primeval times, Samos was uninhabited except for dangerous wild animals of gigantic size, called Neades. The mere roar of these awesome beasts could split the ground.” Aelian continues, “Euphorion says that their huge bones are displayed in Samos.” 18 Like griffins, the Neades were thought of as real animals of a specific landscape where people saw curious prehistoric remains. 19 We don’t doubt her data, but we question her conclusion. First of all, instead of asking, “If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nobody there to hear it, does it still make a sound?” we might ask, “If the Neades lived before there were any humans to hear them, how would people know that they made loud noises?” Since there aren’t any bones to fossilize in the trunk of an elephant, and since elephants weren’t known in Samos 500 years before Plutarch, how would the people have guessed that Neades could make the loud trumpeting sounds that we know elephants can make using their trunks? The idea that Neades could trumpet so loudly as to cause an earthquake is clearly an exaggeration, but it might be based on observation. According to Mayor, earthquakes are known to happen in that region. We now know that elephants “hear” through their feet. Actually, they can sense ground vibration. At the beginning of an earthquake, a Neade might feel the ground start to shake before a person would. Frightened by the ground shaking, the Neade might trumpet very loudly. A person standing nearby would hear the sound just before feeling the earthquake, and could reasonably conclude that sound caused the earthquake. But, to someone prejudiced by years of evolutionary indoctrination, it is impossible to believe that people knew what mammoths looked like and sounded like because they actually saw them and heard them. The only explanation must be that ancient people found the bones and perfectly reconstructed the creatures that once contained those bones. Those ancient people must have been such good paleontologists that they not only correctly inferred shape, but also sound and social behavior as well. Dragons In an attempt to support this argument, she spends 10 pages 20 talking about how much the legendary dragons of China look like the dinosaurs that once lived there. She even says that the Chinese people refer to dinosaur bones as “dragon bones.” Clearly, the ancient Chinese must have been great paleontologists, too. The only other explanation is that they actually saw living, breathing dragons. Giants Ironically, when it comes to giants, she is amazingly inconsistent. She devotes 58 pages 21 to the discoveries of enormous human-like bones buried in caskets with bronze-tipped spears. Many of the skeletons were 15 feet tall, or taller. Both the Bible and Greek mythology contain stories about giants that lived a thousand or more years before Christ, so one might expect her to come to the conclusion that mythological stories were based upon accurate reconstructions of large human skeletons. But, no. Her conclusion is that these excellent paleontologists, who recognized the bird-like characteristics of dinosaurs 2,000 years before modern paleontologists did, who correctly inferred shape, sound, and social behavior of dinosaurs from bones alone, could not tell a human skeleton from a mammoth. She has never seen any one of the dozens of giant skeletons that were mentioned in historical documents, but she is absolutely convinced that none of them were human. Every single one was a misidentified mammoth. Here is how she dismissed the report of Pausanias. This report is interesting for several reasons. First, Pausanias uses a technical anatomical term for kneecap. If Pausanias was a doctor, as some believe, his vocation would explain his use of medical terms, his fascination with the anatomy of extraordinary skeletons, and his interest in visiting sanctuaries of Asklepios, the god of medical arts, where gigantic remains were commonly exhibited. In the sanctuary of Asklepios at Asopos (southern Peloponnese), for example, Pausanias examined bones that were “enormous but apparently human.” At a sanctuary of Asklepios at Megalopolis, another collection of immense bones seemed “much too vast for a human being,” but the curators told Pausanias that they belonged to one of the giants of early myth. (If the giant remains in these temples were mammoth bones, the skulls must have been missing, since Pausanias tells us he examined an elephant skull and tusks in a temple in Italy.) 22 Pausanias doesn’t say the skulls were missing. He doesn’t say that he examined headless skeletons. Don’t you think he would have mentioned it if they were decapitated? She just assumes they were missing because someone with his medical credentials would have instantly recognized that the bones were mammoth bones if he had seen the skull. He didn’t recognize them as mammoth bones, therefore (she concludes) the skull must have been missing. But, there isn’t any reason to believe the skulls of all the skeletons he saw were missing. Maybe he thought the skeletons were “apparently human” because they were complete, including the skulls, which were just like ours, only larger. According to forensic anthropologist Douglas Ubelaker, nonhuman bones, especially femurs, can fool even the most experienced medical experts. In his study of modern FBI files, he found that about 15 percent of “human” bones thought to be those of murder victims turn out to be animal bones. Ubelaker points out that the similarities of mammal anatomy, the finder’s expectations, and the context of the discovery encourage the misidentification as human. Those same factors figured in antiquity. 23 [emphasis supplied] We certainly agree with that statement, especially the part about “the finder’s expectations.” That’s why animal bones are consistently misidentified as “hominid ancestors.” If experts can’t always identify bones of creatures that are well known, how can they positively identify the bones of the entirely imaginary Eosimias, or other unknown human ancestors? But that’s an entirely different subject. Out-Of-Place-Artifacts It is little known to the general public that “out-of-place-artifacts” are frequently found. These are fossils that don’t belong to the supposed time period of the rock layer as defined by the evolutionary time scale of the geologic column. For example, In the Congo in the 1980s, paleontologist William Sanders found a large Stegodon tooth from the Pliocene in a human habitation site of the Pleistocene epoch. The out-of-place tooth of a mastodon that went extinct millions of years before humans appeared on the scene “could only have gotten there if some African hunter had brought it home as a curio 21,000 years ago,” observes Sanders. But the topic is considered marginal. Fossils discovered in ancient sites “are rarely saved or studied,” laments David Reese, one of the few zooarchaeologists to specialize in identifying prehistoric remains from Mediterranean sites. 24 The occasional prehistoric fossil or tooth that turns up in an ancient site is an anomaly. Many anomalies are simply ignored because they don’t fit the search image for edible or sacrificial animals. Even when archaeologists do take note of fossils, such finds are often misidentified and misplaced. A fossilized bone or tooth might be recorded in the back pages of field notes, and if published in excavation reports at all, it appears as miscellany in a footnote or appendix. According to David Reese, it’s not uncommon for fossils excavated by classical archaeologists to be mistaken for modern species. Paleontologists rarely have a chance to examine vertebrate fossils unearthed by their archaeological colleagues from ancient sites. 25 Mayor believes that ancient people collected fossils. How else could a mastodon’s tooth have found itself into an ancient human site? It never occurs to an evolutionist that it could have gotten there the same way a gazelle’s tooth could--somebody killed it (or found it dead) and took the tooth to make into a necklace, or tool, or who-knows-what. Our point is that out-of-place artifacts might not really be out of place. The only thing that makes them out of place is that they aren’t where the theory of evolution says they should be. Whenever they find the fossil of a “prehistoric” beast in a historic archeological site, they don’t report it because they think it doesn't belong there. That’s why there aren’t any reports of prehistoric fossils found with historic artifacts. All the data appears to support evolution because only data consistent with evolution is reported. Remember, we didn’t claim, “Many anomalies are simply ignored simply because they don’t fit …”. We are just telling you what the evolutionists themselves say. The Twilight Zone If we had begun in Rod Serling’s style, we would have ended the essay this way: Adrienne Mayor--historian, paleontologist, but above all else, an evolutionist--returning from a journey into parts unknown, but not entirely forgotten. Haunted by compelling evidence she does not want to believe, unwilling to live in a world where dinosaurs lived alongside man, she retreats into a fantasy world where dinosaurs died out millions of years ago, and lives quite contentedly in … the Twilight Zone. But that would be too harsh. We aren’t trying to attack or ridicule Adrienne Mayor. In fact, we have the highest regard for her scholarship. We wish everyone would read her book, The First Fossil Hunters because it contains so much excellent information. We quoted 25 passages from it, and didn’t quote another 25 or more simply because we didn’t have room in the newsletter for them. She had a lot of good stuff to say about dragons and giants that we did not quote. The point we are trying to make is that Adrienne Mayor is typical of so many people who, when faced with undeniable evidence that dinosaurs were reported alive from 1200 B.C. to 600 A.D. by respected historians, they reject the evidence because of evolutionary prejudice. Dinosaurs did coexist with humans. There is excellent historical data with palaeontological support to show that they did. But because that would show that the dates assigned to the geological column are wrong, evolutionists reject the evidence. What more evidence could one ask to prove that dinosaurs lived 2,000 years ago? Why is it that people who will accept part of a jaw as evidence of a “missing link” between apes and humans, won’t accept tons of bones matching the description of animals described in ancient literature as evidence that those animals actually were alive at the time? The answer, of course, is that evidence is irrelevant when prejudice reigns supreme. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against evolution, but evolution is still held by many simply because of prejudice. if you;d like a copy of the full article i can direct you to the website but i'm sure you won't because you don't believe in facts you believe in evolution!! Muhahahah (evil creationist laugh)

Here's some more information for you to check out about hwo evolutionist find "old" fossils in "young" rock layers all the time I'm sure this will not get posted on your webiste because unlike those dirty creationists you wouldn't ever be biased aginst true evidence.. Lazarus and Elvis Paleontologists have long recognized that there are gaps in the fossil record. They need some way to explain away the gaps. They used to use the term, “Lazarus taxon.” David Jablonski and Karl Flessa gave the name "Lazarus taxon" to creatures that reappeared in the fossil record after a long absence. Unlike the biblical story, in which Lazarus was raised from the dead, no one thought miracles were involved, just gaps in the fossil record. Normally it is assumed that a taxon is gone for good if no trace is found for millions of years, but it may merely have become rare, or moved somewhere where it left no fossils. This is what happened with the coelacanth, a fish closely related to amphibians, which palaeontologists thought had died out with the dinosaurs until a South African trawler caught a living one in 1938. 1 Modern evolutionists are very uncomfortable with the Bible, and no longer like to use any terms that even obliquely give credibility to the Bible. So, poor old Lazarus has been replaced by Elvis. Animals that have apparently vanished from the fossil record can seem to reappear after a long hiatus. Often the vanished creature or a close relative has indeed returned. Sometimes, though, the new discovery is a different species entirely, but closely resembles one that went before. Palaeontologists describe such a case as an Elvis taxon. 2 So where does Elvis come in? Evolution sometimes converges, shaping different taxa so they look very much alike. For example, a number of distinct lines of predators have evolved the long, curved and deadly teeth best known from the sabre-toothed tiger of the Ice Age. Some invertebrates evolve shells that look like earlier forms. These can all be mistaken for Lazarus taxa until closely examined. To emphasise the distinction, Doug Erwin and Mary Droser coined an alternative term for imitators in 1993: "Rather than continue the biblical tradition favored by Jablonski, we prefer a more topical approach and suggest that such taxa should be known as Elvis taxa, in recognition of the many Elvis impersonators who have appeared since the death of The King." 3 “Convergent evolution” is their explanation for how so many unrelated species can be so similar in some respects. Their claim is that environmental necessity caused natural selection to make unrelated species evolve the same solution to a common problem. Zombies Furthermore, evolutionists have to deal with zombies in the fossil record. … the "Zombie effect", which applies when hard fossils such as dinosaur teeth are washed out of sediments and deposited in rocks millions of years younger - so in a sense they become walking dead. 4 We sometimes get email from people who argue, “If fossils of dinosaurs and modern men were found in the same layer of rock, it would disprove evolution. But such fossils have never been found, so evolution must be true.” What these people don’t realize is that “old” fossils are found in “young” rocks so often that evolutionists have invented the term “Zombie effect” to explain them away. If fossils of the “wrong” age were never found, there would be no need to create a term to explain them away. A More Reasonable Explanation The more reasonable explanation is that sedimentary rocks don’t represent a history of millions of years. Different layers of rocks tend to contain different creatures because different kinds of creatures live in different environments. A rockslide in the Rocky Mountains may have happened the very same day hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. If so, the animals buried in that mountain landslide would have been very different from the animals that died in the Katrina flood. Someone might conclude that hurricane Katrina happened millions of years before our fictional Rocky Mountain rockslide because the fish and frogs buried in Louisiana were less highly evolved than the snakes, mountain goats, and horses buried in Colorado. That conclusion would be wrong. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds all exist today in different parts of the world. Any disaster that causes rapid burial today could conceivably produce fossils of the animals living in that location, but not fossils of every species on Earth. That has always been the situation. There never was an Age of Fish, or Age of Reptiles, during which only those kinds of creatures existed. Evolutionists are laboring under the false impression that rock layers represent vastly different ages of time. When fossils of one species appear in widely-separated layers, but not the intervening ones, they have to concoct some explanation as to why that species existed in disconnected time frames. The three main explanations are the Lazarus taxon (the species did exist all along, but was so rare that no fossils have been found), the Elvis taxon (the species went extinct, but then a very similar imposter evolved later), and zombies (the fossils walked into another layer after they were dead). The real explanation is that they are just plain wrong about the different layers of rock representing vastly different periods of time.

An excellent example of creationist stupidity don’t you think? Here’s the third one I’ve just got today.

Paragraphs would be a pathetic level of detail!!!111!!!

A bit of Googling suggests that the author goes under the name Do-While Jones who claims to be a software developer. I can't help wondering about the quality of his software given his inability to break up his thoughts into coherent blocks.

Stanton said:

Aureola Nominee, FCD said: I see that renowned liar John Kwok is still infesting The Panda's Thumb. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Mr Kwok remains a staunch and hearty foe of pseudoscience, and the sight of him verbally mauling creationist trolls are always thrilling, in my opinion.

Test

I've just sent this to Jerry Coyne:

Jerry,

If I didn’t have ample respect for your demonstrated excellence as an evolutionary biologist and as a brilliant critic of creationism, especially Intelligent Design creationism, I would have never written this as the opening paragraphs of my Amazon.com review of “Why Evolution Is True”:

“’Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’. That classic quote from the great Russian-American evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky is replete with far more truth now than when he uttered it in 1973. Thousands of scientists around the globe are using the principles of evolution towards understanding phenomena as simple as bacterial population growth to those as complex as the origin and spread of such virulent diseases as malaria and HIV/AIDS, and the conservation of many endangered plant and animal species. There is no other scientific theory I know of that has withstood such rigorous, and repeated, testing as the modern synthetic theory of evolution. The overwhelming proof of biological evolution is so robust, that entire books have been written describing pertinent evidence from sciences that, at first glance, seem as dissimilar from each other as paleobiology, molecular biology and ecology. But alas this hasn’t convinced many in the court of public opinion, especially here, in the United States, who remain skeptical of evolution as both a scientific fact and a scientific theory, and who are too often persuaded by those who insist that there are such compelling ‘weaknesses’ in evolution, that instead of it, better, still ‘scientific’, alternatives exist, most notably, Intelligent Design creationism. Distinguished evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution Is True” is not just a timely book, but it is quite simply, the best, most succinct, summation I can think of on behalf of evolution’s scientific validity.”

“No other modern evolutionary biologist has attempted to convey, with such excitement, and enthusiasm, a comprehensive, quite compelling, proof of biological evolution, unless you consider the notable literary careers of Coyne’s graduate school mentors; Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould. Coyne’s achievement is especially noteworthy for covering virtually every major evolutionary aspect of biology in a treatment that barely exceeds two hundred and thirty pages. In essence, ‘Why Evolution is True’ can be viewed as an updated, modern rendition of Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’, but encompassing those biological sciences, such as population genetics, molecular systematics, evolutionary developmental biology – better known as ‘evo – devo’ – and, indeed, even paleobiology, which were unknown to Darwin; to put it bluntly, this is ‘one long argument’ on behalf of evolutionary biology, told via Coyne’s respectable, occasionally lyrical, prose and compelling logic.”

However, I am greatly perplexed, and distressed, by your recent criticism of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). I feel this way especially since you yourself have noted NCSE’s key role in “manning the barricades” against irrational foes like the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. So since you do recognize this, then how can you reconcile your support for NCSE’s sterling work on behalf of both the scientific community and scientifically literate public with your assertion that NCSE should refrain from seeking some kind of compatibility with religion? When there are many mainstream religious organizations, and others, such as the Templeton Foundation, which not only seek such compatibility, but, more importantly, recognize that evolution is valid science. When these very organizations recognize that it is quite risible to claim that “belief in evolution EQUALS denial of GOD”. What you are advocating is not merely bad philosophy, but also one that merely confirms all the worst instincts of Evolution Denialists. To put it most succinctly, you are merely allowing yourself to fall into the philosophical trap that creationists have set for scientists and others who accept valid mainstream science like evolutionary biology, by giving them yet another example that only those who reject religion can accept evolution.

Neither the NCSE nor other major scientific organizations like the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) are overreaching by insisting that there can be some kind of compatibility between science and religion. This is an opinion recognized by major religious leaders like Buddhism’s Dalai Lama, and by organizations that promote this compatibility, such as, for example, the Templeton Foundation. It is a view that is reflected in academia through institutes like Columbia University’s Center for the Study of Science and Religion. For these very reasons, it is quite reasonable for NCSE and NAS to issue statements supporting compatibility between science and religion.

Neither you nor PZ Myers, or any of your fellow militant atheists, have had the decades-long experience that Eugenie Scott and her NCSE colleagues have had in countless successful efforts at science advocacy both within the courts and legislatures of the United States. One of the reasons why NCSE has succeeded is by adopting the very philosophy which is the unofficial “official” policy of the American Museum of Natural History; by reminding its visitors that it is not in the business of changing their religious views, but instead, it is interested only in teaching them the principles and facts of valid mainstream science like evolutionary biology. One of the reasons why NCSE may be succeeding is by refusing to attack religious faith, and by seeking instead, some kind of accommodation with those religious faiths that recognize evolutionary biology as sound mainstream science.

I agree with you and Myers that it is a worthwhile goal to have a society in which rational beliefs have a preeminent role in forming public opinion. However, it is a goal that will remain elusive as long as militant atheists like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins insist on mocking and humiliating those who are religiously devout. Instead of offering persuasive evidence on behalf of atheism and evolutionary biology, Richard Dawkins’s writings, lectures and television appearances, may have contributed substantially to strong negative opinion in Great Britain towards Darwin’s life and work and the acceptance of evolutionary biology as sound mainstream science. Depending upon which poll you believe, nearly forty percent of Dawkins’s fellow Britons now reject evolution as valid science. Are you certain that you wish to continue writing criticism that may prove to be as counterproductive as Dawkins’s writings and Myers’s outrageous acts – like the infamous “cracker incident” - have been?

Sincerely yours,

John Kwok

tsig said:

Frank B said: John Kwok, I am getting quite annoyed with your continued harping on the "cracker incident". PZ's actions were very comparable to civil disobedience against war or bigotry. The Catholic Church was very irresponsible to use its powerful propaganda machine to tell people that magic is real and priests can literally turn wafers into the body of Christ. Hatred and death threats were the direct result of that policy. So, by all means, publicize it. Stomp on the wafers, and show how ridiculous it is. I drank Welch's grape juice in communion, so is it sacred,,, NO!

John's just mad 'cause PZ kicked him off his blog.

Larry Moran said: John Kwok writes,

Neither you nor PZ Myers, or any of your fellow militant atheists, have had the decades-long experience that Eugenie Scott and her NCSE colleagues have had in countless successful efforts at science advocacy both within the courts and legislatures of the United States. One of the reasons why NCSE has succeeded is by adopting the very philosophy which is the unofficial “official” policy of the American Museum of Natural History; by reminding its visitors that it is not in the business of changing their religious views, but instead, it is interested only in teaching them the principles and facts of valid mainstream science like evolutionary biology. One of the reasons why NCSE may be succeeding is by refusing to attack religious faith, and by seeking instead, some kind of accommodation with those religious faiths that recognize evolutionary biology as sound mainstream science.

I think we need to be clear on what counts as success. I happen to believe that NCSE has fought a good defensive battle to keep creationism out of the schools. Nevertheless, America seems to be in a situation where evolution is barely taught and even when it is taught, the creationist perspective often creeps into the class—in spite of the numerous court victories. In terms of winning hearts and minds it isn't at all clear that NCSE has a right to declare victory. The good guys are barely holding their own and in many ways we are losing. It isn't helpful to pretend that winning a few court cases is equivalent to convincing people to abandon creationism. In fact, it's downright harmful to promote such an illusion.

Oh, John. Please.

I'm a theist and I'm welcomed at PZ's place, albeit with the occasional pitchfork. I'm completely unwelcome at Bill Dembski's place, because even though we both believe in the Christian God, he won't have anyone there for any length of time who asks hard quesitons about ID.

Comparing PZ's rough-and-tumble playpen of uppity skepticism to Dembski's gulag is pitiful.

Scott Hatfield

RBH said: Moderation note I repeat: Comments regarding John Kwok's banning from Pharyngula will go to the Bathroom Wall just as soon as the Movable Type permissions necessary for me to do that are sorted out. RBH

RBH said:

John Kwok said: I beg to differ here, RBH. You should keep mine and other comments in this thread, merely because they are illustrative of PZ Myers's "flame throwing" tactics against supposed allies like NCSE and enemies like creationists:

Nope. No more, John. You are not the center of this universe. End of this sidetrack.

Scott Hatfield, OM said: Oh, John. Please. I'm a theist and I'm welcomed at PZ's place, albeit with the occasional pitchfork. I'm completely unwelcome at Bill Dembski's place, because even though we both believe in the Christian God, he won't have anyone there for any length of time who asks hard quesitons about ID. Comparing PZ's rough-and-tumble playpen of uppity skepticism to Dembski's gulag is pitiful. Scott Hatfield

Chris Ho-Stuart said: Peter Henderson said:

What Professor's Coyne and Meyers are saying (or have said) is that evolution and Christianity (and that's any type of Christianity, not just fundamentalism). This makes the job of Christians who are opposed to YECism just impossible. The YECs will claim "see we told you so. Evolution is incompatible with the Christian faith. Even the atheists know this".

This is where I get the impression that you want these individuals to be silent about their religious and irreligious beliefs. In effect, you're telling them to be silent about their views, because those views are inconvenient. The reality is that Myers, or Miller, or Collins, or Coyne, all have the same freedom to advocate loudly and clearly for their beliefs -- and their nonbeliefs. You've got no business criticizing them merely for being so vocal. You can engage the debate, and respond to arguments on their own merits, if you like; but in doing so you must also allow them the same freedom to respond to you. Myers and Coyne and others don't want, or need, the NCSE to take up this debate. They've got it covered, thanks very much; and the NCSE should stick to its particular mandate. NOBODY wants the NCSE to be taking up the strident advocacy for atheism that Myers and others are managing just fine on their own behalf. You can't -- or shouldn't -- tell them to be quiet about their views merely because you find it inconvenient that such views exist. You note that creationists make rhetorical hay out of the existence of outspoken atheists who argue that science and religion are in profound conflict. Your apparent solution is actively counterproductive in the ongoing fight to defend science education, in my view. Here's why. Creationists can truthfully make a strong case that the teaching of science commonly leads to loss of religious faith. In this, they are quite simply correct. Tactically speaking, you don't want to depend upon saying they are wrong. If a debate ends up turning on this particular point, you'll lose. The NCSE makes this very mistake, in my view, in this NCSE report: Do Scientists Really Reject God?. In this NCSE report, Eugenie Scott argues against the findings and methodology of the well known Witham and Larson surveys on religious belief. That's a losing tactic. Her article comes across as special pleading on issues of wording, and her conclusion is IMO dubious. But fundamentally, the answer to the question posed in the title is "Most of them do indeed reject God". The NCSE – and those supporting science education generally – don't want to side track into comparing numbers of religious and non-religious scientists. It's not a voting matter; it is a personal matter, and science doesn't tell you which way to go, no matter how the numbers break down. You still decide that yourself, possibly with help of your rabbi or priest or pastor if you like. Public education can't tell you what form your religious beliefs should take. Science can tells you the history and the cause and effect of natural processes at work in the world. The example of scientists who are religious, and others who are irreligious, shows that the practice and the teaching of science still leaves you free to decide other religious questions for yourself.

So my lack of financial contribution to an organization whose actions I'm defending, and you're attacking, is your excuse, not only to refuse to address my response to your arguments, but to ban me? Way to represent, dude!

[Yes. Your hypocrisy reeks. Instead of carping on the internet, make a tiny investment in the NCSE that matters. --pzm]

Raging Bee said: So my lack of financial contribution to an organization whose actions I'm defending, and you're attacking, is your excuse, not only to refuse to address my response to your arguments, but to ban me? Way to represent, dude! [Yes. Your hypocrisy reeks. Instead of carping on the internet, make a tiny investment in the NCSE that matters. --pzm]

I'm putting this here rather than diverting the main thread.

PZ had just about won me over completely until this. He's way out of line. Raging Bee's worst offense was to waste time arguing with "Registered User"; apart from that he was engaging appropriately.

PZ is flatly wrong. It is not hypocritical to debate this issue if you happen not to be a financial supporter. On the main substance of the NCSE issue, PZ is mostly correct -- but I say that with gritted teeth in the face of this high handed and inappropriate banning. Blech.

John Kwok said: Sadly, I think Coyne and Myers are incapable of recognizing who the good guys are. Myers has accused Ken Miller of being a creationist - which he did note here at PT nearly three years ago - and Coyne has accused Miller of being in essence, a creationist, recently, simply for harboring religious view that seem superficially similar to those of crfeationists:

Chris Ho-Stuart said: Peter Henderson said:

What Professor's Coyne and Meyers are saying (or have said) is that evolution and Christianity (and that's any type of Christianity, not just fundamentalism). This makes the job of Christians who are opposed to YECism just impossible. The YECs will claim "see we told you so. Evolution is incompatible with the Christian faith. Even the atheists know this".

This is where I get the impression that you want these individuals to be silent about their religious and irreligious beliefs. In effect, you're telling them to be silent about their views, because those views are inconvenient. The reality is that Myers, or Miller, or Collins, or Coyne, all have the same freedom to advocate loudly and clearly for their beliefs -- and their nonbeliefs. You've got no business criticizing them merely for being so vocal. You can engage the debate, and respond to arguments on their own merits, if you like; but in doing so you must also allow them the same freedom to respond to you. Myers and Coyne and others don't want, or need, the NCSE to take up this debate. They've got it covered, thanks very much; and the NCSE should stick to its particular mandate. NOBODY wants the NCSE to be taking up the strident advocacy for atheism that Myers and others are managing just fine on their own behalf. You can't -- or shouldn't -- tell them to be quiet about their views merely because you find it inconvenient that such views exist. You note that creationists make rhetorical hay out of the existence of outspoken atheists who argue that science and religion are in profound conflict. Your apparent solution is actively counterproductive in the ongoing fight to defend science education, in my view. Here's why. Creationists can truthfully make a strong case that the teaching of science commonly leads to loss of religious faith. In this, they are quite simply correct. Tactically speaking, you don't want to depend upon saying they are wrong. If a debate ends up turning on this particular point, you'll lose. The NCSE makes this very mistake, in my view, in this NCSE report: Do Scientists Really Reject God?. In this NCSE report, Eugenie Scott argues against the findings and methodology of the well known Witham and Larson surveys on religious belief. That's a losing tactic. Her article comes across as special pleading on issues of wording, and her conclusion is IMO dubious. But fundamentally, the answer to the question posed in the title is "Most of them do indeed reject God". The NCSE – and those supporting science education generally – don't want to side track into comparing numbers of religious and non-religious scientists. It's not a voting matter; it is a personal matter, and science doesn't tell you which way to go, no matter how the numbers break down. You still decide that yourself, possibly with help of your rabbi or priest or pastor if you like. Public education can't tell you what form your religious beliefs should take. Science can tells you the history and the cause and effect of natural processes at work in the world. The example of scientists who are religious, and others who are irreligious, shows that the practice and the teaching of science still leaves you free to decide other religious questions for yourself.

Chris Ho-Stuart said: I'm putting this here rather than diverting the main thread. PZ had just about won me over completely until this. He's way out of line. Raging Bee's worst offense was to waste time arguing with "Registered User"; apart from that he was engaging appropriately. PZ is flatly wrong. It is not hypocritical to debate this issue if you happen not to be a financial supporter. On the main substance of the NCSE issue, PZ is mostly correct -- but I say that with gritted teeth in the face of this high handed and inappropriate banning. Blech.

No. Raging Bee was intransigent and dishonest from the very start; I was getting more than a little exasperated with the constant misrepresentation of the position that Coyne and I took (once again, it was not that the NCSE should be a pro-atheist organization, but that they shouldn't be a pro-religious organization, either). It is hypocritical to respond to criticism of an organization with obsessive ferocity, to act like a high-minded protector of the virtue of the NCSE, only to reveal that you actually care so little for it that you've never joined. Raging Bee's credibility was shot at that point.

Also, Raging Bee has not been banned. The comments in that thread were full of nothing but heat and high dudgeon, right from the start, and he or she was ejected to also send a stern warning to everyone to knock it off. Raging Bee is free to comment on any other thread.

So let's see...PZ tries to ignore all of my arguments, and when that doesn't work, he makes up a new rule and uses it as an excuse to ban me, for saying the same things I've been saying here, with impunity, since 2005. (Yo, PZ, have you asked anyone here to fax you proof of donations to NCSE before allowing them to comment here?) And shortly after he rids the thread of me, in comes fellow-extremist Sal "Wormtongue" Cordova to take over the thread with his freshly polished veneer of fake-civility. I guess that gives us a real-world example of how effective PZ's persuasion tactics are; hopefully the folks at NCSE will be taking note. Argument over, in more ways than one.

Assuming this post makes it up, I'll just end with a note of gratitude for the words of support I've received here in response to PZ's ban. When one commenter compared PZ to Dembski awhile back, I felt it quite unfair; but PZ's recent behavior, so totally out-of-character for PT, has made me revise that opinion.

I'm happy for you that you find affirmation in the contributions of Sal Cordova, and that you consider his opinion so influential.

Me, I think he's a bit of a turd.

My own philosophy on this, despite my own non-religiousness, is to simply assume the each individual has his or her own journey to make on their own time schedule. It’s not for me to tell them where they should end up. I would simply prefer that they also understand the beauties of scientific understanding without having to distort it to fit dogma.

You're not the only one to find this a sensible tactic of persuasion: when you show at least a little respect for someone's subjective reality, they tend to respond to the respect, and are a little more willing to listen to you. "Do unto others" and all that. Also, a lot of believers have already been told that non-believers (theist and atheist) are horrible, arrogant and utterly devoid of empathy and respect; so the best way to catch them off-guard is by NOT reinforcing the stereotype. As both Sun Tsu and Lao Tsu have said, sometimes the best way to win is NOT to fight.

On the subject of whether science and religion can coexist, has anyone else here ever heard a Christian talking about a "crisis of faith?" Stories in this genre are innumerable, and they range in quality from moving, inspiring and informative at best, to sappy and downright bogus at worst. Generally they involve the believer trying to reconcile his unproven belief with the provable reality that confronts him. He prays for a sign and doesn't get one (or doesn't recognize one); he asks for strength and doesn't feel he's getting any; he witnesses atrocity and disaster and fails to see God's love; he tries to act in accordance with the rules of his belief and doesn't see a reward for it; and more other variations than I can recall. Generally they're about facing life as it is, recognizing that there's no proof for the existence or good intentions of their God(s), and realizing that's something they have to live with, and indeed can live with, because it makes one's life better anyway. And in the context of all those stories, over all this time, the idea of a scientist finding no proof of his God in his decades of work, really isn't all that unusual.

So that's just another data-point to show that science and faith can indeed be compatible, despite their contradictory natures. Whether NCSE can find room in their publications for all that is, of course, another matter...

Yes, a turd who has explicitly endorsed you because your tactics serve his purposes.

So you selectively move my comments here, AND add your own responses to my comments? Wow, PZ, you really are starting to channel Dembski.

Also, my latest (very brief) comment here seems to have vanished as well. Not sure what's up with that...

Okay, now that comment has reappeared, AND you've moved a rather long post of mine here that was not in the least bit offensive. Dude, you're totally unhinged, and you're in no position to lecture ANYONE on how to talk to others about science.

He can still talk about science, perfectly well.

He cannot, however, talk about honesty, or hypocrisy, with any consistency.

Don't mistake my support, Raging Bee. I agree with PZ that you've been singularly obtuse in sorting out the various positions people argue for. He's managed that problem, however, with dishonesty, inconsistency and hypocrisy.

If I've been "obtuse," it's because I've been arguing against some incredibly obtuse positions taken here. And more often than not, my agruments have been misrepresented or ignored, not refuted.

I’d like to thank PZ Myers and PT for allowing my comments to be aired.

My, Sallie boy, what a brown nose you have.

I’ve expressed my support for PZ leading the charge against creationists, and I have little else to add at this time.

Because the only way Sal Cordova can win an argumenet is if he gets to choose his opponents in advance.

Oh, and before anyone wastes any more time arguing with Cordova, just Google "Dispatches from the Culture Wars Sal Cordova;" there you'll find plenty of examples of Ed Brayton, another cofounder of PT, exposing Sal for the shameless quote-mining pathological liar he is. And I know Ed isn't the only one who has done so.

You're criticizing Sal Cordova, and when I add to your criticism, you move that to the Bathroom Wall, while leaving Sal's posts up at PT? You're getting more unhinged by the hour.

This is just getting sillier by the hour. PZ flames out and shows the whole world that he can't support his own arguments, or hold his own on his own thread, and kicks me off his thread based on a hastily-made-up rule; and almost immediately, Sal Cordova pops back after a year's absence, demanding that PZ be the one to lead the charge against creationists. I guess PZ's intemperate censorship must have made Sal feel at home here, just as he felt at home on Uncommon Descent.

And as if Sal's cynical attempt to choose only the safest opponent wasn't enough, along come two other transparent liars, FL and Ray Martinez, all three on the same day, triumphantly using PZ's ravings to bolster their case against honest science. So how's that campaign to discredit religion through insults and mockery going, PZ?

Now we know what happens when people like PZ try to "represent" atheism to the world.

The fact that you accept the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins accepts is evidence that you are not a real Christian.

Ray: The fact that YOU do not follow the actual teachings of Jesus, is evidence that YOU are not a real Christian. You're nothing but a bigot, a hatemonger, and a crybaby, using Christ's name as a flag-of-convenience.

So...the Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species immutabilist, Paleyan Designist, is now talking about the cncept of "vertical-Divine-Intelligent agency." So why can't life come from "horizontal-Divine-Intelligent agency?" In my experience, most intelligent acts that create life are done horizontally, ifyouknowwhatimean...

Or maybe the "Divine-Intelligent agency" has to be vertical in order to make contact with the Timecube? A mystery, to be sure...

Hmmm...since my comments are still getting moved here, I guess I can rest assured that PZ has indeed noticed them, and probably read them as well...

Okay, Sal, you've quoted a nice little definition of the word "epigenetics," but you haven't actually described any mechanism by which traits can be inherited apart from genes. Yes, you mention learned behaviors, but those have already been discussed with more substance and honesty than you've brought to the table. If that's all you have, then you have nothing, except a new way of stretching the word "heritable" beyond its universally accepted meaning, and a pretense that you're describing something new.

Some have argued that since Darwin accepted the notion of acquired characteristics, that incorporating behaviors and heritable epigenetic characteristics as part of what selection selects, that some modern views of inheritance are closer to Darwin’s original view than neo-Darwinism.

This paragraph is pure word-salad. First, what Darwin (allegedly) "accepted" in his time does not support any statement about "modern views of inheritance." Second, like other creationist liars, you're using the word "neo-Darwinism" without defining what it means.

This has bearing on the Coyne vs. NCSE approach.

No, they're two completely different issues, and you know it.

In the world of evolution, Natural selection takes precedence over truth.

Non sequitur. "Natural selection" is a process, truth is a quality that a statement has or does not have. Neither can "take precedence" over the other in any way that is at all meaningful.

If a strategy of deception is reproductively superior over a strategy of truth, according to Darwin, the strategy of deception will prevail.

Did Darwin really say that, or are you just making shit up again like you did when you equated my arguments to the (alleged) surgical mutilation of innocent children? The theory of evolution is about physical heritable traits that differentiate species from each other. If you want to blither about "social Darwinism," that's a totally separate subject, this isn't the place for it, and you're no more trustworthy on that subject than on any other.

Gee, the last time I got routinely censored while refuting creationist claims was on Uncommon Descent. Is this PZ's contribution to the religion-science debate -- making PT just a little more like UD?

OTOH, I do note that while PZ could be spending his time refuting the creationist claims made on HIS THREAD (or at least demanding that Sal, FL and Ray send checks to NCSE), he's instead content just to look for my posts and move them out of their context ASAP. So it's probably safe to conclude that he's actually reading them, or at least skimming them, in the process. Hello. PZ, I know you see this, and you know how asinine you're making yourself look...

wad of fid: if it's automatic, then why is there a lag-time (sometimes up to an hour, IIRC) between my posting and the post being moved? Not that it matters much, as this thread is pretty much dead, but I'm just curious...

Sorry, I was responding to wad of id. Not sure if "fid" comes in "wads"...

Raging Bee said: Hello. PZ, I know you see this, and you know how asinine you're making yourself look...

Please help! The Texas of the North is starting down the slippery slope:

http://universalchan.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/the-deevolution-of-alberta/

Please Professor Steve Steve Kenobi, you're our only hope!

John Kwok said: My dear delusional SLC - There are two major problems with your example of breathtaking inanity: 1) I've changed my mind on that, even though there are others who believe it is still worth investigating. 2) For what seems to be the umpteenth time, I think I've made all too clear my favorable opinion regarding Obama's Cabinet picks. Now surely, if I'm in favor of them, then why would I insist that we should still investigate his birth certificate?

Raging Bee said: Gee, the last time I got routinely censored while refuting creationist claims was on Uncommon Descent. Is this PZ's contribution to the religion-science debate -- making PT just a little more like UD? OTOH, I do note that while PZ could be spending his time refuting the creationist claims made on HIS THREAD (or at least demanding that Sal, FL and Ray send checks to NCSE), he's instead content just to look for my posts and move them out of their context ASAP. So it's probably safe to conclude that he's actually reading them, or at least skimming them, in the process. Hello. PZ, I know you see this, and you know how asinine you're making yourself look...

Wheels said: Wonder if I can save the moderation some trouble and just post directly here on the Bathroom Wall rather than its original thread. It's off-topic enough and I just want to vent a bit.

John Kwok said: My dear delusional SLC - There are two major problems with your example of breathtaking inanity: 1) I've changed my mind on that, even though there are others who believe it is still worth investigating. 2) For what seems to be the umpteenth time, I think I've made all too clear my favorable opinion regarding Obama's Cabinet picks. Now surely, if I'm in favor of them, then why would I insist that we should still investigate his birth certificate?

Sorry, I can't help but needle this: the only reason you think his birth certificate is a non-issue is because you like his Cabinet picks? What if it really were bogus, as you were so insistent before he started appointing secretaries? Or, conversely, the only reason you were motivated to question his citizenship was because you feared what he might do while in office (build up a private "police force" and turn us into Marxists, as I recall)? I think that's the definition of letting partisan politics affect your policy rather than a healthy interest in facts.

John Kwok said: I have to correct myself. SLC, you're obviously not as delusional as this rather pathetic member of PZ Myers's Borg-like fan club: Wheels, maybe you missed all the online discussion in which I noted that I'd changed my mind about Obama, except with regards to his ruinous economic policies. You're just as delusional as my "pal" Sal Cordova IMHO.

Wheels said:

John Kwok said: I have to correct myself. SLC, you're obviously not as delusional as this rather pathetic member of PZ Myers's Borg-like fan club: Wheels, maybe you missed all the online discussion in which I noted that I'd changed my mind about Obama, except with regards to his ruinous economic policies. You're just as delusional as my "pal" Sal Cordova IMHO.

Perhaps I simply forgot that you still maintained he was a rampaging Marxist whom the military might have to "remove" should he get TOO socialist?

John Kwok said: Well PZ thinks I'm a "flaming lunatic" (I suppose it takes one to know one), which is why he won't let me post at PT too:

Raging Bee said: Gee, the last time I got routinely censored while refuting creationist claims was on Uncommon Descent. Is this PZ's contribution to the religion-science debate -- making PT just a little more like UD? OTOH, I do note that while PZ could be spending his time refuting the creationist claims made on HIS THREAD (or at least demanding that Sal, FL and Ray send checks to NCSE), he's instead content just to look for my posts and move them out of their context ASAP. So it's probably safe to conclude that he's actually reading them, or at least skimming them, in the process. Hello. PZ, I know you see this, and you know how asinine you're making yourself look...

John Kwok said: Thanks for demonstrating that you are still delusional. I made that statement - which I have retracted - only on the assumption that Obama might try ruling the country as a Communist dictator.

John Kwok: I AM ASSUMING that Obama is a natural-born United States citizen merely because of his excellent judgement so far with respect to virtually all of his cabinet picks. Don’t get me started please if I am mistaken.….

Thankfully, I haven't seen anything remotely suggestive of such a possibility (Nor would I think Attorney General Eric Holder - a prominent alumnus of my high school - would permit it.):

Test

This is a test comment that (I hope!) will so disappear to the BW.

Troy said: A great deal of inspiration for Darwin's work was Malthus, who himself was anything but unbiased - simply read what he had to say of the Irish, which in turn was used to promote the genocide of between one and two million human beings. Herbert Spencer went on to justify the genocide and Malthus by claiming a law of nature was responsible, the law being natural selection, all of which he published several years prior to Darwin's book on the preservation of favoured races came out - an idea that Darwin then supported, with his theory, in the book "the Descent of Man". I would like to say that it was not completely fair using the top biologist the way I did.It is of worth that she claims that neo-Darwinism is "complete funk" - after all, that is here field. it is not so fair to use her claim that neo-Darwinsm is nothing more than a religious sect, after all, that is not her field of expertise. It is however the field of expertise of sociologist, and it is easy to show that very highly recognized sociologist claim exactly the same thing about the neo-Darwinist - and that they also point out directly that the sect has its belief systems elevated in low level biology text books which do just as I said they do. It's not a matter of "opinion", but something which can be and has been scientifically studied - Darwinist are a religious group, and their beliefs are being promoted in publicaly funded text book - its beyond time we start enforcing our rights and boot the Darwinistic religious crap out of publicaly funded text books. Note: To see a short paper from a prominent sociologist in the field relevant to this topic, please follow the link for a paper by Rodney Stark: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html

John Kwok said: Wallace also read Malthus and, independently of Darwin, conceived of the theory of evolution via natural selection. To be precise then, this theory should be referred to as the Darwin - Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection. If you're trying to insinuate that "Darwinism" was responsible for much of the inhumanity exhibited by some in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, including of course, both the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust, then you're sadly mistaken, since, contrary to what the producers of "Expelled" - and others, like Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer David Klinghoffer - want you to believe, there is no demonstrable concrete proof that points to such a connection:

Troy said: A great deal of inspiration for Darwin's work was Malthus, who himself was anything but unbiased - simply read what he had to say of the Irish, which in turn was used to promote the genocide of between one and two million human beings. Herbert Spencer went on to justify the genocide and Malthus by claiming a law of nature was responsible, the law being natural selection, all of which he published several years prior to Darwin's book on the preservation of favoured races came out - an idea that Darwin then supported, with his theory, in the book "the Descent of Man". I would like to say that it was not completely fair using the top biologist the way I did.It is of worth that she claims that neo-Darwinism is "complete funk" - after all, that is here field. it is not so fair to use her claim that neo-Darwinsm is nothing more than a religious sect, after all, that is not her field of expertise. It is however the field of expertise of sociologist, and it is easy to show that very highly recognized sociologist claim exactly the same thing about the neo-Darwinist - and that they also point out directly that the sect has its belief systems elevated in low level biology text books which do just as I said they do. It's not a matter of "opinion", but something which can be and has been scientifically studied - Darwinist are a religious group, and their beliefs are being promoted in publicaly funded text book - its beyond time we start enforcing our rights and boot the Darwinistic religious crap out of publicaly funded text books. Note: To see a short paper from a prominent sociologist in the field relevant to this topic, please follow the link for a paper by Rodney Stark: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meridianmagazine.com%2Fideas%2F050210darwin.html

The Irish Genocide was caused by maliciously incompetent governance in the wake of the Potato Blight (which was also the result of incompetent agricultural practices).

Some people have used "natural selection" as an excuse for the Irish Genocide, but, the fact that it has been used as an excuse does not invalidate the fact that "natural selection" is still an observable fact of nature.

Having said this, you still haven't proven that Darwin approved of the Irish Genocide (i.e., quoting the letters, notes or passages where he "showered Spencer with praise."), and you still haven't demonstrated how "Darwinism" is a religious cult.

The Universal Chan said: Please help! The Texas of the North is starting down the slippery slope: http://universalchan.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/the-deevolution-of-alberta/ Please Professor Steve Steve Kenobi, you're our only hope!

“That means this blog, being critical of anti-evolution groups, such as creationists, will often contain comments that are, well - critical of creationists.
The main “connection between the promotion of hate and the elevation of atheism” is made by creationists, who like to continually change the subject from Science to God. “

I understand this is a hate promoting blog, of that there is no mistaking. It is also clear that the main post goes from comets and shifts to hate for a religious group. Are we to believe that this shift from science to religion was done by a filthy creationist?

“Because people have opinions that don’t agree with yours? Is the website supposed to remove comments because they don’t agree with you and express irritation?
I think you’re misusing the word “Hate”, and unfairly tying it to atheism, which you are also unfairly tying to evolution. As you mention, some scientists believe in a universe created by God, which, at this point in time, would necessitate also thinking evolution is the best biological theory, as it’s the theory with the most support.”
I don't advocate the removal of opinions from open form web sites. What I do has nothing at all to do with that. With respect to Atheism and the term hate, you are of course correct, I have misused it, for it is true that not all atheist promote hate. It is also true that within the group of believer who believe in atheism there is also that faction which is the only statistically significant source of religious intolerance in the USA today. Thus the connection to atheist is of a more limited nature than use of the unqualified term implies.
Next you mention me tying hate to evolution – it is possible to completely misunderstand what I connect the hate to if we use the term “evolution”. The term “evolution” means so many “different” things as to become a word upon which a great deal of distortion can and does take place. Take for example take this common formulation: “Darwin has a theory of evolution by natural selection. Science has demonstrated evolution is a fact of nature” That is the use of two different meanings for the term 'evolution' and is arranged such that the reader who is not up on all this, such as children, are mislead into thinking that Darwin's theory has been demonstrated, by science, to be a fact of nature – that is, that his theory is “correct”. The problem with that term having so many different meanings can lead to a misunderstanding when one claims I hing hate to “evolution”.
Where I do tie the hate is directly onto human beings. Although there are many forms of hate on earth, when it comes to biology one can show quite easily that there is hate which shows up in relation to the field of biology – most Creation vs Evolution sites being a rather good examples. Now why would biology have that when Chemistry and Physics are rather more or less void of it? As we know from many sources (use Gould if you like), there was a huge rise in justifying hate groups after the publication of Darwin “on the Preservation of Favored Races”. The general idea went like this – science shows this theory to be correct, thus we are justified for it is not an act of hate, but a scientifically understandable fact of nature.

Now one notices that when we study Einstein's theory of relativity, or work over the gas laws, or work the solution sets related to weather equations, we do not walk away with the idea that science has justified us in behaving in any way whatsoever – yet beyond any question, exactly that has happened time and time again when people feel that Darwin's theory is correct – why that theory??? Is there a connection between the hate promoted on this web site, and that theory?
The hate promotion is not connected to conception that mechanics can change the forms of life and lead to the diversity of life forms on earth. Such belief was elevated long before Darwin's time. The connection is directly hinged on the nature of Darwin's theory, not to, for example, to the mechanics polylpoidy.

In the field of biology there is a relationship between the promotion of hate and the theory of Charles Darwin. Today one can find a relationship between the hate promotion in biology and the treating of Natural Selection as though it is the driving mechanics (that is, elevation of Darwin's theory). To hide behind the skirt of neo-Darwinsm does nothing, for there, they have been very careful to leave intact the very features which are at work in Darwin's theory – features which then are used for the promotion of their social agenda (example, Richard Dawkins)

With that said, I hing hate to “evolution” only so far as it is clearly understood that “evolution” here means “Darwin's theory, even in its neo-Darwin form”, and then only to the degree that that theory is used, like a vector, by human beings, as the way in which they rationally justify their hate.

Troy wrote:

"In the field of biology there is a relationship between the promotion of hate and the theory of Charles Darwin. Today one can find a relationship between the hate promotion in biology and the treating of Natural Selection as though it is the driving mechanics (that is, elevation of Darwin’s theory)."

Got any comments about comets Troy?

Look, nobody cares if you think that somebody wants to hate somebody. So what? People will always find reasons to hate if they try hard enough. The question is whether natural selection operates in nature or not. It does, it causes adaptation, divergence and speciation. If you disagree please present your evidence. It matters not what you or anyone else wants to use as an excuse for hatred. Evolution and natural selection are well substantiated scientific theories.

By the way, why have you not answered my question about speciation? If mechanisms other than natural selection are also involved, does it still necessarily lead to atheism and hatred? Can we teach it as science in public schools then? Have you read the walking stick paper yet? Are you willing to admit that you were wrong yet?

Stanton said: I see you've given up trying to post at Pharyngula, again, Troy. What's the matter? Did they hurt your sensitive feelings over there, so you decided to come back here where you can antagonize people with your hypocritically hate-filled rantings about hate without interference? That, and you never did explain why science should respect a perniciously anti-science movement like Creationism, or explain what you want taught as a religion-friendly alternative to science in science classes.

Troy said: “That means this blog, being critical of anti-evolution groups, such as creationists, will often contain comments that are, well - critical of creationists. The main “connection between the promotion of hate and the elevation of atheism” is made by creationists, who like to continually change the subject from Science to God. “ I understand this is a hate promoting blog, of that there is no mistaking. It is also clear that the main post goes from comets and shifts to hate for a religious group. Are we to believe that this shift from science to religion was done by a filthy creationist? “Because people have opinions that don’t agree with yours? Is the website supposed to remove comments because they don’t agree with you and express irritation? I think you’re misusing the word “Hate”, and unfairly tying it to atheism, which you are also unfairly tying to evolution. As you mention, some scientists believe in a universe created by God, which, at this point in time, would necessitate also thinking evolution is the best biological theory, as it’s the theory with the most support.” I don't advocate the removal of opinions from open form web sites. What I do has nothing at all to do with that. With respect to Atheism and the term hate, you are of course correct, I have misused it, for it is true that not all atheist promote hate. It is also true that within the group of believer who believe in atheism there is also that faction which is the only statistically significant source of religious intolerance in the USA today. Thus the connection to atheist is of a more limited nature than use of the unqualified term implies. Next you mention me tying hate to evolution – it is possible to completely misunderstand what I connect the hate to if we use the term “evolution”. The term “evolution” means so many “different” things as to become a word upon which a great deal of distortion can and does take place. Take for example take this common formulation: “Darwin has a theory of evolution by natural selection. Science has demonstrated evolution is a fact of nature” That is the use of two different meanings for the term 'evolution' and is arranged such that the reader who is not up on all this, such as children, are mislead into thinking that Darwin's theory has been demonstrated, by science, to be a fact of nature – that is, that his theory is “correct”. The problem with that term having so many different meanings can lead to a misunderstanding when one claims I hing hate to “evolution”. Where I do tie the hate is directly onto human beings. Although there are many forms of hate on earth, when it comes to biology one can show quite easily that there is hate which shows up in relation to the field of biology – most Creation vs Evolution sites being a rather good examples. Now why would biology have that when Chemistry and Physics are rather more or less void of it? As we know from many sources (use Gould if you like), there was a huge rise in justifying hate groups after the publication of Darwin “on the Preservation of Favored Races”. The general idea went like this – science shows this theory to be correct, thus we are justified for it is not an act of hate, but a scientifically understandable fact of nature. Now one notices that when we study Einstein's theory of relativity, or work over the gas laws, or work the solution sets related to weather equations, we do not walk away with the idea that science has justified us in behaving in any way whatsoever – yet beyond any question, exactly that has happened time and time again when people feel that Darwin's theory is correct – why that theory??? Is there a connection between the hate promoted on this web site, and that theory? The hate promotion is not connected to conception that mechanics can change the forms of life and lead to the diversity of life forms on earth. Such belief was elevated long before Darwin's time. The connection is directly hinged on the nature of Darwin's theory, not to, for example, to the mechanics polylpoidy. In the field of biology there is a relationship between the promotion of hate and the theory of Charles Darwin. Today one can find a relationship between the hate promotion in biology and the treating of Natural Selection as though it is the driving mechanics (that is, elevation of Darwin's theory). To hide behind the skirt of neo-Darwinsm does nothing, for there, they have been very careful to leave intact the very features which are at work in Darwin's theory – features which then are used for the promotion of their social agenda (example, Richard Dawkins) With that said, I hing hate to “evolution” only so far as it is clearly understood that “evolution” here means “Darwin's theory, even in its neo-Darwin form”, and then only to the degree that that theory is used, like a vector, by human beings, as the way in which they rationally justify their hate.

Dan said:

Troy said: I understand this is a hate promoting blog, of that there is no mistaking.

Gee, I mistook it.

Dan said: ... sorry, I hit "Submit" too early above ...

Troy said: I understand this is a hate promoting blog, of that there is no mistaking.

Gee, I mistook it. In fact, I thought this was a blog about comets! Troy, do you think comets spread hate?

Troy said: "That means this blog, being critical of anti-evolution groups, such as creationists, will often contain comments that are, well - critical of creationists. The main "connection between the promotion of hate and the elevation of atheism" is made by creationists, who like to continually change the subject from Science to God." I understand this is a hate promoting blog, of that there is no mistaking. It is also clear that the main post goes from comets and shifts to hate for a religious group. Are we to believe that this shift from science to religion was done by a filthy creationist?

Troy being cuckoo: I understand this is a hate promoting blog, of that there is no mistaking.

The real story is the persecution of scientists by Fundie Xian Death cultists, who have fired, harassed, beaten up, and killed evolutionary biologists and their supporters whenever they can. This is, of course, exactly the behavior of zealots who long ago forgot what the Christ in Christian stood for. These days, fundie is synonymous with liar, ignorant, stupid, and sometimes killer. http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626 [link goes to Blake Stacey's blog which has a must read essay with documentation of the cases below.] As usual the truth is the exact opposite. The creos have been firing, beating up, attempting to fire, and killing scientists and science supporters for a while now. They are way ahead on body counts. Posting the list of who is really being beaten up, threatened, fired, attempted to be fired, and killed. Not surprisingly, it is scientists and science supporters by Death Cultists. I've discovered that this list really bothers fundies. Truth to them is like a cross to a vampire. There is a serious reign of terror by Xian fundie terrorists directed against the reality based academic community, specifically acceptors of evolution. I'm keeping a running informal tally, listed below. They include death threats, firings, attempted firings, assaults, and general persecution directed against at least 12 people. The Expelled Liars have totally ignored the ugly truth of just who is persecuting who. If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list. I thought I'd post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution. 2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton) 1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet) 1 persecuted unmercifully for 4 years Van Till (Calvin) 1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist) 1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian) 1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas) 1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas) 1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland) Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists. Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall protection for a while Up to 12 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven't even gotten to the secondary science school teachers. And the Liars of Expelled have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creos are way ahead.

John Kwok said: Don't you think that it says much about the mental states of those posting here like Troy and Matthew that they accuse this blog as an entity which promotes "hate"?

Troy said: I understand this is a hate promoting blog, of that there is no mistaking.

Now one notices that when we study Einstein's theory of relativity, or work over the gas laws, or work the solution sets related to weather equations, we do not walk away with the idea that science has justified us in behaving in any way whatsoever – yet beyond any question, exactly that has happened time and time again when people feel that Darwin's theory is correct – why that theory???

now THAT'S some serious projection right there.

Another day of hate bashing from the promoters of religious intolerance I see.

Gould, as well as many others, pointed out that Darwin's theory was used to promote hate big time. Prior to Darwin, when it came to science, there was not much in the way of a science which looked as though it justified hate, but with Darwin's theory, the perception change. After the publication of Darwin's book on the Preservation of Favored Races, the number of hate groups which then claimed justification for their hate based on science, completely exploded. Of course science does not justify hate. The fundamentally incorrect theory of Darwin's only makes it look like it does until you look close.

The promoters of Darwin's work, as though it is correct, often do so as a platform to promote hate. One of the greatest object for the spread of their information is of course children. In the upper levels of science it is pretty well understood that not only is Darwin's theory wrong, so is neo-Darwinism (which is really just the modern day name for the incorrect theory which is used to justify hate). Because so many educated people do understand the connection, the Darwinist really make no headway with them. On the other hand, if they go after the children, and try their best to get children to think that intolerance is scientifically justified, they need to do little more than teach that Darwin's theory is a fact of nature.

One can read the main threaded post and realize pretty fast it is little more than an expression of hate. When we open general biology text books we do not find a bunch of creationist publications, nor have we ever. What we do find is the promotion of the idea that Darwin and his theory are about the greatest thing to hit the planet ever. Often the tendency is to elevate Darwin, complete with a description of natural selection. Next the term “evolution” is equated with Darwin's theory, then the rest of the text book, when it comes up, equates 'evolution' with being a fact of nature without bothering to point out that Darwin's theory, along with neo-Darwinism, is dead in science (although very elevated on hate promoting web sites).

I am all for getting cleaning up public education and getting these belief systems out of them, all it does is lead people to understand the wrong things about science. Science does not elevate the idea that there is not such thing as God in any way whatsoever. Sure there is a belief system that elevates that, and certainly, like with all belief systems, they are free to have that belief. But when they distort our elementary text books with their belief system by slanting the text to make it look like a theory with has been used for the promotion of so very much hate is correct, when in fact we know it is not – they go way to far!

People often here “creation vs evolution”. Many understand its a religious war between two belief systems. What is less understood is that the only statistically significant source of religious intolerance in the USA today is not from the creationist, but from the other side of the equation – the very ones who enjoy their incorrect coloring the text books of our children.

Darwinism is a religious belief which elevates statements about the nature of the supernatural (I believe there is no God). Darwinism brings with it, as does any supernatural theism by its nature, intractable epistemological difficulties. Despite these difficulties and despite Darwin's theory no longer being held as valid by science, Darwinist continue efforts to promote the teaching of Darwin's theory as though it is scientifically sound in public school science classrooms threaten both science education and the separation of church and state guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. I examine the Darwinist movement’s failure to provide either a methodology or a functional epistemology to support their claims of supernaturalism, a deficiency that consequently leaves them without epistemic support for their Darwinistic claims. My examination focuses primarily on Darwin's theory and hate promoting web sites like this one, whose published defenses of Darwinism, as well as other relevant publications concerning education, law, and public policy, have been largely exempt from critical scrutiny on web sites like this – even though the number of people understanding their real nature is increasing among the educated and uneducated alike. Whereas there is nothing fundamentally wrong with seeking to demonstrate there is no God, it following in exactly the same category as they who seek to show there is God, there is something completely and utterly wrong in elementary biology text books when they are written in such a way as to incorrectly teach the children that Darwin's theory is more or less correct when in fact it is not. The science classroom is not the place for the teaching anti-science so that a belief system can feel justified in their promotion of religious intolerance. It is a place for science, not preaching.

"Now one notices that when we study Einstein’s theory of relativity, or work over the gas laws, or work the solution sets related to weather equations, we do not walk away with the idea that science has justified us in behaving in any way whatsoever – yet beyond any question, exactly that has happened time and time again when people feel that Darwin’s theory is correct – why that theory???

now THAT’S some serious projection right there."

Really! If that is so, why is it that Gould correctly related Darwin's theory to the justification of all sorts of hate? Was he seriously "projecting". When under Hitler the S.S. went to medical schools and actively looked for people most enthusiastic about the theory, and then picked from that group in choosing who got to be Nazi doctors in the prison camps, what was their reason? I mean, why pick from that group???????

Troy, if I want to read batshit-ridiculous raving, I'll just go buy a bottle of Dr. Bronner's Pure Castile Soap. His batshit-ridiculous raving is more pleasant to read, and more truthful to boot. Hell, I've heard Muslims and socialists on Speakers' corner making more sense than you.

“Having spent years studying evolutionary biology in college and graduate school, not once did I see evolution described as something tied to “hate”.”

Well be clear – I tie the hate to Darwin's theory and neo-Darwinsm. If you want to define “evolution” “evolution” to mean such theories, fine. Given that often the term is not defined to mean that, I choose personally not to do things that way. As a propagandist the connection of course is useful, but as you know from graduate school, to define evolution such that it means Darwin's theory or neo-Darwinism is at best week.

Having studied at such levels I would guess the chances are good you are perfectly well aware of a relation between hate and Darwin's theory. Last I checked the typical name for it was “Social Darwinism”. As anyone who has looked into the matter (and biologist should given the nasty results it's had all tied to a theory of biology), the idea got off to a great start with Herbert Spencer, years before Darwin published his book on favored races. Spencer did so in the Westminster review where he attempted to justify the genocide of the Irish by blaming it on a law of nature, the law being natural selection (Westminster Review 57 (1852): 468-501). Years later Darwin published his favored races book, and after thinking about its real and true meaning for ten years, he then published the Descent of Man, which of course elevates the conception that Spencer is correct and in general displays a host of elevated Social Darwin aspects, inclusive of praise for his own cousins work.

Now, if you do know what I am talking about, and are aware of social Darwinism and its direct link to Spencer, Darwin, and Galton, and their habit of tying it directly to their law of natural selection – then, as I see it, you are simply a liar. My bet is you know of such things perfectly well and even understand how they are attached to “Survival of the Fittest” (to use a phrase which Darwin titled one of his chapters with). But then, in fairness, perhaps your education is limited in the extreme when it comes to glaringly obvious facts related to Darwin's work. If so, I suggest you start by reading “the Descent of Man” by Charles Darwin.

What I really hate is people who use the word hate. Especally people who label a site a hate site and then continue to post hateful comments there. If this site is so full of hate Troy, go somewhere else. By the way, your posts are the only ones that use the word hate. Don't you just hate being such a hypocrite?

“I see you’ve given up trying to post at Pharyngula, again, Troy. What’s the matter? Did they hurt your sensitive feelings over there, so you decided to come back here where you can antagonize people with your hypocritically hate-filled rantings about hate without interference?”

LOL – “given up”! That's funny. I came here to Panda's Thumb site a few days ago, saw all the hate, so I looked into the nature of the site. Looking into that I discovered a few names, such as that of Pee Wee Myers and others. I came to see that over seventy sites are hosted, many of which, if not all, are hate sites promoting religious intolerance (may have to pull the IRS reports). In the process I did find, among other things, that Pee Wee has his own web site – so of course I went there. I tested the water by leaving a post, but have not been back to look at it – but may well do so again.

Pee Wee reminds me of someone who is risking his environment by not grasping fully where he lives – like being rather well below qualifying as the “Fittest” in his environment. See, a guy like Dawkins is over there in England at an Ivy league school. That is a nation that still has Kings and Queens who the public must send cash to – not exactly a very up-to-date nation by modern standards. There they are not real big on things like democracy (even some middle east nations have extended their people more rights than they have in England – just look at their form of government!). In such a place it is ok to have a figure head like Dawkins at their university, for their they really do believe in the whole “I am far superior to you” thing.

But here, Pee Wee does not live in the environment of England. In the USA we are not real happy about things like “religious intolerance”. As a result, its not just OK to run about “ejaculating” religious intolerance as most people in this country have very clearly grown beyond such primitive notions. Now pee wee Myers hides behind the idea that to teach collage is one thing, and to hold privet views and promote them is another – that we do not tend to off our professors because of their belief systems, after all, it is a free nation and you can believe what you want. But exactly because it is a free nation, one which has little time for religious intolerance – he opens himself up to an negative influence towards his survival as a professor here which does not exist in England to any such extent.

Time will tell.

I had an uncle who taught collage and had privet views. He liked putting together pictures of hedges.

Thank you, thank you, have the blue-plate special, and I'll be here all week.

Another day of hate bashing from the promoters of religious intolerance I see.

— Troy

Troy said: Another day of hate bashing from the promoters of religious intolerance I see. .... Prior to Darwin, when it came to science, there was not much in the way of a science which looked as though it justified hate, but with Darwin's theory, the perception change. After the publication of Darwin's book on the Preservation of Favored Races, the number of hate groups which then claimed justification for their hate based on science, completely exploded. The promoters of Darwin's work, as though it is correct, often do so as a platform to promote hate. One of the greatest object for the spread of their information is of course children. In the upper levels of science it is pretty well understood that not only is Darwin's theory wrong, so is neo-Darwinism (which is really just the modern day name for the incorrect theory which is used to justify hate). Because so many educated people do understand the connection, the Darwinist really make no headway with them. On the other hand, if they go after the children, and try their best to get children to think that intolerance is scientifically justified, they need to do little more than teach that Darwin's theory is a fact of nature. One can read the main threaded post and realize pretty fast it is little more than an expression of hate. When we open general biology text books we do not find a bunch of creationist publications, nor have we ever. What we do find is the promotion of the idea that Darwin and his theory are about the greatest thing to hit the planet ever. Often the tendency is to elevate Darwin, complete with a description of natural selection. Next the term “evolution” is equated with Darwin's theory, then the rest of the text book, when it comes up, equates 'evolution' with being a fact of nature without bothering to point out that Darwin's theory, along with neo-Darwinism, is dead in science (although very elevated on hate promoting web sites).

Ooooh!, Now I get it! We hate because of Darwin! Yeah that makes sense, I mean, the medieval times of war, witch-burning and crusades was aaaaall about love! As is the conflict in North Ireland, Israel and Kashmir today... The whole old testament just teems with love, doesn't it?

Seriously, I'd rather say Darwin has been MISused in "hate groups". I am myself married to an evolutionary biologist, and a more tolerant, open-minded and caring man is hard to find.

I don't hate anyone. But I do seriously dislike dishonest behavior. If you don't know better, well it's not your fault you're fooled by parents and teacher, but most leading creationist DO know better - they've just shut off logic, reason AND honesty.

What is hate anyway? Is saying "Religion is dangerous and make people do horrible things to each other" hateful? Is it loving and open-minded to tell people they are scum of the earth, going to hell, just because they work with science that could SAVE LIVES or just because they want to learn more about the natural laws that make up the foundations of our mezmerizing world?

Science does'nt make people hate. People misuse science to justify their hate, and that's something entirely different.

I hope I'm not being too "hateful" here, calmly delivering critique.

Peace!

PS. Sorry about my bad english, I'm not a native speaker...

Troy Wrote: Another day of hate bashing from the promoters of religious intolerance I see.

Hey Troy,

You still haven't told me where the "hate" was in Ian's initial comet post. You also have not chosen to respond to my observation regarding how I have been treated as a commenter here.

Troy said: Darwinism is a religious belief which elevates statements about the nature of the supernatural (I believe there is no God). Darwinism brings with it, as does any supernatural theism by its nature, intractable epistemological difficulties. Despite these difficulties and despite Darwin's theory no longer being held as valid by science, Darwinist continue efforts to promote the teaching of Darwin's theory as though it is scientifically sound in public school science classrooms threaten both science education and the separation of church and state guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. I examine the Darwinist movement’s failure to provide either a methodology or a functional epistemology to support their claims of supernaturalism, a deficiency that consequently leaves them without epistemic support for their Darwinistic claims. My examination focuses primarily on Darwin's theory and hate promoting web sites like this one, whose published defenses of Darwinism, as well as other relevant publications concerning education, law, and public policy, have been largely exempt from critical scrutiny on web sites like this – even though the number of people understanding their real nature is increasing among the educated and uneducated alike. Whereas there is nothing fundamentally wrong with seeking to demonstrate there is no God, it following in exactly the same category as they who seek to show there is God, there is something completely and utterly wrong in elementary biology text books when they are written in such a way as to incorrectly teach the children that Darwin's theory is more or less correct when in fact it is not. The science classroom is not the place for the teaching anti-science so that a belief system can feel justified in their promotion of religious intolerance. It is a place for science, not preaching.

I will argue, as someone who knows too much about hate groups, that they do not use natural selection as much as eugenics to support their views.

The faux science of eugenics is very popular amongst American hate groups as is, as someone pointed out, Protestantism. They take their biblical beliefs and twist them as they see fit to religiously show themselves to be a kind of master race. With this skewed logic established they use eugenics to show why other races are clearly "mud people" or spawns of satan.
If you are honestly attributing to these groups sound scientific reasoning you may as well attribute a sound grasp on geology to voles.

To anyone who argues the evils of evolution because of how it is used by hate groups, I ask you this. Do you go to the doctor? My mind goes back to this doctor named Josef Mengele who used medicine to do horrid and evil things and thus medicine must be evil as well.

Nice to see someone is standing up for science and fighting to get all the misleading crap out of science text books.

Coming from the field of biology, and being another one of Darwin's dogs, combined with her education, we can rest assured that she is well aware of the use of biology, via Darwin's theory, in promoting racism.

For example, back in the day, Darwin, in “the Descent of Man” gave glowing reviews of Ernst Haeckel and his book “Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte” - Darwin states this:

“This last naturalist, besides his great work, Generelle Morphologie (1866), has recently (1868, with a second edit. in 1870), published his Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte, in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine.”

Of course we can look at some of the pictures in that book and spot clear and obvious racism, for example look at this (page down until you get to Haechels book): http://www.strangescience.net/sthom1.htm

Clearly the idea is that the black man is far more baboon like than the proper Englishman of German!

We also know, thanks to sociology and psychology, that there will likely be political use in elevating ethnic properties in the formation of groups, and that they will use science as a place to launch their political ideologies if science gives a theory which makes us believe in common descent, races, and so forth – a problem which increases for sure it the theory also works to push the ideology that there is no God (see Weber on ethnic groups and Jung's paper “religion as a counterbalance to mass-mindedness”)

Given these aspects of Darwin's theory, along with the theories obvious repeated use (well founded or not) in a number of movement which lead directly to abuse of human beings and genocide, one could rest assured that Eugenie Scott would be a very likely person to have her eye on such matters and make sure they don't get elevated in school text books, above all not in biology text books.

Of course that brings us to the study conducted by the sociologist Ann Morning wherein she had a look at high school text biology text books (80 of them) with an eye out toward racism. Her finding “reveal that U.S. biology
texts have pursued the topic of race with renewed vigor in recent years.” Would seem the big drive is to teach the kids that genetics is showing race as a real life thing, that there really are genetic foundations for categories of race – but it does so at the expense of never mentioning any studies that actually support such a claim.

Of course Eugenie Scott is working hard to get that bigoted crap out of the high school biology text books – right???????

Please read the study here:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:yd9_jruZfsMJ:as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1043/2008_Reconstructing_Race_in_AJS.pdf+Morning,+Ann.+2008.+%E2%80%9CReconstructing+Race+in+Science+and+Society:&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Congratulations to Scott. Does she fight the increased rate of high school biology text books pushing racism?

- so you can see that such a thing is in fact taking place, please see the study : http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:yd9_jruZfsMJ:as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1043/2008_Reconstructing_Race_in_AJS.pdf+Morning,+Ann.+2008.+%E2%80%9CReconstructing+Race+in+Science+and+Society:&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

AMNH was scheduled to have an official press announcement about it today, with NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg in attendance.

Darwin’s theory, along with neo-Darwinism, is dead in science (although very elevated on hate promoting web sites).

Anton Mates said: Bite down on your gag reflex and go look at the doctrinal statements on the websites of the Imperial Klans of America. Or the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Or the Aryan Nations. Or any of the Christian Identity-affiliated websites.

Troy said: ...they will use science as a place to launch their political ideologies if science gives a theory which makes us believe in common descent, races, and so forth ...that brings us to the study conducted by the sociologist Ann Morning ...Her finding “reveal that U.S. biology texts have pursued the topic of race with renewed vigor in recent years.”

"I hope there is no God" Finally, an honest atheist strikes the right chord.

See:

http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/i-hope-there-is-no-god-thomas-nagel/

...and the nominee in the category of most off-topic post for 2009 is SC...

It appears the Sodomite religion of evolutionism can not tolerate even the slightest chink in its monopoly on taxpayer dollars. Yes, this hysteria is truly a testament to how quick and powerful the Word of God really is. Soon, the kids might begin to doubt the propaganda claiming the mouth and anus are sex organs!

Oh, come on, Toidel, don't be a party-pooper. Next you'll be telling us we can't even eat our young.

Oh, and could you please connect the dots between the fact of evolution and a preference for the back door? I'm a little hazy on that connection. Thanks.

Stanton said:

Ray Martinez said: We commend the above book for not insulting intelligence and for admitting the obvious pro-Atheism stance of evolution.

So, tell us why you think that the current Pope is an atheist because he accepts evolution.

Matt Young said: Mr. Martinez is wholly mistaken: No evolutionary biologist says that evolution does not contradict creationism; it does.

Please do not respond; I will not allow this discussion to be hijacked by a troll who has nothing of substance to offer.

Jeez, Toidel, you saying you can't give or receive oral sex and still be a Christian? No wonder non-belief is on the rise (yuck-yuck!) and Christianity is waning!

Ray Martinez said:

Matt Young said: Mr. Martinez is wholly mistaken: No evolutionary biologist says that evolution does not contradict creationism; it does.

I never said otherwise and I completely agree. What I did say: "various segments in the evolutionary establishment" deny the round earth fact.

Please do not respond; I will not allow this discussion to be hijacked by a troll who has nothing of substance to offer.

I said nothing deserving of this outburst. I can produce quotes of evolutionists denying the round earth fact. I also said "We commend the above book for not insulting intelligence...." You have made an honest mistake Matt.

Ray Martinez bull$#itted:

Matt Young said: Mr. Martinez is wholly mistaken: No evolutionary biologist says that evolution does not contradict creationism; it does.

I never said otherwise and I completely agree. What I did say: "various segments in the evolutionary establishment" deny the round earth fact.

Please do not respond; I will not allow this discussion to be hijacked by a troll who has nothing of substance to offer.

I said nothing deserving of this outburst. I can produce quotes of evolutionists denying the round earth fact. I also said "We commend the above book for not insulting intelligence...." You have made an honest mistake Matt.

Ray Martinez said:

Matt Young said: Mr. Martinez is wholly mistaken: No evolutionary biologist says that evolution does not contradict creationism; it does.

I never said otherwise and I completely agree. What I did say: "various segments in the evolutionary establishment" deny the round earth fact.

Daxx-Terry Green said: He broke the law, AGAIN.

who is your creator said: "a public school teacher with strong religious convictions and a record of proselytizing is being allowed to serve as the advisor of a religious club and use his position to have a public school approve a patently religious-based fieldtrip." Oh my, that is horrifying! To think that he might even read the Bible to them on the way is too much to even fathom ... Quick, change the constitution so that's illegal and lock him up!!!

Please, John. Let us help you.

he needs professional help. He won't get it because he thinks there's nothing wrong, while busily projecting his issues on to everyone who criticizes him.

I think, after watching it for several years, that it's hopeless. Nothing will shock him out of it.

Keep trying though, maybe something random will ring a bell with him.

be careful you don't try it in one of Sandefeur's threads, though. He'll just delete your posts and leave Kwok's.

Your last post is a classic example of typical verbal diarrhea from you. Having read all too often your disparaging remarks about prominent scientists who happen to be theistic evolutionists, then maybe you're the one in dire need of help.

Would this be natural or super-natural PZ?

Near Death Experience - The Tunnel - The Light - Life Review
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8MTwyd-AlI

In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRpbNgBn8XY

The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The NDE of Pam Reynolds - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA37uNa3VGU

John Kwok said: Your last post is a classic example of typical verbal diarrhea from you. Having read all too often your disparaging remarks about prominent scientists who happen to be theistic evolutionists, then maybe you're the one in dire need of help.

Bornagain77 said: Would this be natural or super-natural PZ? Near Death Experience - The Tunnel - The Light - Life Review http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8MTwyd-AlI In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRpbNgBn8XY The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The NDE of Pam Reynolds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA37uNa3VGU

hi pandas thumb, i was wondering if anyone else thought the female plays the biggest role shaping the evolution of humanity?

i was thinking because all the details of environment, having young provided for etc.. the female has the complex 1500+ genes X that defines its gender rather then a smaller 78 y.

while men are ready to spread like weeds Women do seem seem picky, dismissing without a second thought,.
i am reasoning that they developed greater sensitivity to a wider set of properties, thus choosing the alpha is a very particular match that provides to the specific environment.

it seems logical, but maybe im missing something

John Kwok said: Who me? Anyway, I think Luskin has been the topic du jour on her website at least three times, and I believe that they had a debate in person, when he visited her campus:

If anyone has an obsession, RG, it's you for bringing it up not only here but at least two other websites online. Have a happy Fourth of July, if you can manage it....

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

John Kwok said: Who me? Anyway, I think Luskin has been the topic du jour on her website at least three times, and I believe that they had a debate in person, when he visited her campus:

Who cares? I didn't bring up Luskin. I just note that you're still obsessing over Abbie. That's not healthy, John.

If anyone has an obsession, RG, it's you for bringing it up not only here but at least two other websites online. Have a happy Fourth of July, if you can manage it....

Liar. Do feel ashamed, John. And get over her.

John Kwok said: Only a delusional twit like yourself would make the inane observation that you think I'm still obsessed with Abbie Smith, when Casey Luskin has figured prominently in several of her relatively recent blog entries over the past few months, including a memorable personal encounter she had had with him at the University of Oklahoma. If anyone is "obsessed", then I think it is Abbie, by virtue of the fact that she's devoted several important entries on Luskin over at her blog:

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

John Kwok said: Who me? Anyway, I think Luskin has been the topic du jour on her website at least three times, and I believe that they had a debate in person, when he visited her campus:

Who cares? I didn't bring up Luskin. I just note that you're still obsessing over Abbie. That's not healthy, John.

If anyone has an obsession, RG, it's you for bringing it up not only here but at least two other websites online. Have a happy Fourth of July, if you can manage it....

Liar. Do feel ashamed, John. And get over her.

Anyway I prefer blondes with blue eyes, and especially those who aren't militant atheists. Abbie just isn't my type. Get over it, or else I'll conclude that you're a demented troll who is merely interested in making ad hominem attacks on me for the sheer joy that it brings to you.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Poor John. You just don't bother to read posts, do you? I didn't say anything about Abbie being obsessed - I pointed out that YOU are apparently still obsessed; a fact that can be confirmed from your tendency to introduce her into irrelevant conversations. You're obsessed, John. Myers kicked your sorry ass out and you're bad-mouthing him whenever you can. You still obsess about Abbie and keep mentioning her whether it's warranted or not. You lie about the folks you talk to (you keep claiming I'm an atheist and Myers fan, for example). You're a narcissistic nitwit, John. A rather pathetic twerp (I'm sorry, anyone who can't be bothered to reply to what's actually written on posts isn't worth anything stronger). And you know what's funniest? You STILL don't know what an "ad-hominem" means. Nitwit.

John Kwok said: Only a delusional twit like yourself would make the inane observation that you think I'm still obsessed with Abbie Smith, when Casey Luskin has figured prominently in several of her relatively recent blog entries over the past few months, including a memorable personal encounter she had had with him at the University of Oklahoma. If anyone is "obsessed", then I think it is Abbie, by virtue of the fact that she's devoted several important entries on Luskin over at her blog:

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

John Kwok said: Who me? Anyway, I think Luskin has been the topic du jour on her website at least three times, and I believe that they had a debate in person, when he visited her campus:

Who cares? I didn't bring up Luskin. I just note that you're still obsessing over Abbie. That's not healthy, John.

If anyone has an obsession, RG, it's you for bringing it up not only here but at least two other websites online. Have a happy Fourth of July, if you can manage it....

Liar. Do feel ashamed, John. And get over her.

Anyway I prefer blondes with blue eyes, and especially those who aren't militant atheists. Abbie just isn't my type. Get over it, or else I'll conclude that you're a demented troll who is merely interested in making ad hominem attacks on me for the sheer joy that it brings to you.

John Kwok said: Thanks for demonstrating that you are indeed a delusional twit lying sack of shit. Why? For one, in my ongoing criticism of Myers, I have minimized his own repugnant behavior towards me by reminding people - and there have been others who have chimed in without my encouragement - of Myers's pathetic behavior against theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller - by dubbing him a "creationist" - and by celebrating the fact that he was named to a "Dirty Dozen" list of anti-Catholic bigots by a leading American Catholic organization and bragging about it at his blog back in January. What he did to me is mere icing on the cake. As for me being "obsessed with Abbie Smith", get over it please. She refuses to talk about it over at her blog and I wouldn't have, were it not for the inane comments about it from the likes of you and SLC.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Poor John. You just don't bother to read posts, do you? I didn't say anything about Abbie being obsessed - I pointed out that YOU are apparently still obsessed; a fact that can be confirmed from your tendency to introduce her into irrelevant conversations. You're obsessed, John. Myers kicked your sorry ass out and you're bad-mouthing him whenever you can. You still obsess about Abbie and keep mentioning her whether it's warranted or not. You lie about the folks you talk to (you keep claiming I'm an atheist and Myers fan, for example). You're a narcissistic nitwit, John. A rather pathetic twerp (I'm sorry, anyone who can't be bothered to reply to what's actually written on posts isn't worth anything stronger). And you know what's funniest? You STILL don't know what an "ad-hominem" means. Nitwit.

John Kwok said: Only a delusional twit like yourself would make the inane observation that you think I'm still obsessed with Abbie Smith, when Casey Luskin has figured prominently in several of her relatively recent blog entries over the past few months, including a memorable personal encounter she had had with him at the University of Oklahoma. If anyone is "obsessed", then I think it is Abbie, by virtue of the fact that she's devoted several important entries on Luskin over at her blog:

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

John Kwok said: Who me? Anyway, I think Luskin has been the topic du jour on her website at least three times, and I believe that they had a debate in person, when he visited her campus:

Who cares? I didn't bring up Luskin. I just note that you're still obsessing over Abbie. That's not healthy, John.

If anyone has an obsession, RG, it's you for bringing it up not only here but at least two other websites online. Have a happy Fourth of July, if you can manage it....

Liar. Do feel ashamed, John. And get over her.

Anyway I prefer blondes with blue eyes, and especially those who aren't militant atheists. Abbie just isn't my type. Get over it, or else I'll conclude that you're a demented troll who is merely interested in making ad hominem attacks on me for the sheer joy that it brings to you.

John Kwok said: Thanks for demonstrating that you are indeed a delusional twit lying sack of shit.

Why? For one, in my ongoing criticism of Myers, I have minimized his own repugnant behavior towards me by reminding people - and there have been others who have chimed in without my encouragement - of Myers's pathetic behavior against theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller - by dubbing him a "creationist" - and by celebrating the fact that he was named to a "Dirty Dozen" list of anti-Catholic bigots by a leading American Catholic organization and bragging about it at his blog back in January. What he did to me is mere icing on the cake.

As for me being "obsessed with Abbie Smith", get over it please. She refuses to talk about it over at her blog and I wouldn't have, were it not for the inane comments about it from the likes of you and SLC.

John Kwok said: P. S. I think Katy Perry had you, RG, in mind when she sings: "You change your mind like a girl changes clothes Yeah, you change your mind like a girl I would know And you always think, always speak cryptically I should know that you're no good for me"

John Kwok said: Thanks for demonstrating that you are indeed a delusional twit lying sack of shit. Why? For one, in my ongoing criticism of Myers, I have minimized his own repugnant behavior towards me by reminding people - and there have been others who have chimed in without my encouragement - of Myers's pathetic behavior against theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller - by dubbing him a "creationist" - and by celebrating the fact that he was named to a "Dirty Dozen" list of anti-Catholic bigots by a leading American Catholic organization and bragging about it at his blog back in January. What he did to me is mere icing on the cake. As for me being "obsessed with Abbie Smith", get over it please. She refuses to talk about it over at her blog and I wouldn't have, were it not for the inane comments about it from the likes of you and SLC.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Poor John. You just don't bother to read posts, do you? I didn't say anything about Abbie being obsessed - I pointed out that YOU are apparently still obsessed; a fact that can be confirmed from your tendency to introduce her into irrelevant conversations. You're obsessed, John. Myers kicked your sorry ass out and you're bad-mouthing him whenever you can. You still obsess about Abbie and keep mentioning her whether it's warranted or not. You lie about the folks you talk to (you keep claiming I'm an atheist and Myers fan, for example). You're a narcissistic nitwit, John. A rather pathetic twerp (I'm sorry, anyone who can't be bothered to reply to what's actually written on posts isn't worth anything stronger). And you know what's funniest? You STILL don't know what an "ad-hominem" means. Nitwit.

John Kwok said: Only a delusional twit like yourself would make the inane observation that you think I'm still obsessed with Abbie Smith, when Casey Luskin has figured prominently in several of her relatively recent blog entries over the past few months, including a memorable personal encounter she had had with him at the University of Oklahoma. If anyone is "obsessed", then I think it is Abbie, by virtue of the fact that she's devoted several important entries on Luskin over at her blog:

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

John Kwok said: Who me? Anyway, I think Luskin has been the topic du jour on her website at least three times, and I believe that they had a debate in person, when he visited her campus:

Who cares? I didn't bring up Luskin. I just note that you're still obsessing over Abbie. That's not healthy, John.

If anyone has an obsession, RG, it's you for bringing it up not only here but at least two other websites online. Have a happy Fourth of July, if you can manage it....

Liar. Do feel ashamed, John. And get over her.

Anyway I prefer blondes with blue eyes, and especially those who aren't militant atheists. Abbie just isn't my type. Get over it, or else I'll conclude that you're a demented troll who is merely interested in making ad hominem attacks on me for the sheer joy that it brings to you.

I am wondering if there was a girl at that super-dooper groovy famous high school John claims to have been an important part of that Abby somehow reminded him of.

When John was claiming PZ owed him a camera, I had a look at some photos John has in the bowels of the internet. They were crowd scenes at protests, and they *all looked the same*.

I am sure John will have an aspect here or there of why the photos, to him, had merit, but like his "M.I.P." phrase, it will be something only John could understand.

John's effect on these threads, as with those on PZ's blog, before John so dramatically shot himself in the foot there, has me thinking about Prions. To life on the Internet, John is like a Prion. A Prion is not alive in any sense and it's effect is to cause a change in normal matter such that more of the Prion exists. In that sense, no matter what a thread is about or where it is posted, John commenting there will see the thread become more and more about John and all his history and thoughts on different threads in the past and all his heros and famous teachers and people he met once who are now (unless you ask them) his best friend.

John - you are a unique non-life form bending the internet to reflect yourself more and more. It's sad.

visit

http://www.thirdeyeconcept.com/news/index.php?topic=9960.0

to see the termination of the James Randi Paranormal Challenge...

Man is not decended from apes, but he is definitely related to apes. Which makes him an ape.

If man is an ape, then our parents and grandparents were apes too, which does make man descended from apes. ;)

testing

This is a test.

qwe qweqwe

Who're you calling a qweqwe?

By definition, evangelical Christians suck the big one.

Test.

I hope I win!

NS

I'm not convinced that ABCLarry is Lary Farfman, unless there is more evidence than the name Larry and an evolution denial stance.

harold said: I'm not convinced that ABCLarry is Lary Farfman, unless there is more evidence than the name Larry and an evolution denial stance.

harold said: I'm not convinced that ABCLarry is Lary Farfman, unless there is more evidence than the name Larry and an evolution denial stance.

harold said: I'm not convinced that ABCLarry is Lary Farfman, unless there is more evidence than the name Larry and an evolution denial stance.

MPW said: This jurist has apparently been living under the same rock as Larry Fafarman.

Since this has a) gotten off the original topic, b) turned into a beat-down of [doesn't really matter which one], and c) been going on for over six weeks now, I’m going to shut-down comments. Run along and play in another thread :)

Hope you guys don't mind checking out my new version of Stupid Dinosaur Lies, a site that examines and debunks creationist claims on dinosaurs. I moved from WordPress to Blogger because I find WP a bit too challenging for me and have found Blogger a better platform for me to operate. Here you go.

http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.com/

Hope you guys don't mind checking out my new version of Stupid Dinosaur Lies, a site that examines and debunks creationist claims on dinosaurs. I moved from WordPress to Blogger because I find WP a bit too challenging for me and have found Blogger a better platform for me to operate. Here you go.

http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.com/

Sorry about the double post, guys. An MT error coughed up and I thought I try again. Sorry.

James Kocher's is the best because it looks like a painting, and not nature. Yet it is nature! This is doubly amazing.

NS

Well, Ben Stein might have been fired by the New York Times, but his pitch for FreeScore is emblazened on the web now. Likely he's making more money from FreeScore than the NYT. Interestingly, he's labeled as an "economist and financial expert!" Beware.......

I bet if you let that live for 500 years, it would grow up to be a dinosaur.

The attempt to rally against evolution may be a far sighted attempt to avoid the religion of evolution. That would be a dead-end. It is frightening to think that our own hand is somehow implicated in our future state. If we create a world that is favorable to justice, that this would through various means change the composition of our genes and sway the future. This changing human state brings up the specter of the evolutionary cul-de-sac. Collectively, we may be afraid to leave the crude methods of refinement, such as our current state of character, disease, hunger, sexual and other pressures we impose on our self. The idea that if we do not change we are somehow safe.

mahn, dis thinn has noinn too doo witt pndas!

I have spent the last 20 years since child hood having evolution as a philosophy and "science" being rammed down my throat as a fact not to be questioned, this from a number of educators and family members (does this not qualify as an attempted brainwashing?).
I have been alone among my peers in holding my position of disbeleif and have at no stage seen any reason to adopt evolution as a serious philosophy and am at a loss to see why evolutionists hold themselves as being "scientific" or "fact based" while denying the oposition.

Anyone who refers to evolution as a philosophy, and uses the word science in scare quotes is either a liar or is deluded. Having said that, people who, like Scott, are too arrogant and too lazy to bother to overcome their own ignorance (not disbelief).

And it's my opinion that what Scott is claiming about educators and family members allegedly trying to cram the fact of evolution down his throat is probably actually them futilely nagging him to do his homework.

Scott,

Why in the world would anyone care if you believe in evolution?

Did they tell you you would go to hell if you didn't believe it? Did they make you go to science classes every sunday morning? Did they make you read science textbooks every day? Did they make you memorize long passages from the textbooks? Did they make you learn and sing hymns about the science textbooks? Did they smack you with rulers if you did not learn the lessons?

By the way, do you have any reason whatsoever to doubt evolution other thatn to get back at the people who tried to teach it to you?

Scott said: I have spent the last 20 years since child hood having evolution as a philosophy and "science" being rammed down my throat as a fact not to be questioned, this from a number of educators and family members (does this not qualify as an attempted brainwashing?). I have been alone among my peers in holding my position of disbeleif and have at no stage seen any reason to adopt evolution as a serious philosophy and am at a loss to see why evolutionists hold themselves as being "scientific" or "fact based" while denying the oposition.

wile coyote said: All my life I have been harassed and belittled for my belief that the Moon is made of green cheese. I have seen nothing to convince me of any philosophy that claims it is anything else.

I am completely baffled as to why anyone would believe the evidence supports such baseless views while treating the green cheese community as a joke.

Such mockery. If it wasn't for my tinfoil-lined hat, I would be as deluded as the rest of you.

wile coyote said: Such mockery. If it wasn't for my tinfoil-lined hat, I would be as deluded as the rest of you.

Stanton said: Feh. I wear a colander.

wile coyote said:

Stanton said: Feh. I wear a colander.

But your head get wet when it rains!

Stanton said: My head doesn't get wet while I wear my colander because I'm smart enough to avoid taking it out into the rain in the first place, wiley.

I wonder if this discussion is losing its whey...

Henry J said: I wonder if this discussion is losing its whey...

That's probably when Swiss cheese first started to have holes in it...

Actually, the punishment for life is death. I believe mine own personal atheism will also, in the long run, be punished by said mortality.

pzdim said: THE PUNISHMENT FOR BLASPHEMY IS DEATH

HE PUNISHMENT FOR BLASPHEMY IS DEATH

Intriguing. Blasphemy for whom ? The god of the Christians, the Muslims, the Jews, or the myriad gods of the Hindus, Shamanists and pagans.

stevaroni said:

Intriguing. Blasphemy for whom ? The god of the Christians, the Muslims, the Jews, or the myriad gods of the Hindus, Shamanists and pagans.

Oddly, the Gods themselves never seem to get very excited about it. You virtually never see a lightning bolt take out a church, mosque, synagogue or shrine anymore* It's always their staffs that get all wound up about blasphemy. The actual Gods don't seem to notice. *(Ironically, in the age before the lightning rod it was common for lightning to destroy religious buildings, since such buildings were often the tallest structures in town. In Colonial era America many churches resisted the newfangled lighting rods, on the premise that lightning bolts were God's will. It vexed them to no end that God would often destroy good Protestant steeples yet leave the synagogues and mosques of the heathens untouched. Of course, since the heathens were always a minority, these denominations usually had smaller, squatter, buildings compared to the giant steeples of "mainstream" churches.)

pzdim said: http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=81587 we're pulling the plug on this bit of BLASPHEMY called ****PHARYNGULA**** THE PUNISHMENT FOR BLASPHEMY IS DEATH, you deluded fuckers

I'm not a fan of burning books, but does anyone have any ideas what we should do with this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN9zpf5cT0M

Maybe you can just rip out the front section.

Does anyone have the time and inclination to publish a "supplemental" or perhaps it might be better titled "Errata" which biology students can print and hand out at the same time and same location? I'm not even sure you would need an advance copy, I suspect there are several people here who could guess what good old Ray is going to say.

asdasdsdsadasd

I do not understand most of this or what is being done. I am just a long time high school friend and supporter of Matt Young ...

Maybe this is the place to get this going. If we can go to the moon & mars. If we can progress with electronics. Then why can we not move the weather? Just think, if you used all your brain power to move a rain cloud from a place where you do not need it- to a place where there is a drought, we would have plenty of food for everyone and no damage.

peter Rice said: Maybe this is the place to get this going. If we can go to the moon & mars. If we can progress with electronics. Then why can we not move the weather? Just think, if you used all your brain power to move a rain cloud from a place where you do not need it- to a place where there is a drought, we would have plenty of food for everyone and no damage.

Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！

No logon no approvals no moderator, this could be fun. Test Test 123

If yer allowed to see this terrifying reply -
I'm with Harold. I'm neutral. Having won 2ce, it may be time to move on as the Panda's Martyr. Since I don't understand how anyone can derail a thread (off-topic remarks are quite common in the adult world)...

The Bathroom Wall wd be an advantage, I can't be bothered to correct 7 attacks at a time. Now three....

Hasta la vista - or adios?

novparl,

Looks like everyone gets to read your terrifying comment after all. Hard to be a martyr when you'r sent to the kids table for bad manners isn't it? Don't worry, you can still ignore all of the references provided to you and you can still ask inane questions that everyone can ignore.

Here's a question for you. Why is a fly not a horse? Asti Spumonti, editor of his own propaganda, says it isn't because of genes. He claims this is a real problem for evolutionary theory. If you can explain why then may be I'll answer your brain question. Apparently you think that that is somehow a problem for evolutionary theory as well.

Thanks to PZ for the quick action.

It is indeed a problem. Try finding anything detailed in a textbook.

Your claim that the brain evolved at 7 mn connections a year means it's 14 million years old. That won't bother you.

I've never said I'm a martyr. Y'all did.

Why is a fly not a horse? Because it isn't.

Later that same hour ---

I see that only Stanton voted for excommunication. Wile Coyote (WC) voted for it initially, then switched his vote to the B-Wall.

novparl,

Well at least now everyone can see why your nonsense hass been banished to the bathroom wall.

First, I never said anything about a year. You just assumed that. I could have meant 7 million per second.

Second, assuming the brain is 14 miillion years old is no problem. Indeed, there is a great amount of evidence that it is considerably older than that. Now if you are talking human brains, then of course they are much younger that 14 million years. However, they did not pop into existence out of nothing, so once again there is no problem for evolutionary biology.

Third, neural connections are not preprogrammed by genetics. They arise and are reinforced during development. The ability to form connections is what evolved, not every individual hard wired connnection. That is why humans brains are so variable and why humans are capable of such plastic behavioral responses. Do try to come up with more intelligent irrelevant questions.

Fourth, you did indeed refer to yourself as a martyr. Let me know how that works out for you. I'll try to care, really I will.

Fifth, you need to tell Dr. Wells your answer to his question. I notice that you did not explain why this is a problem for evolutionary theory. Perhaps you could explain it to him.

Oct 17, 11:45am, Novparl said: (snip) Having won 2ce, it may be time to move on as the Panda's Martyr. (snip)

Oct 18, 11:41am, novparl said: (snip) I've never said I'm a martyr. Y'all did. (snip)

fnxtr said:

Oct 17, 11:45am, Novparl said: (snip) Having won 2ce, it may be time to move on as the Panda's Martyr. (snip)

Oct 18, 11:41am, novparl said: (snip) I've never said I'm a martyr. Y'all did. (snip)

Novparl,

You were exiled from all the grown up threads. What's your excuse for not responding here?

Here's another question for you. Wells claims that duplicating a gene doesn't add any information, so it can't be a mechanism for evolution. Do you agree? If you do, then it shouldn't take any more information to make two arms than one. Thus your nonsensical question about two arms evolving is exposed for the tripe that it is. If you do not agree, then you should tell Wells immediately. He really is embaressing himself with this kind of crap.

Come on man, don't be a martyr. It's very unbecoming.

I figure TM will end up here pretty soon anyway:

It's worth pointing out that the Piltdown hoax was exposed by members of the scientific community, not mind-wankers and bible-thumpers.

As Wile said, Toidel, you think the museums are full of frauds, go expose them. Fame and fortune await!

Oh, I forgot, you're all talk. Useless talk, at that. Bye, now. Loud-mouthed coward.

fnxtr said: It's worth pointing out that the Piltdown hoax was exposed by members of the scientific community ...

Well novparl seems to have run away again. Funny, how he was given a forum in which to defend his views and he still choose not to. I guess he had to make himself a martyr since no one else would. Obviously he was only interested in derailing threads and getting attention with his endless inane questions. When those things were taken away he suddenly went silent. Oh well, I'm sure he will try to hijack other threads in the future. Moderators should learn from the example set by PZ - let the trolls censor themselves. Now why are they so afraid that others will have a real scientific discussion?

It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.

DS - my dear Morlock. I'll let you into a secret. There are billions of pages on the web. I like to visit some of them.

I shd have pointed out that Panda's Martyr was ironic.

As for your inane questions, since you have no scientific curiosity, there's no pt in answering them. Why is the evolution of birds, men (sic), and computers of interest but not brain evolution? (Be abusive.)

Y'know, you Mercans are funny. You kill 100s of thousands in the Muddle East and yet you're so delicate you say Bathroom stedda toilet.

Will try and drop in later but am reading about the evolution of the jury. More interesting than all your ----.

DS - "I cd've meant 7 million per second". 2ce wrong.

1) I clearly said, and always have, "p.a.".

2) you shd've said so. Science is about exactness. Units must ALWAYS (siempre) be stated.

I await your attempts to obscure the issue.

Interesting development in Seattle. One of the two candidates for King County Executive is Susan Hutchison. Name might not mean much but it turns out she was a director of the Discovery Institute. This story has come out, but she claims ignorance of the practices of the members of the DI. In an article in the Seattle Times she won't discuss the DI, and all she'll say is that she supports "Academic Freedom." Ironically, she's been endorsed by the Seattle Times. They don't seem to want to probe her background very much. Likely she'll use her political power to appoint or recommend fellow creationists to public positions garnering glory for the DI and its cause.

DS (Dire Straits?) - where are ya? Donde esta?

17:20 1r brumaire

Novparl,

Exactly, you said pa, I didn't. Do try to keep up old boy.

I have answered your question about brain evolution. You don't like it, then answer this question: if there are three trillion connections in the human brain and they all arise during the first year or so of development, how are they coded for by the three billion bases in the DNA? (HINT: this is NOT a problem for "darwinism").

Do you have any other important questions I can help you with?

Step into the mind of a reality-denier:

"It wasn't evolution. It was something else. I don't know what. It just wasn't evolution. I know because... well, I just know, that's all."

Total Baloney said: Why should I do that. No one is there to hear me. I would be unable to remind you of the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit.

I never said Darwin invented buggery; Satan invented buggery as a tool men could use to summon demons.

By denying teleology, he denied a divinely ordained function for the anus, when intelligent design theory makes it obvious it was designed as an exit, not an entrance.

Novparl,

Still waiting for your response to my answer to your question (Oct. 18, 2:13 PM).

fnxtr said: So the cloaca of birds and reptiles was designed by Satan, then. Got it.

Kevin B said: Ah. So separation of the digestive and genito-urinary tracts evolved in the ancestors of mammals. Is the separation of the genital and urinary tracts a possible future outcome?

Are trolls monotremes, or do they void their digestive tracts by regurgitation?

Novparl,

Novparl (No par le vue?) - where are ya? Donde esta?

11:11 zippity do da

great abiogenesis article in new scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html?full=true

Dire Straits. The Morlock. & evo-final-solutionist. Sorry, having won, I left the field. There's no pt in asking you questions on science, as you always avoid them then claim you answered them (brilliant).

However, a non-science question. Why are Mercans too delicate to use "toilet", but wipe out thousands of poor Iraqis & Afghans?

Soy aqui. 17:30 Britime.

Sorry, having won, I left the field.

DS said: Novparl, Exactly, you said pa, I didn't. Do try to keep up old boy. I have answered your question about brain evolution. You don't like it, then answer this question: if there are three trillion connections in the human brain and they all arise during the first year or so of development, how are they coded for by the three billion bases in the DNA? (HINT: this is NOT a problem for "darwinism"). Do you have any other important questions I can help you with?

Yes, the ones you haven't answered (all of them). + why are you folks too shy to use the word "t##l#t"? You're quite happy to use foul language - sorry, scientific language.

Viva Darwin!

Wensday.

I like talking to random people.
Someone should text me.
I’m 16, and a chick.
(760) 809788Q

What distinguishes random people from people who aren't random?

The ones who text the chick named Fred, are, clearly, random, since that's who s/he wants to text hir.

Toilet.

Toilet, toilet, toilet.

Happy now?

Novparl,

I answered your idiotic question. I also included a detailed description of exactly why it was a meaningless pile of rubbish. Apparently you think that not reading the answer or responding in any meaningful way equals victory. If so, you once again failed to answer my question. You know, the one that shows how ridiculous your question was. So ha ha, I win!

Now you see why this guy got banished to the bathroom wall.

I was banished to the Toilet Wall for questions such as why the descent of man is important but not the evolution of the brain.

Banishing people is a sign of weakness.

Auf Wiedersehen danke.

11:30

Novparl said: I was banished to the Toilet Wall for questions such as why the descent of man is important but not the evolution of the brain. Banishing people is a sign of weakness. Auf Wiedersehen danke. 11:30

DS said: Now you see why this guy got banished to the bathroom wall.

stevaroni said:

Sorry, having won, I left the field.

Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin! Bravely ran away, away. Bravest of the brave - Brave Sir Robin!

novparl wrote:

"I was banished to the Toilet Wall for questions such as why the descent of man is important but not the evolution of the brain.

Banishing people is a sign of weakness."

!) The thread you were polluting had nothing to do with brain evolution and you refused to discuss the actual topic

2) Your questions were inane and irrelevant as I demonstrated, but you just kept asking anyway.

3) You were not banished, you can still ask stupid questions on the bathroom wall and anyone can still answer you if they so choose. What you can't do here is disrupt real science conversations with yur nonsense. This is only a punishment if that was your real intent in the first place.

The bathroom wall exists for pseudomartyrs like this. Good job PZ.

OK have been off arguing with the BBC web site about how harmful cannabis is. Will reply later.

Enjoy your purified P's Th.

novparl.

I'll be holding my breath.

I notice that since Panda's Thumb hasn't won any web awards since 2007, you thought you could fool your readers by putting up an "I'm Going To Evolution 2009" graphic in your trophy case. Lol!

Is this like one of those Pee Wee soccer tournaments where all the little tykes get a trophy so that their self-esteem doesn't suffer?

Chunkdz - careful, evolutionists are very sensitive.

To Matt Young et al. Last night BBC2 broadcast a Horizon prog on black holes, saying they cd hold the key to the ultimate question - what was there before the Big Bang? (It might turn up on the equally liberal PBS, the prog not the BB). So much for the claim that my same question is "meaningless". And that I've never asked a real question. Mr Young - what kind of a cosmologist are you that you're not interested in that question? (M. Young: splutter splutter).

So I win again. (Like the Yankees, I think - perhaps P's Th cd be renamed the Zoo.)

Wodensday 10:45.

chunkdz said: I notice that since Panda's Thumb hasn't won any web awards since 2007, you thought you could fool your readers by putting up an "I'm Going To Evolution 2009" graphic in your trophy case. Lol! Is this like one of those Pee Wee soccer tournaments where all the little tykes get a trophy so that their self-esteem doesn't suffer?

Novparl said: Chunkdz - careful, evolutionists are very sensitive. To Matt Young et al. Last night BBC2 broadcast a Horizon prog on black holes, saying they cd hold the key to the ultimate question - what was there before the Big Bang? (It might turn up on the equally liberal PBS, the prog not the BB). So much for the claim that my same question is "meaningless". And that I've never asked a real question. Mr Young - what kind of a cosmologist are you that you're not interested in that question? (M. Young: splutter splutter). So I win again. (Like the Yankees, I think - perhaps P's Th cd be renamed the Zoo.) Wodensday 10:45.

ben said: It's nice to see (chunkdz) peruse the site so carefully. I never noticed the awards section myself. Do you think your focus on this is part and parcel of IDers' fixation on argument from authority-type arguments in general, or are you just a big follower of web awards?

ben said: Could (Nonpareil) at least link to where Matt said the question was "meaningless", and where he said "splutter splutter", so we could put your claims in context?

Ben: It’s nice to see you peruse the site so carefully. I never noticed the awards section myself.

Stanton: He’s apparently trying his schtick of posting inane insults and profanity here again in order to curry more attention and favor with Bill Dembski again. But his plan got nipped in the bud, boohoo.

chunkdz said:

Ben: It’s nice to see you peruse the site so carefully. I never noticed the awards section myself.

It's on the front page, dumbass.

Maybe we should try that with other trolls:

"Yes, yes, you're right, you win. Will you please go away now?"

chunkdz said:

Stanton: He’s apparently trying his schtick of posting inane insults and profanity here again in order to curry more attention and favor with Bill Dembski again. But his plan got nipped in the bud, boohoo.

Hello, moron. Actually I couldn't care less who knows you're an idiot - as long as YOU know it. Apparently Panda's Thumb wants to broadcast how lame they are by proudly displaying their "Participant" ribbon in their trophy case. Won't the grandparents be proud! LOL!

Ben: I’m here for the posts and the comments. I never bothered to look at the awards, maybe because they look a lot like banner ads.

I don’t look to whether a site has won awards to decide whether it’s any good anyway. Do you base your movie watching decisions on awards won? I don’t. Plenty of great movies don’t win awards. By contrast, I think Titanic was the worst movie ever made, and it won a boatload. Maybe you’re just more of a follower than I am.

Oh well. I’ll stipulate that you’ve proved your case, whatever it might be, if it makes you feel better. Have a nice day, troll. Go back to your violent fantasies, or whatever sickness gets you through the day.

self-styled “science defenders” of the University of Ediacara

this site is just a lame-ass converted basement where Culture Warriors come and bash their aluminum-foil swords against their papier-mache shields and talking about how much they are going to kick those creationists asses some day

Compared to your contribution of…what? Your worst crime so far is being boring.

I just did a library search at one of our local elementary schools...I searched "evolution" and "Charles Darwin" and found not one book! How do we go about approaching local school libraries? Are there good elementary level books to recommend? I'm in Boone County, Kentucky

This is my first time here, but the on-going "discussion" between Ben and Chunkdz is a bit disturbing for a blog that should be dedicated to intelligent discussion of an important issue. Wouldn't just ignoring Chunkdz rants be easier and save space for productive comments?

yep.

uh, isn't this the bathroom wall?

J. Brandt: This is my first time here, but the on-going “discussion” between Ben and Chunkdz is a bit disturbing for a blog that should be dedicated to intelligent discussion of an important issue.

So, if I'm the moron, chunkdz, then how come you're the one who got consigned to the Bathroom Wall for trying to derail that thread? If you're out to expose Panda's Thumb as a circus of fakes, how come you've done nothing but type inane insults? How come you are so reluctant to talk science? If Intelligent Design is supposed to be such a great and miraculous science, and Evolutionary Biology is supposed to be such a big conspiracy of fraud, how come you can't cough up evidence to support your great and holy crusade?

And knowing chunkdz, I predict he will respond by insulting me, insulting my intelligence, and accusing me of being childish, all while flaunting his meager and boring vocabulary of profanity and pronounced lack of etiquette skills. Then he will wail, rant and gnash his teeth over how mean everyone is by pointing out his sole purpose here is to troll, and not discuss anything. Then he'll repeat the process again by insulting the administrators and other commentors, accusing them of being childish while bemoaning how we're apparently all evil anti-religionists.

See J. Brandt? I personally don't consider ID to be science, and I am a fan of evolutionary biology. Yet because Stanton is a culture warrior moron he believes that anyone who says something bad about Panda's Thumb must be some kind of anti-science Holy Crusader.

As we speak Stanton is making a tilting lance out of masking tape and newspaper with which to challenge me, the accursed infidel, to a duel.

Afterward, Richard B. Hoppe will bring juice and ginger snaps as you all watch Conan The Barbarian on his big screen TV!

Awesome!

chunkdz said: See J. Brandt? I personally don't consider ID to be science, and I am a fan of evolutionary biology.

Yet because Stanton is a culture warrior moron he believes that anyone who says something bad about Panda's Thumb must be some kind of anti-science Holy Crusader.

As we speak Stanton is making a tilting lance out of masking tape and newspaper with which to challenge me, the accursed infidel, to a duel.

Afterward, Richard B. Hoppe will bring juice and ginger snaps as you all watch Conan The Barbarian on his big screen TV! Awesome!

Nothing you’ve ever posted here even suggests that you’ve ever entertained the idea of reading a high school biology textbook. I bet that you can’t tell the difference between a species flock and a species complex, let alone describe what either are.

Why am I a “culture warrior moron” for pointing out that you’re a troll? Why do you continue evading my question about why I’m a moron when you’re the one who refuses to engage anyone in intelligent conversation? Heck, how come you refuse to point out when anyone here said “death to religion: long live science” like you’ve childishly accused?

As we speak, I’m actually finishing the laundry and preparing to post 2 dozen or so sketches of reconstructions of galeaspid agnathan fish I drew yesterday and Monday.

Perhaps people would be more inclined to take you seriously if you refrained from childish insults and projection, and showed a genuine interest in discussion, or at least if you would consider indulging in your alleged interest of Evolutionary Biology.

chunkdz said: (snip) Without even changing pages you will find Panda's Thumb authors calling their enemies "truly dumb", "egregiously stupid", "liars", "malicious", "deceptive" etc., etc. and various other culture warrior battle cries.

1. It contains one of these “culture warrior battle cries”.

2. The abusive term is written by the author of the post and not one of the commenters

3. That the term was wrong. By wrong I don’t mean rude or mean. I mean that a reasonable person could not be convinced that the term was very likely an accurate and appropriate description. In situations where a grown and educated adult (who are always the targets of these terms),in situations where there is a reasonable expectation that he knows what he is talking about, says something egregiously stupid, the term “egregiously stupid” is acceptable.

chunkdz said:

Nothing you’ve ever posted here even suggests that you’ve ever entertained the idea of reading a high school biology textbook. I bet that you can’t tell the difference between a species flock and a species complex, let alone describe what either are.

I brought you science once. You chose to ignore it and instead went and bought more tin foil to make a bigger sword.

As we speak, I’m actually finishing the laundry and preparing to post 2 dozen or so sketches of reconstructions of galeaspid agnathan fish I drew yesterday and Monday.

Hey, you could put it on the Stanton Coat of Arms that you just made out of Mighty Putty and gold spray paint.

If you really want intelligent discussion and if you really do have an interest in Evolutionary Biology, then how come you responded to my offer to discuss galeaspid fish by insulting me?

Stanton: If you really want intelligent discussion and if you really do have an interest in Evolutionary Biology, then how come you responded to my offer to discuss galeaspid fish by insulting me?

chunkdz said:"I personally don’t consider ID to be science, and I am a fan of evolutionary biology."

Then he says:"OF course, dumbass. For culture warriors it’s ok to yell IDiot!! because, after all - THEY ARE IDIOTS!!! "

chunkdz said:

Stanton: If you really want intelligent discussion and if you really do have an interest in Evolutionary Biology, then how come you responded to my offer to discuss galeaspid fish by insulting me?

I was just going by Tresmal's Panda's Thumb Criteria. After all, it's ok to call you a culture warrior moron - if it's true! Right? Moron.

tresmal said: About this culture warrior thing, do you really believe that evolution vs. ID/Creationism is somehow connected to the whole gay rights, feminism, abortion tangle of issues? Seriously? Do you even refuse to consider the possibility that it might be about scientists and pro-science people defending science from an attempt to get government back in the business of religious instruction?

Stanton said: So in other words, chunkdz wants everyone at Panda's Thumb to say absolutely nothing because he's afraid we'll potentially offend hypersensitive theists like Bill Donohue?

OK if you want to make the point that IDiot is a lame play on words, I won’t argue. But that doesn’t mean that the use of the word idiot is wrong...

About this culture warrior thing, do you really believe that evolution vs. ID/Creationism is somehow connected to the whole gay rights, feminism, abortion tangle of issues? Seriously? Do you even refuse to consider the possibility that it might be about scientists and pro-science people defending science from an attempt to get government back in the business of religious instruction?

chunkdz said: ERADICATE RELIGION! DESECRATE THEIR COMMUNION WAFERS! INTERFERE WITH THEIR INTERNET POLLS!

BWAAHAHAHA this dumbass is back.

Chuck why don't you go write some more one handed reads about your fantasy of Wes and Richard Dawkins and Nick Matzke in a big sweaty hairy man pile? Because your previous efforts were soooooo stimulating.

This jackass comes on here to run his goober smoocher about a culture war when he works for the culture war industry. Why don't you go play some more lame praise music and forget about PT for a while, Chucky? Whassa matter, TT not so fun any more now that Joe is out of the closet?

chunkdz said:

OK if you want to make the point that IDiot is a lame play on words, I won’t argue. But that doesn’t mean that the use of the word idiot is wrong...

Spoken like a man wearing a papier mache medieval helmet and carrying a wooden sword next to his thermos filled with herbal tea.

Stanton said:

chunkdz said: ERADICATE RELIGION! DESECRATE THEIR COMMUNION WAFERS! INTERFERE WITH THEIR INTERNET POLLS!

If you really, truly despise Professor Myers that much for desecrating a communion wafer over a year ago, why don't you take up the matter at his blog?

tresmal: Brilliant riposte! Now care to deal with the bit that comes after the ellipsis?

Yawn.

Anyway, cool drawings there, Stanton.

What a devian tart? Are they as good as butter tarts? :-)

fnxtr said: Yawn. Anyway, cool drawings there, Stanton. What a devian tart? Are they as good as butter tarts? :-)

Ben: I would say he’s the only (self-imagined) culture warrior here, and a truly impotent one at that.

J. Brandt said: I just did a library search at one of our local elementary schools...I searched "evolution" and "Charles Darwin" and found not one book! How do we go about approaching local school libraries? Are there good elementary level books to recommend? I'm in Boone County, Kentucky

You weren't exactly falling all over yourself to help him either, Chunkster.

chuck will fall all over himself to imagine him naked and type some really crummy story about it and then deny that he is in the closet. that's abooooout it.

there is absolutely no legitimate reason why someone just visiting this site would post on the BW first.

fnxtr: You weren’t exactly falling all over yourself to help him either, Chunkster.

Does anyone know where Chunkdz's culture warrior obsession comes from? That is seriously weird. I'm sure he'll answer in his own charming way, but he's so far along the way to being the new Dave Mabus that it's unlikely to be coherent let alone informative.

tresmal it's because he works for Faux News.

It doesn't hurt that he plays really shitty bass in a really crummy gospel band.

As one who played really shitty bass in a really crummy SF band ("Slippery Jim and the Ratettes", get our album, oh, sorry, you can't on account of our lead guitarist dropped the box they were in) I resemble that remark.

tresmal: Does anyone know where Chunkdz’s culture warrior obsession comes from?

Chunkdz said: "I am on the side of critical thinking."

I notice that since Panda’s Thumb hasn’t won any web awards since 2007, you thought you could fool your readers by putting up an “I’m Going To Evolution 2009” graphic in your trophy case. Lol! Is this like one of those Pee Wee soccer tournaments where all the little tykes get a trophy so that their self-esteem doesn’t suffer?

No argument from me, tresmall. It’s ok to call ID’ers idiots because, well, THEY ARE IDIOTS! That’s why I feel perfectly justified in calling you a pea-brained dumbass mouth-breathing culture-warrior moron! Now hurry up and put on your cardboard shin pads! We are going to egg Paul Nelson’s house, then back to Jason Rosenhouse’s place to watch The Scorpion King! (Jason made honey baked cocktail weenies! Yay!)

Hi J. Brandt. I know Panda’s Thumb should be dedicated to intelligent discussion. But a quick glance around at recent posts should reveal the site for what it really is. Without even changing pages you will find Panda’s Thumb authors calling their enemies “truly dumb”, “egregiously stupid”, “liars”, “malicious”, “deceptive” etc., etc. and various other culture warrior battle cries. If this sounds like something you’d like to be a part of then this is the place for you. Go get yourself an old football helmet, paint it silver and stick an old feather duster in the top as plumage cuz THE CULTURE WAR NEEDS YOU!! You will have to bring your own duct-tape but Richard B. Hoppe will be conducting a seminar on how to assemble a shield out of discarded cereal boxes. DEATH TO RELIGION! LONG LIVE SCIENCE!! (We’ll also be having coffee and fruit cup after the seminar.)

Tresmal, you continue to ignore the painful fact that you ignored the defense of science simply to attack a perceived enemy. Proof positive that science takes a back seat to your culture war.

Now put your paper-clip chain-mail on and go bake PZ some brownies. He likes them with the chocolate chips on top.

chunkdz said: Tresmal, you continue to ignore the painful fact that you ignored the defense of science simply to attack a perceived enemy. Proof positive that science takes a back seat to your culture war. Now put your paper-clip chain-mail on and go bake PZ some brownies. He likes them with the chocolate chips on top.

Chunkdz - awesome fluency, but perhaps a little heavy on the food references? Have you got a blog?

Don't waste time on Stanton, he's pro-censorship.

Will give references later to where my Big Bang/Fragor Maximus question was rubbished.

Friday 10:50 viernes

Will give references later to where my Big Bang/Fragor Maximus question was rubbished

Novparl and chunkydz,

You guys make a great pair. Chunky accuses people of not defending science, (as if he ever has), and novice applauds him while denigrating science himself. What a dynamic duo.

I'm still waiting for your response to my answer to your question novparl. My post was made weeks ago (Oct 18, 2:13 PM). In it I documented why your supposed question was ridiculous and irrelevant ansd displayed a complete lack of understanding of any of the scientific issues. Do you admit you were sadly mistaken or not?

Now chunky, why don't you castigate novparl for not responding to the science? Why don't you hold him to the same standard that you supposedly hold for everyone else? Why don't you point out his lack of critical thinking skills and his contrary and disruptive nature? We're waiting.

It's easy for everyone to see why these two have been segregated from decent society. Oh well, the bathroom wall seems like the prefect place for such nonsense. Puts the lie to claims of censorship as well.

Tresmal: OK, I don’t respond to a request for information that was posted 4 hours before I showed up. *I normally ignore hours old requests for information thinking that the requester is long gone by then. Perhaps I’m wrong.

Well, thanks for stopping by to piss on the floor, chunky.

How very constructive of you.

Are you a complete asshole in real life too, or just online?

Maybe it's just me, but I'm sensing some anger here.

Dave Luckett said: As one who played really shitty bass in a really crummy SF band ("Slippery Jim and the Ratettes", get our album, oh, sorry, you can't on account of our lead guitarist dropped the box they were in) I resemble that remark.

tresmal said: Maybe it's just me, but I'm sensing some anger here.

Now chunky, why don’t you castigate novparl for not responding to the science?

Well clearly you're to holy and perfect to be seen here, chunk. You are free to take your bitterness and resentment elsewhere. It's just a website, why is it so important to you? Just leave.

too

If by "culture war" you mean defending real science from religious fuckwits who want to send our kids back to the 1400's, or put new-age flakery in place of critical thinking, remember we didn't start this dustup.

Who's side are you on, chunky? You pretend you're all about critical thinking but that's a crock and you know it. Are you a failed science geek, by any chance? You seem to have it in for those who actually know what they're talking about.

Still no advice for the guest who is starving for scientific knowledge.

And yet the battle rages on...

chunkdz said: Still no advice for the guest who is starving for scientific knowledge.

chunkdz said: Still no advice for the guest who is starving for scientific knowledge.

Read books? Surely you jest!

chunkdz said: Still no advice for the guest who is starving for scientific knowledge.

chunkdz said: Imagine you are J. Brandt. Your child needs educational resources. You visit the University of Ediacara Website because you have heard that they are a valuable resource for evolution education, endorsed by Scientific American and the NCSE. You click on the WALL button...

Still no advice for the guest who is starving for scientific knowledge.

Raging Bee said: Read some books?

November 5, 2009 5:59 PM fnxtr said:

J. Brandt said: I just did a library search at one of our local elementary schools..(snip) I'm in Boone County, Kentucky

Mostly just scrappers and trolls frequent The Bathroom Wall, J., try one of the main posts, you might get an answer there.

chunkdz | November 6, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Edit Still no advice for the guest who is starving for scientific knowledge. And yet the battle rages on…

Does anyone here believe that if J. Brandt had been promptly responded to and helped out, that that the nature and tenor of Chunkdz's subsequent comments would have been at all different?

chunkdz,

If you don't know what we are talkiing about why did you respond? For your information, novparl asked a stupid question implying that evolutionary theory had no answer in a feeble attempt to derail a thread. When I responded and showed that his question was meaningless, he never bothered to address the relevant issues. He did however continiue to hurl insults all over the bathroom wall, something you apparently approve of. Now either you condone his behavior or you don't. If you do, then you are the only hypocrite here. If you don't, then you should not single out anyone else who for ridicule.

Now are you going to offer any help to the guy who wants some children's books? If not, then you can't really complain if someone else doesn't do it now can you? Shame on you.

Mostly just scrappers and trolls frequent The Bathroom Wall, J., try one of the main posts, you might get an answer there.

DS: If you don’t know what we are talkiing about why did you respond? For your information, novparl asked a stupid question implying that evolutionary theory had no answer in a feeble attempt to derail a thread. When I responded and showed that his question was meaningless, he never bothered to address the relevant issues. He did however continiue to hurl insults all over the bathroom wall, something you apparently approve of. Now either you condone his behavior or you don’t. If you do, then you are the only hypocrite here. If you don’t, then you should not single out anyone else who for ridicule.

Now are you going to offer any help to the guy who wants some children’s books? If not, then you can’t really complain if someone else doesn’t do it now can you? Shame on you.

1. Go to U.C.’s understanding evolution web page. 2. Buy Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish. And read it. There, that’s two suggestions, now stop complaining we never offer any.

chunkdz,

When you display some behavior other than that which you object to, then you will have the right to criticize. You berate others for doing what novparl has elevated to a high art, then you imply that your ignorance of what he does is your excuse. Then you object because no one provides an answer to a question when you did't either. Well how do you know who read the post asking for help and who didn't? If ignorance is your only defense, why can't anyone else use that as an excuse as well?

If you don't like the answers provided, then why did you claim they were never given? If you don't like the answers given, why don't you suggest some yourself? If not, why don't you quit complaining about others?

When have you ever defended science? Why haven't you? Why do you care if anyone else does or not? Why should anyone else care if you do or not? The only reason why people attack trolls is because they refuse to address the science. That's why we are discussing this on the bathroom wall, remember?

J. Brandt,

If you are still out there, here is a web site that describes several book on evolution for school age children. I cannot recommend them personally, but there are reviews included on the site. All are under 13 dollars and should be appropriate for a school library.

http://www.amazon.com/Tree-Life-Wonders-Evolution/dp/0879758198

Some of the titles include:

The Tree of Life

Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution

Our Family Tree: An Evolution Story

Darwin and Evolution for Kids

From Lava to Life

DS said: J. Brandt, If you are still out there, here is a web site that describes several book on evolution for school age children. I cannot recommend them personally, but there are reviews included on the site. All are under 13 dollars and should be appropriate for a school library. http://www.amazon.com/Tree-Life-Wonders-Evolution/dp/0879758198 Some of the titles include: The Tree of Life Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution Our Family Tree: An Evolution Story Darwin and Evolution for Kids From Lava to Life

When you display some behavior other than that which you object to, then you will have the right to criticize. You berate others for doing what novparl has elevated to a high art, then you imply that your ignorance of what he does is your excuse. Then you object because no one provides an answer to a question when you did’t either. Well how do you know who read the post asking for help and who didn’t? If ignorance is your only defense, why can’t anyone else use that as an excuse as well? If you don’t like the answers provided, then why did you claim they were never given? If you don’t like the answers given, why don’t you suggest some yourself? If not, why don’t you quit complaining about others? When have you ever defended science? Why haven’t you? Why do you care if anyone else does or not? Why should anyone else care if you do or not? The only reason why people attack trolls is because they refuse to address the science. That’s why we are discussing this on the bathroom wall, remember?

J. Brandt, If you are still out there, here is a web site that describes several book on evolution for school age children. I cannot recommend them personally, but there are reviews included on the site. All are under 13 dollars and should be appropriate for a school library. http://www.amazon.com/Tree-Life-Won[…]p/0879758198 Some of the titles include: The Tree of Life Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution Our Family Tree: An Evolution Story Darwin and Evolution for Kids From Lava to Life

chunkdz,

I do get it. You don't do anything. All you do is criticize others. You are completely worthless. You have never defended science and yet you criticize others for not doing so. You have never discussed science and yet you criticize otheres for not doing so.

If you don't like these books, what books would you recommend? Why have you not done so? Have you read the books? If not, why do you criticize them? Is there any possible thing that anyone could do that you would not criticize? Who cares? We know what your true motivation is and it ain't pretty.

If anyone is really interested in the Lave to Life book, this web page has a review by a scientist:

www.amazon.com/Lava-Life-Universe-Sharing-Children/dp/1584690429/ref=pd_sim_b_5

The review claims that there are no scientific inaccuracies and that every child should read this book. I have not read the book, so I will not comment further. Perhaps others should follow this example. J. Brandt is of course freee to use his own judgement.

chunkdz said: You still don't get it. I don't play for either team.

I wasn't attacked because I am anti-science. I was attacked because I am anti - Panda's Thumb.

We can all see what your true motivation is - and it ain't science.

He's here because he is trolling for man meat to add to his list of one hand reads. He's fantasized about what it would be like to have a homosexual relationship with Wes Elsberry, Richard Dawkins, Nick Matzke among others. When we had many laughs about this at AtBC chuckles showed up to find some new boyfriends try to say that it wasn't that gay, it was just "fun".

If you are into laughing at chuck for a while you can start ttp://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=5205;p=142543>here and follow the links. the best parts are when he shows up and says "there is nothing homoerotic about what I wrote" lololololol

yeah right chuck and you are here because you don't play for either team.

bwahahahahaha what an idiot

screw these damn tags

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=5205;p=142543

DS - as I've told you before, I don't answer your silly questions because you don't answer mine except by claiming you've answered them.

Fragor Maximus : I've located the passage. "Some polling data on evolution" July 1, pp 4-5. I didn't quote Matt Yg, I attacked him for not having an opinion. I still do. "Splutter splutter" was a pre-dic-tion.

Were the play-offs & the WS the most predictable ever?

I suggest Chunx uses culture warrior a lot because it's such an enjoyable phrase.

Tuesday 10:15. - If the US killed lots of civilians in Eye-rack, will the survivors be the fittest?

Novparl wrote:

"DS - as I’ve told you before, I don’t answer your silly questions because you don’t answer mine except by claiming you’ve answered them."

And there you have it folks, novparl once again refuses to actually discuss the real science. I answered his inane questions over a month ago. Not only have he never responded, but now he refuses to even acknowledge that I answered the questions! Man chunky is really going to be disappointed in him. You know how he hates it when people refuse to discuss the science.

From now on novice can answer his own stupid questions. Who cares if he tries to derail the bathroom wall?

chunkdz would be disappointed if it weren't for the fact that he was lying through his teeth about ever wanting to have discussed science. And it seems that he's given up on his plot to destroy Panda's Thumb from inside the Bathroom Wall.

Anyhow, nonpareil once again offers his best, that he's a willfully stupid troll, and his worst, that he's a monstrously insensitive bigot.

Stanton said: chunkdz would be disappointed if it weren't for the fact that he was lying through his teeth about ever wanting to have discussed science. And it seems that he's given up on his plot to destroy Panda's Thumb from inside the Bathroom Wall.

if scientists are on the same trend of thought as you guys are, the world will evolve to "perfection" and bliss ...

go with your gibberish to some other planet...

i am leaving...

but before, if evolution taught you and me a "language", i would be a moron...

only that you are the moron's...

the same as you are so particular about grammar, evolution should be so particular about it's created beings...otherwise they would not be...

you are all pathetic...

evolution is worse than a 6 day creation...

and that means, illogical, brainless,
the worst science ever humans have ever accepted in ACADEMIA...

moron's is clear:

double meaning...of the morons, and morons...

how do you like that...?

evolution is taught in universities around the world, because it must be a global conspiracy, or they like showing publicly, and for that matter, legally, how stupid they are...

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Pure-Logic-Studies-Analysis/dp/1434395367

To paraphrase Oolon Coluphid: Well, that about wraps it up for george.

Loon.

How can a Toilet Wall comment be moved to the Toilet Wall?

I win again. No one's got any answer to my question about survival of the fittest under US bombardment in Iraq/Afg.

That's because they don't believe in evolution.

Oh ye of little faith.

Woden's day 10:35.

novparl,

When no one responds to your idiotic questions, you lose! There is no possibility of you ever discussing any real science, therefore it is obvious that all you want is attention. If no one gives it to you you lose, period. You can't disrupt a conversation on the bathroom wall, so why do you bother? If there were a toilet, your comments would be taken off the wall and thrown in the toilet.

Now answer this, how many bones are there in vanilla ice cream? If you can't answer, I win. Oh ye of misplaced faith.

i am leaving

How can a Toilet Wall comment be moved to the Toilet Wall?

Novparl said: How can a Toilet Wall comment be moved to the Toilet Wall? I win again. No one's got any answer to my question about survival of the fittest under US bombardment in Iraq/Afg. That's because they don't believe in evolution. Oh ye of little faith. Woden's day 10:35.

If the US killed lots of civilians in Eye-rack, will the survivors be the fittest?

Actually I do understand that part of the theory. Many evolutionists don't. They think ice ages propel evolution. Actually they just kill off loadsa animals, thus reducing the chance of evolution. Unless you think some Power helps a small population to evolve faster than a larger one? (It's called guided evolution and it's even more pointless than Darwinism.)

As told to Slarty Bartfast.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Ice ages kill off loadsa animals, and therefore they reduce the chance of evolution. It makes perfect sense, if you shut your mind down entirely.

That one's right up there with the Bishop of York, who once asked how it was possible that polar bears had evolved white fur to hide in the snow, when they had no predators.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.

I rather suspect that most "evolutionists" think that any change of environment is apt to cause some traits to become more beneficial than they were, and other traits to become less so. The result, if the species survives the shift, is a change in the average phenotype for the species.

Henry

Novparl,

So, I guess you answered your own question then. If loadsa people are killed in Irack, then there will be less people for evolution to occur in, thus reducing the chance of evolution, at least for people in Erack. In any event, the survivors will definately be more fit that the nonsurvivors. See, that wasn't so hard now was it? I guess the whole US strategy is to reduce evolution in competing nations. You should be in charge of foreign policy.

If you disagree with my answer, then perhaps you could tell me why it is not correct, without contradicting your own statements that is.

Once again you have completely ignored all of my answers and all of my questions. Once again you have completely failed to discuss any real science. Oh well, at least you have demonstrated a level of understanding of modern evolutionary theory so fundamaentally flawed that no one will ever take you seriously again, about anything. But then again, I guess it would be hard for anyone to take you seriously after you were banished to the bw.

Dave,

I would love to hear the answer that novparl would give to that one, seein as how he has such a tremengous grasp of evolutionary theory and all.

DS said: ...Oh well, at least you have demonstrated a level of understanding of modern evolutionary theory so fundamaentally flawed that no one will ever take you seriously again, about anything...

You did. You screamed for me to be banned.

Re US in the Muddle East. The US hasn't killed enough people for evo to take place. Try harder.

Monday 17:50

Novparl,

Great jumpin grasshoppers, you can't even get the simplest things right. I did NOT demand that you be banned. I requested that your nonsense be placed on the bathroom whgere it belongs. That is probablu the onl reason why you are even allowed aruoud decent people al all.

Now you contradict yourself again. You first claimed that evolution would happen faster in larger populations. Now you claim that not evnough people have been killed for evolution to take place. Do you think that killing people increases the population size? Man what a twit.

For anyone who is really interested, evolution generally proceeds much more rapidly in small populations. That has been an important factor in human evolution. Of course, no one would ever figure that out reading novpari and his crap.

Everyone should notice that in novparl's sick twisted mind, "screaming for me to be banned" equals "taking me seriously. Nuff said.

DS - Re: banning. I was talking to Stanton. You can't get even the simplest things right. (To use your phrase).

I'm off to ask Matt Young about the Big Bang he isn't interested in. Shd be here on the B-Wall quite soon.

Darwin úber alles! - Montag.

Mr Young (for transmission to the B-wall) - have you managed to summon any curiosity about what there was before the Big Bang? Or don't you understand the question?

Monday 09:55

have you managed to summon any curiosity about what there was before the Big Bang? Or don’t you understand the question?

The Big Bang marks the beginning of time and space. There was no time 'before' the Big Bang. Therefore there was no 'before' the Big Bang.

The math and physics of this is well beyond me, but I am willing to accept the united opinion of the world's scientists. The way it was explained to me is that asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what's to the north of the north pole.

"The united opinion of the world's scientists". So why did BBC-tv recently describe the question Mr Young has no interest in as the "ultimate question"?

There's no harm in speculation. Or?

Heil Darling Darwin.

Because the BBC tv reporter wanted to create a headline? Or is that too wild a speculation for you?

novparl said: "The united opinion of the world's scientists". So why did BBC-tv recently describe the question Mr Young has no interest in as the "ultimate question"? There's no harm in speculation. Or? Heil Darling Darwin.

Certainly. I was using the example of what preceded the big bang as an example of the lack of scientific curiosity of evofascists, esp. "Prof" Matt Jung. Typically, they have failed to understand this simple argument.

Dave Luckett - your usual carelessness - it's not one BBC reporter, it's the WHOLE BBC's SCIENCE DEPT. (a vast bureacuracy)!! So now the BBC's part of the Kreo-Konspiracy!!!!

Freitag. Darwin ist unserer Fuehrer.

Novparl said: Certainly. I was using the example of what preceded the big bang as an example of the lack of scientific curiosity of evofascists, esp. "Prof" Matt Jung. Typically, they have failed to understand this simple argument.

Novparl said: Certainly. I was using the example of what preceded the big bang as an example of the lack of scientific curiosity of evofascists, esp. "Prof" Matt Jung. Typically, they have failed to understand this simple argument.

Nov, if you think it takes the entire science department to compose a headline, it only shows that you've never worked in the media. But then, when did you ever babble about anything you know anything about?

Kicking in the heads of atheists one at a time...

http://nostradamus-america.atspace.com/

PZ, I thought the Morris Police Department was going to save you from the wrath of God...

drmabus2006 said: Kicking in the heads of atheists one at a time... http://nostradamus-america.atspace.com/ PZ, I thought the Morris Police Department was going to save you from the wrath of God...

Evolution, by means of natural selection, is the correct way to go. For the reasons following, it is impossible to think that a "deity" if you want to call it that, created the Universe and all life. When you look at creationism through a scientific viewpoint, you see the main example of creation's failure, in the form of Mary's birth of Jesus Christ. Mary, who was a "virgin" "gave birth" to Jesus Christ, now heres the clincher, if Mary's a virgin then how was Jesus born? The only plausible way is to say that God had sex with her, now remember that Mary is married to Joseph, this would be adultery, and Jesus would be a bastard child, born out of the sanctity of marriage. Now creationists say that God was not a man, but a life force, or a "ball of energy." So according to creationists, the ball of energy had sex with Mary. Utter rubbish. There is a famous quote from a University professor at Florida Atlantic University, which states, "If you believe in God, you believe in anything." This statement has to be true, I myself am an Atheist, and when I told my dad (also an atheist) that I believe that UFO's existed, and that Bigfoot was real, the he said you might as well believe in God, because its the same thing. In closing (still respecting everyone's beliefs) I believe that Religion is a Propaganda Association which has intentions to make people believe in a lie (creationism) and prevent them from seeing the truth (evolution).

Thanks you Everyone who has listened to my Ranting and Raving.

G-

Ben - dear me, we are angry! I'm terrified.

So y'all really do believe the BBC Science Dept. is part of the Kreo-Konspiracy.

(Doom-laden music).

Thor's day. Darwin der Erloeser.

http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/index.php?/topic/25104-atheist-apocalypse/page__pid__117856__st__0&

BYE

http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/index.php?/topic/25104-atheist-apocalypse/page__pid__117856__st__0&

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/797-james-randi-educational-foundation-names-new-president.html

http://www.randi.org/images/gallery/RANDI3.jpg

http://www.randi.org/jr/photos.html

happier days for Randi...

choose your enemies correctly...

http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/index.php?/topic/25104-atheist-apocalypse/page__pid__117856__st_

Sing from the rooftops: “Atheism is dead!”

What about spontaneous generation? I thought that was all cleared up by at least the 18th century. It was never dependent on time originally. This has obviously changed.

I'll take Richard B. Hoppe seriously when he condemns eco-terrorists and animal rights extremists in the same paragraph with religious extremists.

Until then, Richard, you're just another boring dime-a-dozen bigot.

Richard B. Hoppe.

Bigot.

Bigot.

Biiiiggooooootttttttttt.

Anti-religious Bigot.

Richard B. Hoppe

The B. stands for...

Bigot.

to start off.
There is always good science where good and true and real results are accomplished.
However it is not in the same old areas.
It is not even close to accurate conclusions in origin issues.
Evolution is still around and creationism is not yet the dominate framework for origin issues in questions.

Indeed the global warning stuff is not true and will be found out as years go by. I predict it will be the topin of endless articles etc of WHY did "science" get it wrong. it may be a gain for creationism when confidence is shaken. Odd if so that a issue creationists have no interest in.

The Obama decision to do stem cell stuff is the use of research in areas of moral disagreement and shows that the whole issue of the humanity or not of the fetus should be more embraced by biologists in explaining that indeed the fetus is just a baby human a little earlier then when first in the hand.

One of the problems with your schpiel, Robert Byers, is that Creationism never was a science to begin with, and never will be.

Robert Byers said: to start off. There is always good science where good and true and real results are accomplished. However it is not in the same old areas. It is not even close to accurate conclusions in origin issues. Evolution is still around and creationism is not yet the dominate framework for origin issues in questions.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Only a fool or a wicked person is a YEC.

Frankly, I think Byers could give them all a run for the money. I know he's not in a position of influence (thankfully), but stupid is stupid and he has made so examples to choose from. Just my observation and opinion. :)

Just as well to have terminated the thread on Darwin and Hitler which you described -- I think aptly -- as headed for the swamp. Too much screaming by Asperger's suspects...but people were starting to actually see the reality. Fact of the matter is: Reinhard Heydrich really did cite "natural selection" as the reason (or excuse) for the Holocaust and Hannah Arendt, a Holocaust fugitive, really did cite Darwin as an important inspiration for Hitler and genocide. Your readers looked these up. Now they know too. These are facts -- screaming them down with scatology won't help. Farewell....

John,

Now that you have been banished from descent society, we can continue our conversation in private.

You have still presented no evidence that Darwin has stolen anything from Wallace. Funny, in my biology book it says that Wallace was a co-discoverer of the theory of evolution. If Darwin did supposedly steal anything, he did piss poor job of it.

You still have provide no evidence that the concept of natural selection is in any way inaccurate either. You do know that it has been modeled mathematically and confirmed experimentally in the field and in the laboratory, don't you? You do know that there is molecular evidence for natural selection as well, don't you? You do have at least some clue what you are talking about, don't you?

You can go on making statements with no evidence all you want, but no one will be convinced by that.

Farewell, John, and may you come to better understanding. But for those still present, I spent some time checking on what Arendt actually wrote, and found that John's statements were false.

She didn't "cite Darwin as an important inspiration for Hitler and genocide". Nothing remotely so direct. Arendt was far more aware of the sheer complexity of history than that, and she was in any case writing philosophy. She does not deal in historical cause and effect, and those who want to use her to deal in it only misrepresent her. She seems to have thought that Darwin's theory provided some totalitarians with ammunition, which is undeniable, despite the obvious fact that their use of it was blatantly fraudulent and illegitimate.

Arendt was far more nuanced, far less direct, far more hedged, and vastly more scholarly than creationists would want, and she was also not much interested in connecting Darwin to Hitler at all, and only slightly more interested in connecting him to Marx - and not in terms of cause and effect. Her actual thesis was that totalitarianism (a term she actually invented) was a completely new construction in politics, appearing in the twentieth century; in fact, in her own lifetime. She was looking to explain it.

But Arendt's ideas on this are not to be taken as unimpeachable. She misunderstood Darwin, taking his theory to imply some form of progressiveness in nature, and therefore that new forms must obliterate present ones - a staple of totalitarianism, but not implied by the Theory of Evolution. Her "new emergence" thesis is interesting, but most of what she thought were entirely novel features of twentieth-century dictatorships - the deliberate and effective use of widespread terror and popular propaganda, for example - pretty clearly emerged from new technology, not from new intellectual ideas, being always present, but not in such developed forms.

Heydrich, on the other hand, was a psychopath. Why anyone would need to look further than his own psychopathy to explain his motivations defeats me. A more reasonable question is to ask how psychopathy became State policy, but the answer to that does not lie in the writings of Charles Darwin, and anyone who thinks it does is loopy.

A small matter of fact: Hannah Arendt left Germany for good in 1936, which certainly preserved her life, but she was never a fugitive, and her departure predated the Holocaust.

What? You mean a Bible-thumping ignoramus (yes I mean you, John) actually got the facts wrong!?!?!

Who'd have thought.

Oh, and a rather delicious quote from Arendt I just came across. She was talking about European intellectuals in the 20's and 30's. It seems odd to say it now, but these were the people who did a lot of the enabling for Hitler:

"...the anti-humanist, anti-liberal, anti-individualist and anti-cultural instincts of the front generation, their brilliant and witty praise of violence, power and cruelty ... They did not read Darwin, but the Marquis de Sade."

Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, 1951.

fnxtr said: What? You mean a Bible-thumping ignoramus (yes I mean you, John) actually got the facts wrong!?!?! Who'd have thought.

Meh. He's still just a thug; now he throws his Bible instead of punches. The final triumph of style over substance.

You guys are trying to push that sincere believing Christians, Jews, Muslims, and so on are childlike or dumber then other people.
Oh brother.
Your defence of evolution etc comes down to the playground of saying "Your a stupid head".
Please tell America (and Canada) that this is the quality of your thinking on origin issues. No wonder you are so easily handled by so few entry level creationists.

By the way. The most intelligent and sucessful people in the history of mankind, the Anglo-American Protestant people, were the most religious, organized and not organized, ever in mankind.
America is still a very religious motivated nation even if not in the establishment or urban upper middle or high classes.
Indeed it surely follows that the most intelligent people/nation in history would be the most denying or sceptical about ideas that are poorly evidenced despite seeming to come from the educated circles.
In short WE are not dumb or brainwashed but led by intelligent conclusions from human observations otherwise and lack of our opponents making a good case upon scrunity after authority ceases to be impressive.
Blame technology . What was obscure ideas in small circles is now hammered home in premise after premise in media/videos/hollywood/even school about evolution being true with no God/Genesis involved.
It can't be ignored anymore and has to be dealt with.
"The times they are achanging"

Robert Byers said: What was obscure ideas in small circles is now hammered home in premise after premise in media/videos/hollywood/even school about evolution being true with no God/Genesis involved. It can't be ignored anymore and has to be dealt with.

Venus Mousetrap said: And hang on... Hollywood? Have you ever seen Hollywood get evolution right?

Dan said:

Brenda said: "Similarly, I wouldn't say that YOU are dishonest, Phantomreader, but ..."

Brenda claims that she supports civil conversation, but look what she does. She claims that she's not accusing phantomreader of dishonesty, and then adds "but ..." leaving the reader to figure out what "..." means. It's clear to me what Brenda thinks the "..." is supposed to mean. It means she wants to accuse phantomreader of dishonesty while claiming not to accuse phantomreader of dishonesty wink, wink, nudge, nudge. This strategy is hypocritical and extraordinarily uncivil.

Why did my comments get sent to the John?
Something smells wrong here!
It was within thread.
Don't tell me it was the anglo-american being top dog that is illegal speech here?!
If so does that mean its officialy not true or even if true not ready for prime time?
it is okay however to say religious people are less rational or in result less rational because of innate thinking processes.
Oh well carry on london.

Robert Byers said: Why did my comments get sent to the John? Something smells wrong here! It was within thread. Don't tell me it was the anglo-american being top dog that is illegal speech here?! If so does that mean its officialy not true or even if true not ready for prime time? it is okay however to say religious people are less rational or in result less rational because of innate thinking processes. Oh well carry on london.

bump

Reed A. Cartwright said: bump

Content Encoding Error The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an invalid or unsupported form of compression. * Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.

Henry J said: The "An Ill Wind in Tortuca" thread is giving me the following error when I try to load it (I'm usuing Firefox).

Content Encoding Error The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an invalid or unsupported form of compression. * Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.

Well, it's working now. I don't know if it was just my system or not, but that was the only thread that gave me the problem.

Oh, and no, I don't have any sort of "Handle IDists" feature added to it.

Robert Byers said: Why did my comments get sent to the John? Something smells wrong here! It was within thread. Don't tell me it was the anglo-american being top dog that is illegal speech here?! If so does that mean its officialy not true or even if true not ready for prime time? it is okay however to say religious people are less rational or in result less rational because of innate thinking processes. Oh well carry on london.

I have now finished my contemplation of devolution all the way back to the very FIRST “random” mutation.

I find that I stand corrected. That "ALONE" should be accedited as the "horse" before which the "cart" of natural selection follows.

I find that according to "evolution", the snow leopard and Lion, Robert Byers, Harold, Sebastesman, Stanton and Matt Young ALL proceed from same initial so called "random" mutation event.

Unless of course the only purpose of that event was "to get a reaction." That would imply intent.

Lion (IRC)
PS - Harold. "Bridge number three leads to the imaginative grasp of the importance of natural selection in explaining all of life......and especially to dispel the illusion of design"

Hmmm.........
Thats a very lovely picture of a snow leopard.
Lion (IRC)

MACROEVOLUTIONISTS TRUMP UP HYSTERICAL CHARGES AGAINST CHRISTIANS WHO STAND FOR JESUS WITHOUT COMPROMISE. LIKE THEIR NORTH KOREAN COUNTERPARTS AMERICAN MACROEVOLUTIONISTS SLANDER CHRISTIANS TO HIDE THEIR HATRED FOR THE GOSPEL AND USE THE LAW AS A TOOL OF PERSECUTION.

Good grief.

yum install Jesus said: MACROEVOLUTIONISTS TRUMP UP HYSTERICAL CHARGES AGAINST CHRISTIANS WHO STAND FOR JESUS WITHOUT COMPROMISE. LIKE THEIR NORTH KOREAN COUNTERPARTS AMERICAN MACROEVOLUTIONISTS SLANDER CHRISTIANS TO HIDE THEIR HATRED FOR THE GOSPEL AND USE THE LAW AS A TOOL OF PERSECUTION.

Rilke's granddaughter said: You are lying. That's not a good thing. The Bible says you will burn forever in hell for lying. Or haven't you read the Bible?

Stanton -

How ironic. I believe that Yum is a parody. Yet I just commented on the fact that the real "Christians" in this case display exactly that "loophole" attitude, on the main thread.

harold said: Stanton - How ironic. I believe that Yum is a parody. Yet I just commented on the fact that the real "Christians" in this case display exactly that "loophole" attitude, on the main thread.

Stanton said:

harold said: Stanton - How ironic. I believe that Yum is a parody. Yet I just commented on the fact that the real "Christians" in this case display exactly that "loophole" attitude, on the main thread.

That, and if Yum is a poe, then he's one of those really inane poes who refuse to come out of character, no matter how assholish they become.

ben said: Are you saying having a Poe come out of character is a common phenomenon? I can't think of many examples myself.

A theme of great interest and concern to me is ownership and patenting of genomes.

I can take someone else’s DNA without their consent and pay to have it analysed without their consent and then use it as the basis of discrimination against them without their knowledge.

It could be used it as a factor in determining whether to have a child with them or have an abortion. A gay gene? An autism gene? An atheism gene – heaven forbid!

Science and religion/ethics/morality aren’t just overlapping magisteria they are like twins handcuffed and locked in a jail cell together for life. For better and for worse. In sickness and in health.

Lion (IRC)

Or the Christian gene.

Lion IRC said: A theme of great interest and concern to me is ownership and patenting of genomes. I can take someone else’s DNA without their consent and pay to have it analysed without their consent and then use it as the basis of discrimination against them without their knowledge.

It could be used it as a factor in determining whether to have a child with them or have an abortion. A gay gene? An autism gene? An atheism gene – heaven forbid!

Science and religion/ethics/morality aren’t just overlapping magisteria they are like twins handcuffed and locked in a jail cell together for life. For better and for worse. In sickness and in health.

Hi Stanton,

No complaints here.

I am reassured when SOME people call me a moron - all the other times it is water off a ducks back. You know, armour of God and all that stuff. (Or maybe you dont.)

As for the bigotry thing, I used those potential eugenics situations as examples. They could naturally be applied to any suspected correlation by either party.

If, as fnxtr alluded, someone thought religion was evil and poisoned everything and parental teaching of it amounted to child abuse then a gene for theism would be on the atheist radar screen too.

How much would you like to bet that I can or cannot find a company willing to do a blind DNA analysis for me for under $5K. Shocking thought isnt it? But I suppose scientists have to earn a living too.

Lion (IRC)

Lion IRC said: How much would you like to bet that I can or cannot find a company willing to do a blind DNA analysis for me for under $5K. Shocking thought isnt it? But I suppose scientists have to earn a living too.

Lion IRC said: Hi Stanton, No complaints here. I am reassured when SOME people call me a moron - all the other times it is water off a ducks back. You know, armour of God and all that stuff. (Or maybe you dont.)

How many microevolutionary steps are there in a macroevolutionary event?

A theme of great interest and concern to me is ownership and patenting of genomes.

have no fear, nobody wants yours.

fyi, Lion was banned from pharyngula last month, IIRC.

...his entry in the dungeon reads:

"The stupid comments would have been tolerable (at least, ignorable) if they hadn't been accompanied by such undeserved self-pride in his attempts at wit, and such unwarranted and affected pretension. In other words, dumb as a turd and completely oblivious to it."

How many microevolutionary steps are there in a macroevolutionary event?

"I could never get to the center without biting. Ask Mr. Owl."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ0epRjfGLw

Steve Steve is mapped? Wonderful. Now if we could get that species, as represented by Lion IRC mapped perhaps we really could innoculate against them. Hear that Lion? I really do believe we would be far better off (now, but especially in the past) if the planet were completely inhabited by rational atheists.

No more mad muslims, no more cretonist christians, malcontent mormons,jibbering jews,boring buddists, and the rest. Oh for the finding of a religious gene: 'Snip', and the world would heave a sigh of relief; literally. Now, fuck off and die!

robert van bakel said: Now, fuck off and die!

Lion IRC said: If, as fnxtr alluded, someone thought religion was evil and poisoned everything and parental teaching of it amounted to child abuse

Lion IRC said: It could be used it as a factor in determining whether to have a child with them or have an abortion. A gay gene?

Lion IRC said: If, as fnxtr alluded, someone thought religion was evil and poisoned everything and parental teaching of it amounted to child abuse then a gene for theism would be on the atheist radar screen too. Lion (IRC)

Interestingly enough Lion IRC's random babbling is lifted straight from The Creotard Tactic Handbook, page #32485234 section B paragraph red-12-beta: science is bad because naughty people can use it for naughty things; therefore I believe in microevolution, not macroevolution, therefore Jebus.

This interesting fact has been brought to you by the letter "F", as in "Fuck off and die".

A theme of great interest and concern to me is ownership and patenting of genomes.

To whom it may concern
I apologise but I won't be responding to any questions/comments put to me in this thread.
They may be posted in good faith but if the Forum operators feel our discussion is not relevant to the topic in question I prefer to wait till a more appropriate thread comes along.
The Panda Genome thread appears to be limited to night clubbing and lab work and excludes legal issues regarding patent ownership of gene sequences.
Lion (IRC)

People who provide lists of all the causes of mutation are putting nails in the coffin of randomness. The more causes of mutation you discover the further away you move from the description of mutations as random - unpredictable.

robert van bakel said: Steve Steve is mapped? Wonderful. Now if we could get that species, as represented by Lion IRC mapped perhaps we really could innoculate against them. Hear that Lion?

Lion IRC said:

robert van bakel said: Steve Steve is mapped? Wonderful. Now if we could get that species, as represented by Lion IRC mapped perhaps we really could innoculate against them. Hear that Lion?

Hi Robert van bakel, Yes I saw that - thanks. I am interested in the welfare of animals and humans. I am exceedingly concerned by comments in regards to use of genomes for the purpose of eugenics. Lion (IRC)

I'm with Mr Weinstein; what can this completed mapping tell us about the evolution of, 'the Panda's thumb? If anything; very interested, curious in fact. Not having a god to fall back on I would appreciate the 'informed' people here to enlighten. It's either that or listening to Dembski, Byers, Lion, O'Leary and co tell me not to worry, their imaginary friend is on the job.

"Oh, for the finding of a religious gene, 'snip' and the world would heave a sigh of relief; literally. Now, fuck off and die!"

I prefer to wait till a more appropriate thread comes along.

suggest you take your own advice then, and say nothing until a thread specifically dealing with legal issues surrounding gene copyrighting arises.

...at which time, if it ever happens, you will of course again regail us with just how stupid you are, I'm sure.

...oh, and...

all your (gene)base are belong to us.

No more mad muslims, no more cretonist christians, malcontent mormons,jibbering jews,boring buddists, and the rest. Oh for the finding of a religious gene: ‘Snip’, and the world would heave a sigh of relief; literally. Now, fuck off and die!

Lion IRC babbled incoherently about his concern with regard to the relationship between ethics and genetic research.

The sequencing of the giant panda genome is obviously an entirely benign and uncontroversial activity. Lion IRC's choice of this advance as an excuse to launch his hypocritical tirade demonstrates his cluelessness.

However, in fact, the relationship between genetic research and ethics is an extremely important one. Modern scientific progress in biomedical fields raises the specter of valid ethical quandries in medicine, agriculture, family planning, and other areas. Only a fool would outright deny this, and no-one here has.

However, Lion IRC has absolutely nothing to add to the discussion of such ethical questions.

First of all, his habits of dissembling, feigning expertise in fields he knows nothing of, and twisting words, makes him useless for serious debate on any topic.

Second of all, his ignorance of science is greater than I would expect of a typical junior high school graduate, and psychological biases prevent him from gaining any knowledge. So he is technically unequipped for discussions related to science. And yes, you do have to have some clue about how a branch of science works to make useful ethical judgments of it.

Third of all, although many people are Christians, his science-denying fanaticism is so rare and extreme, and so associated with authoritarian politics, that his views would be of interest only as those of an isolated extremist.

Kwok was banned in a Survivor style contest mainly for his written equivalents of verbal tics. It started as a troll contest, but I am afraid one too many references to high school, famous 'friends', and intellectual pornography got him into the competition.

Of course, the subsequent de-Facebooking, email campaign, and demand of a camera in recompense for his bruised ego provided much amusement for all.

British Leyland said: Kwok was banned in a Survivor style contest mainly for his written equivalents of verbal tics. It started as a troll contest, but I am afraid one too many references to high school, famous 'friends', and intellectual pornography got him into the competition. Of course, the subsequent de-Facebooking, email campaign, and demand of a camera in recompense for his bruised ego provided much amusement for all.

Just to remind you and British Leyland, this post from Myers demonstates how weird he can be towards a legitimate ID critic like Ken Miller:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/ken_miller_creationist.php

This was so over the top, that it even caused a stir over at Uncommonly Dense courtesy of that excellent judge of human character, one William Dembski (who had reported eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka earlier that year to the Federal Department of Homeland Security as a potential bioterrorist):

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/ken-miller-is-a-creationist-although-you-didnt-hear-it-from-me/

Now, I believe you were saying something about Kwokkers.... I strongly doubt that I am anywhere as close a lunatic as either Myers or Dembski.

John Kwok said: Wasn't quite the way I remembered it, but thanks for the reminder. But I did recall telling others, including Myers, that I was kidding about the camera (I did it merely to taunt him BTW.), so that's a bit of old stale news IMHO. Anyway, IMHO Pharyngula isn't quite the superb science blog that it once was (It started going downhill even before Myers had the bizarre notion that, somehow, Ken Miller (whom I might add has done substantially more for promoting the teaching of evolution in American science than Myers has ever done, and this is indeed true, when considering that no one had heard of Myers until he created Pharyngula back in 2001 or 2002) was a creationist, which he did declare on his blog back in early September 2006.):

British Leyland said: Kwok was banned in a Survivor style contest mainly for his written equivalents of verbal tics. It started as a troll contest, but I am afraid one too many references to high school, famous 'friends', and intellectual pornography got him into the competition. Of course, the subsequent de-Facebooking, email campaign, and demand of a camera in recompense for his bruised ego provided much amusement for all.

And British Leyland, it's not my problem if those posting over at Pharyngula seem incapable of understanding that Intelligent Design creationism IS mendacious intellectual pornography, given the almost incessant agitprop spin of everyone's "favorite" crypto-Fascist organization, the Dishonesty Institute. With apologies in advance to RBH, even someone as notable as Darwin popularizer Richard Milner agrees with me that Intelligent Design should be viewed as mendacious intellectual pornography.

RDK said: Jesus Kwok, even a simple nod your way gets met with a flood of namedropping and controversy. I was making a point about censorship; namely the point that, as annoying and gnat-like as you may be, nothing you've done qualifies you for a ban. Banning people from posting on blogs just because you don't like them is something lifted straight from UD. If Myers wants to be the science version of UD, so be it, but if Kwok is the harmless buffoon he is, there should be no reason to. Unless he posts child pornography or something, banning him for his views is a creotard activity.

RDK said: Yes, Myers went off the deep end with the Ken Miller comment. He also went off the deep end in thinking none of us are big enough boys to handle Kwok's nonsense, to the point where he has to shield us from his comments. Is it his blog? Yes. Can he do whatever he wants with it? Absolutely, I wouldn't have it any other way. But banning people he doesn't like gives blog readers - and those outside of our immediate circle - an idea of the kind of person he is, just like we all know what kind of people the circle-jerkers at UD are. Don't be a circle-jerker.

John Kwok said: Myers has a consistent habit of going over the "deep end", whether it is accusing Ken Miller of being a creationist, celebrating that he is "Public Enemy Number One" amongst some American Catholic organizations, and then, spectacularly of course, for "CrackerGate". He went over the "deep end" before he opted to play "Survivor: Pharyngula" and he is still going over the "deep end" now. That is why he'll never be the recipient of an AAAS Public Understanding of Science and Technology Award, unlike, for example, the man whom he dubbed "a creationist" back in September 1996, one Kenneth R. Miller:

RDK said: Yes, Myers went off the deep end with the Ken Miller comment. He also went off the deep end in thinking none of us are big enough boys to handle Kwok's nonsense, to the point where he has to shield us from his comments. Is it his blog? Yes. Can he do whatever he wants with it? Absolutely, I wouldn't have it any other way. But banning people he doesn't like gives blog readers - and those outside of our immediate circle - an idea of the kind of person he is, just like we all know what kind of people the circle-jerkers at UD are. Don't be a circle-jerker.

Harold, I understand fully your fear about giving Lion reason to say, 'I told you so'. But that is the point is it not? Getting off the defensive in general discourse with these braindead undeveloped hominids?

Why should I couch my language? I, and all the posters here know a liar when they see one, why can't I bang his can? Giving candy to the masses, and seeing that used to corrupt the corruptable says nothing about me, and everything about them.

Eric! Thank you kindly for the information.

Why should I couch my language?

you shouldn't.

and when Harold says things like:

A vast number of scientists and science supporters are religious.

this is totally tangential to any real discussion of whether any specific religion itself is or is not compatible with science, or indeed whether the very concept of religion as a way of "knowing" (so often heard) is in conflict with science.

Why should I couch my language? I, and all the posters here know a liar when they see one, why can’t I bang his can?

and when Harold says things like: A vast number of scientists and science supporters are religious. this is totally tangential to any real discussion of whether any specific religion itself is or is not compatible with science, or indeed whether the very concept of religion as a way of “knowing” (so often heard) is in conflict with science.

The Panda's genome has been mapped. Another great day for science. The mouse's genome, the fruit fly, man's, and I have no doubt a large number of other species. What to do? I have a suggestion, tell religious people to fuck off in the face of reasoned inquirey and let scientists do what they have been doing so well, for so short a period of time.

You, Harold, are part of that great, 'hide in the closet', science minded mentality that made me and vast numbers of other like minded persons so damn irritable.

No, you didn't tell me what to do, you suggested, implied, that I don't say fuck off jesus. Why not exactly? Except of course that saying this could shorten my life and reduce my chances to replicate my DNA.

I have a suggestion, tell religious people to fuck off in the face of reasoned inquirey and let scientists do what they have been doing so well, for so short a period of time.

robert van bakel said: ...you suggested, implied, that I don't say fuck off jesus. Why not exactly? Except of course that saying this could shorten my life and reduce my chances to replicate my DNA.

Dave, thanks for suggesting I may have deeper insight into the stratagem of the DI; very kind of you.

Harold; fuck off allah?

John Kwok said: Myers has a consistent habit of going over the "deep end", whether it is accusing Ken Miller of being a creationist, celebrating that he is "Public Enemy Number One" amongst some American Catholic organizations, and then, spectacularly of course, for "CrackerGate". He went over the "deep end" before he opted to play "Survivor: Pharyngula" and he is still going over the "deep end" now. That is why he'll never be the recipient of an AAAS Public Understanding of Science and Technology Award, unlike, for example, the man whom he dubbed "a creationist" back in September 1996, one Kenneth R. Miller:

RDK said: Yes, Myers went off the deep end with the Ken Miller comment. He also went off the deep end in thinking none of us are big enough boys to handle Kwok's nonsense, to the point where he has to shield us from his comments. Is it his blog? Yes. Can he do whatever he wants with it? Absolutely, I wouldn't have it any other way. But banning people he doesn't like gives blog readers - and those outside of our immediate circle - an idea of the kind of person he is, just like we all know what kind of people the circle-jerkers at UD are. Don't be a circle-jerker.

robert van bakel said: Harold; fuck off allah?

that religious people can not be scientists?

yes, far be it from anyone to prevent the handicapped from being all they can be.

it's quite a difficult job, juggling opposing ways of pursuing knowledge, after all.

so much compartmentalization!

i could never do it myself.

Ichthyic said: that religious people can not be scientists? yes, far be it from anyone to prevent the handicapped from being all they can be. it's quite a difficult job, juggling opposing ways of pursuing knowledge, after all. so much compartmentalization! i could never do it myself.

Ichthyic said: so much compartmentalization! i could never do it myself.

There is a reason it is called artificial intelligence and always will be.

When are people going to drop the willful suspension of disbelief which Hero of Alexandria and Leonardo Da Vinci were able to exploit and trick people (like DS) into thinking they were seeing independent thought/will/action?

There is a gross category error going on whenever someone confuses agent (free will) and mechanism in discussions about AI.

The programmer is the agent. The robot/computer/software is the mechanism.

In the year 3010 I’m sure there will be robots which can trick humans from the year 2010 into thinking they are human but the designers/engineers in 3010 will be able to spot the differences between human and robot. Why? Because they designed it and built it.

The creator is always going to be greater than the created.

Lion (IRC)

Lion IRC said: There is a reason it is called artificial intelligence and always will be. When are people going to drop the willful suspension of disbelief which Hero of Alexandria and Leonardo Da Vinci were able to exploit and trick people (like DS) into thinking they were seeing independent thought/will/action? [more word salad]

Lion IRC said: The programmer is the agent. The robot/computer/software is the mechanism.

Dan said:

Lion IRC said: There is a reason it is called artificial intelligence and always will be. When are people going to drop the willful suspension of disbelief which Hero of Alexandria and Leonardo Da Vinci were able to exploit and trick people (like DS) into thinking they were seeing independent thought/will/action? [more word salad]

Let us in on the secret, Lion! What's the reason? You've managed to excrete a number of sentences full of undefined terms, but you've never told us the "reason it is called artificial intelligence and always will be"!

Lion IRC said: In the year 3010 I’m sure there will be robots which can trick humans from the year 2010 into thinking they are human but the designers/engineers in 3010 will be able to spot the differences between human and robot. Why? Because they designed it and built it.

Way OT, but what makes the President "black"? Assuming his mother's ancestors were all "European" for several generations, Obama is just as much "white" as he is "black." (It can't be because of his color, which certainly isn't black.)

Yet he is always referred to as "black" or "African-American", as are others of mixed ancestry, like Tiger Woods.

I think we have internalized the prejudices of the past, when there were actually laws that that determined who was "white" based on their percentage of "white blood." I believe there were states where one wasn't recognized as "white" (and therefore not eligible to marry a "white" person), if a single great-great grandparent was "nonwhite." And the actual physical color of the person was irrelevant. It was the civic duty of good citizens to identify such malefactors who were attempting to "pass as white." I know there were laws like that in South Africa not so long ago, and I wouldn't be surprised to discover there are still some on the books of some US states or localities.

Barack Obama is NOT black! (Medium to light brown, maybe.)

Lion IRC -

Although wrong, your comments are also irrelevant.

Of course the robots were initially created by humans.

They were then used to model biological evolution through randomly generated heritable variation and natural selection. Natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution, but that is the aspect of evolution that was modeled here.

The "free will" comment, although interesting in some ways, was intended to be facetious. By no means was this work intended to address "free will". The point was to model a major mechanism of evolution.

isnt bathroom wall used for RP-ing not just going into an emo rage and geting mad

The BW is for off-topic stuff that doesn't fit any of the threads that have specific topics. Or something like that.

• Re-Print
• Role Play
• Response Point
• Reference Point
• Respond Properly
• Radiation Poisoning

...there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall.

Since this is a Bathroom Wall I thought I would put up a saying I found on another Bathroom Wall a long time ago.

Some come here to sit and think.
Others come to shit, and stink.
But I come here to scratch my balls.
And write the reading on the walls.

"Since this is a Bathroom Wall I thought I would put up a saying I found on another Bathroom Wall a long time ago.

Some come here to sit and think. Others come to shit, and stink. But I come here to scratch my balls. And write the reading on the walls."

The last verse should be "And read the bullshit on the walls".

Then there's the short and sweet..

"Here I sit broken hearted, came to crap but only farted"

Well, that last one was a gas...

Henry J said: Well, that last one was a gas...

What I find so amusing is that many here are stating that scientists have created by experiment amino acids, isn't that creation? To me that would be a example of creation, or intelligent design.

IBelieveInGod said: What about creation has failed numerous tests?

Let me put it this way, let's say that science some day creates life, it still be an example of creation.

It would be like saying that automobiles weren't created, but rather came about by natural causes by random events without a creator or designer, and to prove it, someone engineers the parts and then assembles them into an automobile and test drive it to see that it actually works. Now they go on the news to show their incredible discovery, proving that automobiles could indeed have come about by natural causes by random events without a creator or designer.

I know many here won't get what I'm saying, but if science were to create life in a lab, that would only be an example of life being created by a creator who happens to be man.

If you think "Creation" is a valid scientific process, please describe what evidence could conceivably exist that would convince you that your creation hypothesis is FALSE.

IBelieveInGod said: I know many here won't get what I'm saying, but if science were to create life in a lab, that would only be an example of life being created by a creator who happens to be man.

Dave Thomas said: IBelieveInGod, I have the ability to send all of your postings (future, past, or both) to a place we call the "Bathroom Wall." This I will do, unless you can answer one simple question:

If you think "Creation" is a valid scientific process, please describe what evidence could conceivably exist that would convince you that your creation hypothesis is FALSE.

If you want "science", then you need "testing". How can we test your "Creation" hypothesis? If you can't conceive of an observation which would clearly disprove it, then it's obviously not science, and the discussion is over. If you won't answer this one simple question - if you continue to change the subject with a barrage of new questions - then it's off to the Bathroom Wall with you. That's a hypothesis we can test! Dave

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: I know many here won't get what I'm saying, but if science were to create life in a lab, that would only be an example of life being created by a creator who happens to be man.

IBelieve, you are babbling like a pompous idiot. What Creationists mean when they use the term "creation" is that what happened according to a literal reading of the English translation of the Book of Genesis, in the Bible, literally happened, 6,000 years ago. End of story, no if's, and's or but's, under pain of eternal damnation. And as far as we can tell, you are trying to redefine (as well as belittle) the study of abiogenesis in order to state that Creationism is true. That, as well as proudly stating that you are invincibly stupid and immune to contrary evidence. In other words, your arguments boil down to "heads, I win; tails, you lose"

IBelieveInGod said: I know many here won't get what I'm saying, but if science were to create life in a lab, that would only be an example of life being created by a creator who happens to be man.

stevaroni said: If life forms were created by (stay tuned, it's coming within the decade) it would mean that supernatural powers were not required for the task.

It appears that all IBelieve wants to do is to co-opt steal scientists' hard work as his own.

Hence his constant "heads, I win; tails, you lose" non-argument.

Dave Thomas, please, do not let us stop you from flushing him.

stevaroni said:

stevaroni said: If life forms were created by (stay tuned, it's coming within the decade) it would mean that supernatural powers were not required for the task.

Oops, meant to say "If life forms were created by mere mortals (stay tuned, it's coming within the decade) it would mean that supernatural powers were not required for the task."

Ibelievein Kent Hovind: I know many here won’t get what I’m saying, but if science were to create life in a lab, that would only be an example of life being created by a creator who happens to be man.

IBelieveInGod said:

stevaroni said:

stevaroni said: If life forms were created by (stay tuned, it's coming within the decade) it would mean that supernatural powers were not required for the task.

Oops, meant to say "If life forms were created by mere mortals (stay tuned, it's coming within the decade) it would mean that supernatural powers were not required for the task."

I don't know how God created life, but why do you think that God had to use supernatural powers to create life. He already had created all of the universe and all of the elements needed. The point I have been making is that if scientists create life, it only proves that life can indeed be created, and not that it came about by random events.

raven said:

Ibelievein Kent Hovind: I know many here won’t get what I’m saying, but if science were to create life in a lab, that would only be an example of life being created by a creator who happens to be man.

Wrong again. It shows that an invisible supernatural sky spook isn't necessary to create life. This by itself is huge. If god isn't necessary to create life from nonlife, why bother to even pretend that he did? Especially since there is zero evidence that he did so directly. The magic explanation becomes the superfluous explanation. It could have been UFO space aliens tossing their trash out. Or it could have been natural processes over a long period of time on a planetary scale. Abiogenesis. Nature can create too. Snowflakes, plate tectonics, mountain building, and on and on. More directly, this was a key prediction of the RNA world hypothesis. Some very smart people including a Nobel prize winner worked on it for 20 years. They didn't get very far for a long time. Then it worked. The prediction turned out to be correct. It didn't have to be that way. It could have failed. Everything looks easy in hindsight but it isn't easy in foresight. Sometimes predictions do fail. The Primordial RNA self replicator is just a step on the way to understanding abiogenesis. Someday we may know a lot more. Someday we may be able to set up conditions where abiogenesis occurs from primordial earth conditions. Then what will you creationists do? Give up god? Naw, y'all will do what IbelieveinDembski just did. Move the goal posts once again. I believe the next demand from the xian death cultists will be to prove the Big Bang by recreating it. Ooopps. Who wants to go there? Your turn. What evidence is there for the goddidit hypothesis? What predictions does it make? How would you falsify it? Those are all basic tests for any scientific theory. We already know that the 6,000 year old earth and Noah with a boatload of dinosaurs is just mythology.

Don't forget:

Yabba dabba doo - Fred Flintstone.

Dave, since IBelieve refuses to explain whatever it is he's inanely arguing about, can you please, please, pretty please send all of these posts to the Bathroom Wall?

The simplest free-living life form is Mycoplasma genitalium, with a genome of only 580,000 base pairs and 482 protein-coding genes. Mycoplasma genitalium is a tiny parasitic bacteria that lives in the digestive and genital tracts of primates.

Now consider what the odds of this living organism coming about by random events, remember the odds of just the powerball with 6 numbers, now we are dealing with 580,000 base pair and 482 protein-codding genes. The odds would be infinitesimal, yet if it were created in a lab, you could look at the genome like a blueprint to attempt to replicate the design, hardly proving life came about by random events without a creator.

IBelieveInGod said: Look at it this way, the powerball lottery has 5 numbers and a powerball (a total of 6 numbers), the odds of winning the powerball are 1 in 195,249,054 and that is only 6 total numbers that must be correct. The odds against life coming about by random events are infinitely great.

Your argument is so far into the ignorance band that I'm unable to come up with a coherent response- it's simply so far beyond merely being wrong that debunking it is pointless. You are attempting to prove a point when, in fact, you don't even know what the point is. It's like saying "well how do you account for World War 2?" in response to someone talking about broccoli's domestication.

What I find so ridiculous is that scientists are a attempting to CREATE life, to prove that it wasn't CREATED!!! Very Funny:):):)

IBIG wrote:

"God does not make anyone do anything, and it doesn’t matter how much your pray!!!"

So then, how could god answer prayer if I prayed for you to go away? She couldn't. Thought so. So much for god answering prayer.

Look dude, you can teach creationism in science class anytime you want. We'll see you in court and you will lose. If you want to know why, read over the transcripts from the Dover trial. If you don't agree, take it up with the supreme court. No one here cares about your religion.

DS said: Look dude, you can teach creationism in science class anytime you want. We'll see you in court and you will lose. If you want to know why, read over the transcripts from the Dover trial. If you don't agree, take it up with the supreme court. No one here cares about your religion.

DS said: IBIG wrote: "God does not make anyone do anything, and it doesn’t matter how much your pray!!!" So then, how could god answer prayer if I prayed for you to go away? She couldn't. Thought so. So much for god answering prayer. Look dude, you can teach creationism in science class anytime you want. We'll see you in court and you will lose. If you want to know why, read over the transcripts from the Dover trial. If you don't agree, take it up with the supreme court. No one here cares about your religion.

STOP! MOVE ALONG - JUST A LITTLE TROLL CONTROL

As you can see, I've sent IBIG to the Bathroom Wall. Engage with him there all you like! But not here, por favor. I gave him a chance to define what he meant by "Creation", and he evaded with RNA/whatnot. For crying out loud - his handle was "I BELIEVE IN GOD". For someone like that to pussyfoot with the definition of 'creation' is disingenuous.

Thus, to the Bathroom Wall with him.

Sorry about the Collateral Damage - I hope you'll understand. And, it's not like your comments get Disappeared - they just get a new room, with a cheaper wallpaper that's got some cracks and pee stains.

Cheers, Dave

Some time back, I asked IBIG what his hypothesis was, and what data he had to support it. I asked him what happened when, and how did he know this.

No direct response, but it would appear that IBIG thinks that life could be created in the lab by natural means. If he thinks that, he must think that direct divine intervention is not required - unless, of course, he can believe two contradictory things at once, a trait not uncommon among creationists, but that aside.

If direct divine intervention is not required for the origin of life, why would IBIG object to saying so in a science class? Why would he want to teach a hypothesis that he himself implies is false?

Beats me.

Dave Thomas said: STOP! MOVE ALONG - JUST A LITTLE TROLL CONTROL As you can see, I've sent IBIG to the Bathroom Wall. Engage with him there all you like! But not here, por favor. I gave him a chance to define what he meant by "Creation", and he evaded with RNA/whatnot. For crying out loud - his handle was "I BELIEVE IN GOD". For someone like that to pussyfoot with the definition of 'creation' is disingenuous. Thus, to the Bathroom Wall with him. Sorry about the Collateral Damage - I hope you'll understand. And, it's not like your comments get Disappeared - they just get a new room, with a cheaper wallpaper that's got some cracks and pee stains. Cheers, Dave

I guess my point has been proven, when you can't debate a subject you resort to hiding!!! My argument was that man is attempting to create life. CREATE LIFE!!! CREATE LIFE!!! Not allowing life to come into existence by random events by natural causes. I evidently proved my point!!! Just man playing God.

It's not hiding. "This comment has been moved to the bathroom wall" is pretty obvious. You found it, didn't you?

This way the original thread can be continued by people willing to discuss science, instead of witnessing.

Feel free to continue to say... whatever it is you're trying to say here.

You clearly do not, and do not wish to, understand the science, or the ideas behind the science.

You are making your faith look foolish.

Just sayin'.

Playing chess with pigeons.

IBelieveInGod said: I have read many posts on this site, and wouldn't characterize this as a true science site, but rather a site that makes fun of those who happen to believe in creation and a Creator. If some theory doesn't fit your idea of what is acceptable to you, then you make fun of it, and the scientist who proposed such theory.

I would think that a true science site would be open-minded to all possibilities of the beginning of life, including the possibility of a creator. To only accept that all things happened by natural causes by nature only, is to put your faith in Mother Earth.

Dave Luckett said: You've got us there, Ibelieve. The idea that life arose in some specific way isn't testable without running the experiment under the precise same conditions as existed on the early earth, for several million years. But here's the thing, Ibelieve: nobody ever said that this was a theory, or if they did, they misspoke. There are a number of hypotheses for how life originally arose from nonliving matter. None has been accepted by scientists generally. None has the status of a theory. Research - data gathering - continues, but the short answer is 'nobody knows, for sure, how life originated.'

Here is the problem with the arguments that some of you are making, that if science can create life, somehow that demonstrates that there was no need for God in the process. I believe that God created life through natural causes, the Bible even states that God created man from the dust of the field, hey I believe that He created natural causes so why couldn't He do it that way.

Here is the problem with your argument, if science wants to truly demonstrate that life can be created without the help of God, then why not start with absolutely nothing to create life, no chemicals, no gases, etc... I contend that God created the natural elements necessary for life to be created and then created life. So, start by creating something from nothing as you will. Create oxygen from nothing, hydrogen from nothing, create all other chemicals and gases needed for life from nothing. Without the parts necessary as you will to create life, it would be impossible to create life. If you are going play God, then why not do it right, start with absolutely nothing and create everything:):):)

I keep making analogies to attempt to help you all understand, but it appears that you aren't capable, or you just don't want to understand.

Let's try again:

What if you have all the parts of a working car in a large field including gasoline, oil and water, now let's substitute these parts in place of the chemicals, element and gases needed for life. Now you believe that the chemicals and gases somehow came together, and interacted in the right way to create life. Now let's look at the parts of a car in the large field again, what are the odds of all of those parts actually coming together in the right way to make a working car including the gasoline, oil and water? Now what science is attempting to do is equivalent to someone reading the blueprint of that car, and then assembling the parts to create a working car, filling up the tank with gasoline, putting oil in the engine, and water in the radiator and then saying that they have proved that a car could have come into existence by random events without a creator. Don't you see the silliness of this.

The simplest free-living life form is Mycoplasma genitalium is a machine, and is more complex then a car, did you hear what I said, "MORE COMPLEX THEN A CAR" the simplest free-living life form has 580,000 base pair and 482 protein-codding genes.

Here is the problem with the arguments that some of you are making, that if science can create life, somehow that demonstrates that there was no need for God in the process. I believe that God created life through natural causes, the Bible even states that God created man from the dust of the field, hey I believe that He created natural causes so why couldn’t He do it that way.

Here is the problem with your argument, if science wants to truly demonstrate that life can be created without the help of God, then why not start with absolutely nothing to create life, no chemicals, no gases, etc… I contend that God created the natural elements necessary for life to be created and then created life. So, start by creating something from nothing as you will. Create oxygen from nothing, hydrogen from nothing, create all other chemicals and gases needed for life from nothing. Without the parts necessary as you will to create life, it would be impossible to create life. If you are going play God, then why not do it right, start with absolutely nothing and create everything:):):)

I keep making analogies to attempt to help you all understand, but it appears that you aren’t capable, or you just don’t want to understand.

Let’s try again:

What if you have all the parts of a working car in a large field including gasoline, oil and water, now let’s substitute these parts in place of the chemicals, element and gases needed for life. Now you believe that the chemicals and gases somehow came together, and interacted in the right way to create life. Now let’s look at the parts of a car in the large field again, what are the odds of all of those parts actually coming together in the right way to make a working car including the gasoline, oil and water? Now what science is attempting to do is equivalent to someone reading the blueprint of that car, and then assembling the parts to create a working car, filling up the tank with gasoline, putting oil in the engine, and water in the radiator and then saying that they have proved that a car could have come into existence by random events without a creator. Don’t you see the silliness of this.

The simplest free-living life form is Mycoplasma genitalium is a machine, and is more complex then a car, did you hear what I said, “MORE COMPLEX THEN A CAR” the simplest free-living life form has 580,000 base pair and 482 protein-codding genes.

IBelieveInGod said: Here is the problem with the arguments that some of you are making, that if science can create life, somehow that demonstrates that there was no need for God in the process.

I'll even do this for all of you, what if you had all the parts of a billion cars in a billion fields, and billions of years for those parts to come together by random events to create a working car, do you really think it is possible?

stevaroni replied to comment from IBelieveInGod | February 8, 2010 9:08 PM | Reply
IBelieveInGod said: I know many here won’t get what I’m saying, but if science were to create life in a lab, that would only be an example of life being created by a creator who happens to be man.
The problem, IBIG is that you don’t get what you’re saying.

If life forms were created by (stay tuned, it’s coming within the decade) it would mean that supernatural powers were not required for the task.

I copied this post as it is now on the bathroom wall.

Here is another by Raven:

raven | February 8, 2010 9:21 PM | Reply
Ibelievein Kent Hovind:

I know many here won’t get what I’m saying, but if science were to create life in a lab, that would only be an example of life being created by a creator who happens to be man.
Wrong again.

It shows that an invisible supernatural sky spook isn’t necessary to create life. This by itself is huge. If god isn’t necessary to create life from nonlife, why bother to even pretend that he did? Especially since there is zero evidence that he did so directly. The magic explanation becomes the superfluous explanation.

It could have been UFO space aliens tossing their trash out. Or it could have been natural processes over a long period of time on a planetary scale. Abiogenesis. Nature can create too. Snowflakes, plate tectonics, mountain building, and on and on.

More directly, this was a key prediction of the RNA world hypothesis. Some very smart people including a Nobel prize winner worked on it for 20 years. They didn’t get very far for a long time.

Then it worked. The prediction turned out to be correct. It didn’t have to be that way. It could have failed. Everything looks easy in hindsight but it isn’t easy in foresight. Sometimes predictions do fail.

The Primordial RNA self replicator is just a step on the way to understanding abiogenesis. Someday we may know a lot more. Someday we may be able to set up conditions where abiogenesis occurs from primordial earth conditions.

Then what will you creationists do? Give up god? Naw, y’all will do what IbelieveinDembski just did. Move the goal posts once again. I believe the next demand from the xian death cultists will be to prove the Big Bang by recreating it. Ooopps. Who wants to go there?

Your turn. What evidence is there for the goddidit hypothesis? What predictions does it make? How would you falsify it? Those are all basic tests for any scientific theory. We already know that the 6,000 year old earth and Noah with a boatload of dinosaurs is just mythology.

If science can in the future create life, this will demonstrate proof of creation.

Why do you all think that God does everything supernaturally? It seems that many of you think that if something can be done in the natural that it demonstrates that God didn't do it.

God created the natural, so why wouldn't He also use what He created in the natural?

If you want to say that God created the natural causes - the fundamental laws of physics on which chemistry ultimately depends - then you are making the familiar and unanswerable argument that God is the ultimate cause, the Prime Cause, the cause to which all phenomena eventually lead. Fair enough. Nobody can falsify this. Almost by definition, there is no data and you're perfectly at liberty to accept this rationally.

(BTW, it is well accepted that hydrogen is a necessary product of the first atomic particles - the first fully stable state they can reach; that the elements up to iron were formed by fusion of lighter elements in stellar furnaces; and that elements heavier than iron are the products of supernova explosions. None of them came from nothing.)

But it appears to me that you want to say more than this, and I think that you are confused. You appear to want to say both that God created life by natural processes and that He intervened in nature to create life. These propositions are mutually contradictory.

If the former, I'd ask how you can tell that God was involved, but then I'd shrug and let it go. Most people here would. It's when you say that God must have intervened to make life "from the dust of the ground" that you'll get an argument here.

The argument from specified complexity that you are making relies on a misunderstanding - that all the parts that you recognise as making up a life form must have combined all at once, by chance. That wasn't the case, and nobody ever said it was.

Evolution consists of a process where slight changes are combined and recombined over and over, with the ones that serve a purpose - any purpose - being retained, and the others discarded. After that stage, the combinations that are more efficient are retained, and the others discarded. This process does not rely on chance. On the contrary, it relies on selection, the opposite of chance. It does not occur in one step. It takes however many steps, each one of them viable in the circumstances, as may be required.

Your proposition also relies on a factual untruth. Mycoplasma genitalium might be the simplest free-living organism - I'll leave that up to the microbiologists here, of which there are lots - but it isn't by any means on the absolute boundary between the living and the non-living. That boundary doesn't actually exist as a hard, bright line with 'living' on one side and 'non-living' on the other. Arguments occur and continue, about what side some things are on. Mycoplasma didn't spring already-formed from simple organic chemicals. There was a long road between them, most of the signposts on which have been lost.

Ah, but we don't know everything that happened on that road. So can we rule out the possibility that God intervened somewhere on it?

No. But what we can say is that there is no evidence at all for it, and no particular reason to assume it. So much else about the Universe has been explained without assuming divine intervention that it seems unreasonable to insist without evidence that it must have taken place somewhere between amino acid and self-replicating molecule.

If you are going propose something, you must show evidence for it. So far, you have shown none for divine intervention. Before you can get divine intervention (or ID) accepted as a hypothesis, you must show some evidence for it. Attacks on other hypotheses, even if cogent, (and yours aren't) aren't good enough. You must have evidence in support of your own.

And that you haven't got.

IBelieveInGod said: I'll even do this for all of you, what if you had all the parts of a billion cars in a billion fields, and billions of years for those parts to come together by random events to create a working car, do you really think it is possible?

IBelieveInGod said: Why do you all think that God does everything supernaturally? It seems that many of you think that if something can be done in the natural that it demonstrates that God didn't do it. God created the natural, so why wouldn't He also use what He created in the natural?

IBelieveInGod said: I contend that God created the natural elements necessary for life

IBelieveInGod said: If you are going play God, then why not do it right, start with absolutely nothing and create everything:):):)

I keep making analogies to attempt to help you all understand, but it appears that you aren’t capable, or you just don’t want to understand.

Let’s try again: What if you have all the parts of a working car in a large field including gasoline, oil and water, now let’s substitute these parts in place of the chemicals, element and gases needed for life. *stupidity snipped* Don’t you see the silliness of this.

The simplest free-living life form is Mycoplasma genitalium

is a machine,

and is more complex then a car, did you hear what I said, “MORE COMPLEX THEN A CAR” the simplest free-living life form has 580,000 base pair and 482 protein-codding genes.

eric said: (IBelieve) you are still showing a double standard. You demand science do an ab initio experiment before you will believe it, but you don't require your own hypothesis meet that same standard of proof.

In fact, you don't demand your hypothesis meet any standard of proof.

IBIG wrote:

"I keep making analogies to attempt to help you all understand, but it appears that you aren’t capable, or you just don’t want to understand."

Well here is an analogy that maybe you can understand:

A drunk goes into a doctor's office and complains about a headache. The doctor tells him he has to stop drinking. The drunk doesn't like that answer and claims that he knows more about medicine than the doctor. The doctor assures him that he knows what he is talking about and the drunk knows nothing. The drunk again disagrees and vomits all over the doctor. The doctor politely asks him to leave again. The drunk takes down his pants and craps all over the floor. The doctor once again politely asks him to leave.

Do you understand this analogy? Good, then please leave.

This seems real simple. IBelieveInGod accepts one and only one thing -- Goddidit. Period. There is no argument. All facts, logic, thought, reality, fantasy are twisted, distorted, denied, asserted, avowed to support this belief. No argument, data, fact, logic, reasoning, evidence or anything else will convince this person otherwise. Period. End of discussion. Those of us who live in the real world can go on with life, doing science, making progress. This person will continue to live in their own fantasy land, enjoying the benefits of that progress, denying it, and apparently doing some part in undermining it. But arguing with this person is a complete an utter waste of time.

mplavcan said: This seems real simple. IBelieveInGod accepts one and only one thing -- Goddidit. Period. There is no argument. All facts, logic, thought, reality, fantasy are twisted, distorted, denied, asserted, avowed to support this belief. No argument, data, fact, logic, reasoning, evidence or anything else will convince this person otherwise. Period. End of discussion. Those of us who live in the real world can go on with life, doing science, making progress. This person will continue to live in their own fantasy land, enjoying the benefits of that progress, denying it, and apparently doing some part in undermining it. But arguing with this person is a complete an utter waste of time.

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said: IBIG wrote: "God does not make anyone do anything, and it doesn’t matter how much your pray!!!" So then, how could god answer prayer if I prayed for you to go away? She couldn't. Thought so. So much for god answering prayer. Look dude, you can teach creationism in science class anytime you want. We'll see you in court and you will lose. If you want to know why, read over the transcripts from the Dover trial. If you don't agree, take it up with the supreme court. No one here cares about your religion.

I think you are wrong there, I happen to believe that things are starting to change. The problem with creationists, is that they have not presented the argument the right way. I really believe we will see the day with creation and evolution will be taught side by side. As far as God answering prayer, I have experienced answered prayer many times in my life.

IBelieveInGod:
You are coming across as someone who is extremely confused about the issues. At times you seem to ridicule the idea of evolution, with your nonsense probabilistic arguments (all arguments against evolution based on probabilities that I have seen betray a woeful misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, even if they come from noted astronomers). At other times you are arguing that your god could have created life through natural means (in which case, why bother with a god?) but I don't believe that anyone is disputing this. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of evolutionary biologists who would agree with this and would even add that perhaps a god tweaked the process here and there.

You need to stop ranting and get off your hobby-horse. Then sit down and work out just what you believe to be correct. Next, find out exactly what the theory of evolution and hypotheses on the origins of life have to say (from your comments, you clearly do not know) and identify where you disagree. Then try to resolve the differences. To do this, feel free to come here and ask questions, but next time do not come charging in, throwing your ignorance left and right. Instead, be prepared to acknowledge that someone who has probably only done a couple of high school science courses is likely to be less informed than people who have spent decades studying the subject.

Good luck. You will need it.

DS said:

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said: IBIG wrote: "God does not make anyone do anything, and it doesn’t matter how much your pray!!!" So then, how could god answer prayer if I prayed for you to go away? She couldn't. Thought so. So much for god answering prayer. Look dude, you can teach creationism in science class anytime you want. We'll see you in court and you will lose. If you want to know why, read over the transcripts from the Dover trial. If you don't agree, take it up with the supreme court. No one here cares about your religion.

I think you are wrong there, I happen to believe that things are starting to change. The problem with creationists, is that they have not presented the argument the right way. I really believe we will see the day with creation and evolution will be taught side by side. As far as God answering prayer, I have experienced answered prayer many times in my life.

Then go right ahead. Be my guest. Teach whatever you want. You will go to court and then to jail. Why is it that creationists have not been able to present their case in a convincing way? Are they just liars and charlatans? Were they already proven to be completely wrong about everything? Why was it so easy for Darwin to convince everyone that he was right? Was he smarter or more eloquent? Are all creationists just plain incompetent? If so, why would you suppose that they would be correct about anything? As for answered prayer, I pray that you will go away and not come back. Unless you do then I must consider prayers to be unanswered.

IBelieveInGod said: I vote this the most silly argument I have ever read!!! I know you can't be serious, so it's not worth responding to this.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: If you are going play God, then why not do it right, start with absolutely nothing and create everything:):):)

Scientists are not trying to play God, moron. The scientists who study abiogenesis simply wish to know what were the conditions on Earth at the time that allowed life to form over 3 billion years ago. To assume that these scientists are doing their studies solely out of hubris is to insult them.

I keep making analogies to attempt to help you all understand, but it appears that you aren’t capable, or you just don’t want to understand.

We don't understand what you're saying because a) you're using inappropriate analogies that betray a gross and grotesque ignorance science and b) you're incoherent and needlessly argumentative.

Let’s try again: What if you have all the parts of a working car in a large field including gasoline, oil and water, now let’s substitute these parts in place of the chemicals, element and gases needed for life. *stupidity snipped* Don’t you see the silliness of this.

We already understand how a car is built, and we already know that using a car in an analogy for the formation of life is inane and inappropriate.

The simplest free-living life form is Mycoplasma genitalium

Mycoplasma genitalium is not free-living: it's an obligate parasite found in the human urethra. I would ask you to get your facts straight before you lecture us on a topic you know nothing about, but, I might as well as for the moon.

is a machine,

It's a parasitic bacterium, not a machine.

and is more complex then a car, did you hear what I said, “MORE COMPLEX THEN A CAR” the simplest free-living life form has 580,000 base pair and 482 protein-codding genes.

When I point out that you use inappropriate analogies to betray your own grotesque lack of understanding, I'm referring to nonsense like this. Trying to prove your authority by comparing a bacterium to a car is not like comparing apples and oranges: it's like comparing a wax orange with a chunk of rosy quartz. Really, if you can not explain to us what it is you're trying to scream at us about, please go away.

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said:

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said: IBIG wrote: "God does not make anyone do anything, and it doesn’t matter how much your pray!!!" So then, how could god answer prayer if I prayed for you to go away? She couldn't. Thought so. So much for god answering prayer. Look dude, you can teach creationism in science class anytime you want. We'll see you in court and you will lose. If you want to know why, read over the transcripts from the Dover trial. If you don't agree, take it up with the supreme court. No one here cares about your religion.

I think you are wrong there, I happen to believe that things are starting to change. The problem with creationists, is that they have not presented the argument the right way. I really believe we will see the day with creation and evolution will be taught side by side. As far as God answering prayer, I have experienced answered prayer many times in my life.

Then go right ahead. Be my guest. Teach whatever you want. You will go to court and then to jail. Why is it that creationists have not been able to present their case in a convincing way? Are they just liars and charlatans? Were they already proven to be completely wrong about everything? Why was it so easy for Darwin to convince everyone that he was right? Was he smarter or more eloquent? Are all creationists just plain incompetent? If so, why would you suppose that they would be correct about anything? As for answered prayer, I pray that you will go away and not come back. Unless you do then I must consider prayers to be unanswered.

Why all the concern about teaching creation along side evolution, is there a fear that creation will be more widely accepted among students? Tell me where in the constitution does it state that the teaching of creation is unlawful? The first schools in the country actually used the Bible as part of the curriculum , and these were much closer to the time of the drafting of the constitution. These misinterpretations of the constitution will eventually be overturned once an honest court that interprets rather then legislates from the bench.

PS

My prayers are still unanswered.

DS said:

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said:

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said: IBIG wrote: "God does not make anyone do anything, and it doesn’t matter how much your pray!!!" So then, how could god answer prayer if I prayed for you to go away? She couldn't. Thought so. So much for god answering prayer. Look dude, you can teach creationism in science class anytime you want. We'll see you in court and you will lose. If you want to know why, read over the transcripts from the Dover trial. If you don't agree, take it up with the supreme court. No one here cares about your religion.

I think you are wrong there, I happen to believe that things are starting to change. The problem with creationists, is that they have not presented the argument the right way. I really believe we will see the day with creation and evolution will be taught side by side. As far as God answering prayer, I have experienced answered prayer many times in my life.

Then go right ahead. Be my guest. Teach whatever you want. You will go to court and then to jail. Why is it that creationists have not been able to present their case in a convincing way? Are they just liars and charlatans? Were they already proven to be completely wrong about everything? Why was it so easy for Darwin to convince everyone that he was right? Was he smarter or more eloquent? Are all creationists just plain incompetent? If so, why would you suppose that they would be correct about anything? As for answered prayer, I pray that you will go away and not come back. Unless you do then I must consider prayers to be unanswered.

Why all the concern about teaching creation along side evolution, is there a fear that creation will be more widely accepted among students? Tell me where in the constitution does it state that the teaching of creation is unlawful? The first schools in the country actually used the Bible as part of the curriculum , and these were much closer to the time of the drafting of the constitution. These misinterpretations of the constitution will eventually be overturned once an honest court that interprets rather then legislates from the bench.

No concern at all. Go roight ahead. How many times do you have to be told.

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said:

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said:

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said: IBIG wrote: "God does not make anyone do anything, and it doesn’t matter how much your pray!!!" So then, how could god answer prayer if I prayed for you to go away? She couldn't. Thought so. So much for god answering prayer. Look dude, you can teach creationism in science class anytime you want. We'll see you in court and you will lose. If you want to know why, read over the transcripts from the Dover trial. If you don't agree, take it up with the supreme court. No one here cares about your religion.

I think you are wrong there, I happen to believe that things are starting to change. The problem with creationists, is that they have not presented the argument the right way. I really believe we will see the day with creation and evolution will be taught side by side. As far as God answering prayer, I have experienced answered prayer many times in my life.

Then go right ahead. Be my guest. Teach whatever you want. You will go to court and then to jail. Why is it that creationists have not been able to present their case in a convincing way? Are they just liars and charlatans? Were they already proven to be completely wrong about everything? Why was it so easy for Darwin to convince everyone that he was right? Was he smarter or more eloquent? Are all creationists just plain incompetent? If so, why would you suppose that they would be correct about anything? As for answered prayer, I pray that you will go away and not come back. Unless you do then I must consider prayers to be unanswered.

Why all the concern about teaching creation along side evolution, is there a fear that creation will be more widely accepted among students? Tell me where in the constitution does it state that the teaching of creation is unlawful? The first schools in the country actually used the Bible as part of the curriculum , and these were much closer to the time of the drafting of the constitution. These misinterpretations of the constitution will eventually be overturned once an honest court that interprets rather then legislates from the bench.

No concern at all. Go roight ahead. How many times do you have to be told.

If it is no concern, then why do you think that those would teach would go to jail?

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said:

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said:

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said: IBIG wrote: "God does not make anyone do anything, and it doesn’t matter how much your pray!!!" So then, how could god answer prayer if I prayed for you to go away? She couldn't. Thought so. So much for god answering prayer. Look dude, you can teach creationism in science class anytime you want. We'll see you in court and you will lose. If you want to know why, read over the transcripts from the Dover trial. If you don't agree, take it up with the supreme court. No one here cares about your religion.

I think you are wrong there, I happen to believe that things are starting to change. The problem with creationists, is that they have not presented the argument the right way. I really believe we will see the day with creation and evolution will be taught side by side. As far as God answering prayer, I have experienced answered prayer many times in my life.

Then go right ahead. Be my guest. Teach whatever you want. You will go to court and then to jail. Why is it that creationists have not been able to present their case in a convincing way? Are they just liars and charlatans? Were they already proven to be completely wrong about everything? Why was it so easy for Darwin to convince everyone that he was right? Was he smarter or more eloquent? Are all creationists just plain incompetent? If so, why would you suppose that they would be correct about anything? As for answered prayer, I pray that you will go away and not come back. Unless you do then I must consider prayers to be unanswered.

Why all the concern about teaching creation along side evolution, is there a fear that creation will be more widely accepted among students? Tell me where in the constitution does it state that the teaching of creation is unlawful? The first schools in the country actually used the Bible as part of the curriculum , and these were much closer to the time of the drafting of the constitution. These misinterpretations of the constitution will eventually be overturned once an honest court that interprets rather then legislates from the bench.

No concern at all. Go roight ahead. How many times do you have to be told.

If it is no concern, then why do you think that those would teach would go to jail?

Because, idiot, Creationism is not a science: teaching a non-science in a science classroom is a waste of students' and teachers' time, as well as a waste of taxpayers' money. Creationism is an anti-scientific and anti-science strain of religious propaganda. Furthermore, using taxpayers' money to teach religious propaganda in a science classroom, in place of science, violates the Anti-Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. So, to answer your question: yes, people who purposely violate the US Constitution with the specific purpose of spreading religious propaganda should be punished by the government.

You folks have already said that these are not true theories on the beginning of first life, but are actually hypothesis.

Let me add that I really don't consider most origin science to be science either, but is really a belief system. Go, ahead and say what you will.

By the way have you created something from absolutely nothing lately? Since science claims to know how the elements and gases were created from nothing, I'm waiting for you to do it:):):)

I think what FL is saying is the Dembski's hypothesis and not been falsified.

The most learned scholars of every age are mere infants in knowledge compared to Him. "There is no searching of his understanding" (Isaiah 40:28)

Yay, it was only a matter of time before the preaching started. As usual, it comes with no explanation whatsoever why we should think IBIG's religious opinions are any more valid, interesting or important than the religious opinions of anyone else.

My opinions are just as important as yours!

You have every right to post quotes from your bible:):):) You have every right to worship your god, "mother earth", or "evolution"

Yes, and what everyone else is saying is that Dembski hasn't even attempted to do so, which is about as bad a criticism as a supposed scientist could get.

Of course, there's the wee problem of formulating Dembski's hypothesis in a sufficiently objective way as to make such a test possible.

IBelieveInGod said: I think what FL is saying is the Dembski's hypothesis and not been falsified.

Science Avenger said: Yes, and what everyone else is saying is that Dembski hasn't even attempted to do so, which is about as bad a criticism as a supposed scientist could get. Of course, there's the wee problem of formulating Dembski's hypothesis in a sufficiently objective way as to make such a test possible.

IBelieveInGod said: My opinions are just as important as yours!

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: I think what FL is saying is the Dembski's hypothesis and not been falsified.

"There are tiny unicorns in my garden" has not been falsified either. "Not been falsified" is not the equivalent of "science." Look, this is really quite simple. If you have an idea and you want to turn it into a scientific theory, you have to investigate it. Publish the results. Let everyone else check your work for errors. Let them draw out ramifications of your idea and independently test those ramifications. Show how your idea is useful for solving problems or explaining phenomena. Dembski has done none of that. He hasn't got beyond the "I have an idea" stage in 11 years. Until he does, his idea isn't science, any more than the tiny unicorns in my garden are. And as others have patiently explained to you over and over again, you are welcome to teach biblical stories of creation in a biblical studies elective. No one is stopping you. What we object to is when folks insist on putting it in Biology, a science class, when it isn't science. IBiG, you've even stated here on PT that you don't claim creationism is science. So why try to push it into the biology curriculum? It makes about as much sense and pushing poetry into the calculus curriculum.

IBelieveInGod said: I think what FL is saying is the Dembski's hypothesis and not been falsified.

Let's look at it this way. Let's say that science someday actually creates life in a laboratory, what does that accomplish as far as origin science, would it really demonstrate what really happened with very first life? No, it would just show that life could be created, it can't truly be falsified, because there is no time machine allowing anyone to go back in time, and observe what really happened at the beginning of first life.

We have two different views of first life, I believe God created the universe and all life sustaining elements, and then created life using those natural elements that He created. Not, any different from creating a car, first we create the raw materials for the car, and then we design the parts and manufacture the car. You happen to believe that everything (all elements, the universe, all energy, all laws of physics, and life itself) came about by random events. I believe everything was created with a plan and a purpose.

Perhaps you, IBIG or FL, could suggest a useful way to test it. You don't have to actually do the test yourself, just suggest a way to test that "hypothesis." Let the scientists do the grunt work of actually designing and carrying out the experiments, observations, whatever.

They're telling you that they have no clue how to go about testing such a vague and undefined concept. Dembski, after all, isn't big on supplying "pathetic levels of detail." (I'm still not even sure if that means way too much detail, or hardly any.)

So let's have those practical suggestions. But remember, something casting doubt on evolution, showing "weaknesses," etc. does NOT support Dembski's "hypothesis."

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: My opinions are just as important as yours!

Yes. But your facts are shit.

IBelieveInGod said:

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: My opinions are just as important as yours!

Yes. But your facts are shit.

What facts are you referring to, please post.

Just Bob, tell me how you it would be possible to observe and test first life? Remember according to hypothesis this happened billions of years ago, how do you propose to do that?

IBelieveInGod said: The most learned scholars of every age are mere infants in knowledge compared to Him. "There is no searching of his understanding" (Isaiah 40:28)

So, you just said that my facts were s*** without really reading what I posted, you must be a really objective scientist huh. Showing your bias huh:):):)

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: The most learned scholars of every age are mere infants in knowledge compared to Him. "There is no searching of his understanding" (Isaiah 40:28)

So we all should just give up studying and return to being God-fearing peasants with life expectancies of 20 to 30 years?

IBelieveInGod babbled: Just Bob, tell me how you it would be possible to observe and test first life? Remember according to hypothesis this happened billions of years ago, how do you propose to do that?

IBIG:

God isn't answering my prayers. Maybe I should pray to the devil. Maybe that will get better results:):):):):):):):):):)

IBelieveInGod said: How do you know Dembski hasn't?

Why haven't any of you falsified his hypothesis? If he is such an idiot as many of you think, then it should be easy to falsify his hypothesis right? Why don't you put his hypothesis to the test, and falsify it? I'll check back to read your results! It appears that everyone here knows they are right and Dembski is wrong, then why don't you prove him wrong. Talk is cheap, let's see you do something about it.

Stanton said: He has never written anything about falsifying his own Intelligent Design hypothesis, and he has refused to propose any criteria to falsify it, even when he was asked to do so.

IBelieveInGod said: Let's look at it this way. Let's say that science someday actually creates life in a laboratory, what does that accomplish as far as origin science, would it really demonstrate what really happened with very first life? No, it would just show that life could be created...

IBelieveInGod said: Let's look at it this way. Let's say that science someday actually creates life in a laboratory, what does that accomplish as far as origin science, would it really demonstrate what really happened with very first life? No, it would just show that life could be created, it can't truly be falsified, because there is no time machine allowing anyone to go back in time, and observe what really happened at the beginning of first life.

I believe God created the universe and all life sustaining elements,

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: The most learned scholars of every age are mere infants in knowledge compared to Him. "There is no searching of his understanding" (Isaiah 40:28)

So we all should just give up studying and return to being God-fearing peasants with life expectancies of 20 to 30 years?

Did I say that? But much of science is wasted on worthless research on origin sciences.

eric said: So, (IBelieve's) standard of evidence required for abiogenesis is 'I'd need a time machine before I'd believe it.' Why don't you require the same level of evidence for God?

IBelieveInGod said: I have read many posts on this site, and wouldn't characterize this as a true science site, but rather a site that makes fun of those who happen to believe in creation and a Creator. If some theory doesn't fit your idea of what is acceptable to you, then you make fun of it, and the scientist who proposed such theory. I would think that a true science site would be open-minded to all possibilities of the beginning of life, including the possibility of a creator. To only accept that all things happened by natural causes by nature only, is to put your faith in Mother Earth.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod babbled: Just Bob, tell me how you it would be possible to observe and test first life? Remember according to hypothesis this happened billions of years ago, how do you propose to do that?

Did you know that scientists who propose hypothetical scenarios for abiogenesis test their own hypotheses by recreating the proposed scenarios in a laboratory setting? Did you also know that these same scientists write down what they did with the specific intent of allowing other scientists to also duplicate their experiments?

So, we must take from this lesson that you can not trust the media or creationists because:

a) the media is simply out for flashy soundbites, and the only reason why they frame things as being in turmoil is to garner a bigger audience

and

b) Creationists manipulate what other people say about science in order to deliberately mislead and misinform the public for Jesus' sake.

This leads to c) never trust what creationists say about science (or anything), and always try to independently verify what the media says about science.

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: Let's look at it this way. Let's say that science someday actually creates life in a laboratory, what does that accomplish as far as origin science, would it really demonstrate what really happened with very first life? No, it would just show that life could be created, it can't truly be falsified, because there is no time machine allowing anyone to go back in time, and observe what really happened at the beginning of first life.

So, your standard of evidence required for abiogenesis is 'I'd need a time machine before I'd believe it.' Why don't you require the same level of evidence for God?

I believe God created the universe and all life sustaining elements,

But he doesn't. The sun is creating light elements right now, as we speak. As do all other stars. Unless you're now claiming that divine miracle and not fusion is actually what makes the sun shine.

What was first life?

Exactly where did it become life?

Exactly when did it become life?

how long did it live?

Was it able to reproduce?

If not then how many times did first life come from non-living matter before it evolved into self replicating life?

Exactly what chemical reactions created first life?

What was the atmosphere at first life?

What was the exact composition of the oceans at first life?

What was first life?

Exactly where did it become life?

Exactly when did it become life?

how long did it live?

Was it able to reproduce?

If not then how many times did first life come from non-living matter before it evolved into self replicating life?

Exactly what chemical reactions created first life?

What was the atmosphere at first life?

What was the exact composition of the oceans at first life?

IBelieveInGod said: I don't because, I believe in God, but I don't call God a theory or hypothesis either.

You miss my point though. You would say that origin theories, or hypothesis, deserves to be considered science when in all actuality can't be falsified by test or observation.

If you were unbiased scientists as you would claim, you would be open to all possibilities of first life including a creator.

when are you going to answer my questions?

Tell me how far you would get in a murder trial, if you don't have a body, don't know if someone even existed, don't if they even died?

Many try to compare origin science with forensic science, but it's not the same. You don't have a specimen of first life, you don't know and never will what first life was, you don't even know when first life became life, you don't know how many times life evolved from non-living matter before it was able to self replicate, you don't know what that atmosphere was at first life. Yet you somehow know more then me about first life?

I BIG joke wrote:

when are you going to answer my questions?

when is you goin to answer mine? should i pray to satan for you to leave or not? would it work if i did?praying to god sure didn't

this is the bathroom wall retard no one takes you serious here you had your chance before and you blew it now you got to live with it if you don't like it just leave

IBelieveInGod said: Tell me how far you would get in a murder trial, if you don’t have a body, don’t know if someone even existed, don’t if they even died?

what is the difference between a life form that is living, and one that is dead?

DS said: I BIG joke wrote: when are you going to answer my questions? when is you goin to answer mine? should i pray to satan for you to leave or not? would it work if i did?praying to god sure didn't this is the bathroom wall retard no one takes you serious here you had your chance before and you blew it now you got to live with it if you don't like it just leave

IBelieveInGod said: what is the difference between a life form that is living, and one that is dead?

So, where did the active metabolism come from?

I tried to post on another story, but it's obvious that I can't, so I will post here.

Is this really a science site?

I have read through the articles posted here over the last two months and the majority of articles are against creationism and ID, I really don't understand why so much coverage against creationism and ID, when you think it is myth and lies anyway. Are you really a science site or a site with an anti-creationism/ID agenda? If you do have this agenda then you aren't a true science site, but are rather a propaganda site for those who are against creationism/ID. A true science site would have no such agenda, a true science site would only be interested discovery. Isn't science supposed to be unbiased and observes and tests to gain knowledge? I don't see that here. What I see here is an agenda against those who happen to accept another explanation for life, and the universe then your own.

You assume that life came about by Abiogenesis without any evidence whatsoever, and I and others believe that a Creator created the universe and life. Somehow without evidence that life actually came non-living matter, you attack those who would assume that life came about in a different way then your assumption.

A true scientist would respect the assumptions of others, even though their assumption is different, and would be open to other opposing views.

Is this a science site? NO!!!

Is this a anti-creationism/ID propaganda site? Yes!!!

IBIG wrote:

"Is this really a science site?"

No jackass, this is the bathroom wall. You have been banned from civilized society because of your stupidity. Here you will subjected to all manner of ridicule. If you go away now you can save yourself. No one cares what you think. Piss off.

My prayers have finally been answered. Thanks Dave. You and Joe Pesci as OK in my book.

DS said: IBIG wrote: "Is this really a science site?" No jackass, this is the bathroom wall. You have been banned from civilized society because of your stupidity. Here you will subjected to all manner of ridicule. If you go away now you can save yourself. No one cares what you think. Piss off. My prayers have finally been answered. Thanks Dave. You and Joe Pesci as OK in my book.

I'm stupid for questioning your motives?

Most of the posts on this site are anti-creation and ID anyway, so it's not like I'm talking off subject. So, opposing views aren't acceptable. What I have found about evolutionists is that they can't really win a debate with creationists. It is not winnable because you are attempting to argue based on pseudo-science and not real science. You have no evidence whatsoever to observe and to test. So, your answer is to manufacture your own evidence and then say see the evidence is against a creator. You have no evidence that points to no creator.

IBIG wrote:

"You have no evidence that points to no creator."

And you ain't got no good english. Look chowder head, no one is trying to prove that god does not exist. No one is interested in arguing religion with you. You are stupid because you refuse to answer our questions. You are stupid because you ignore all of the findings of science. You are banned to the bathroom wall because you are an insufferable troll. No one cares what you think. If you want to teach creationism as science in public schools go right ahead, no one is stopping you from trying. See you in court. Until then, piss off.

You have not answered my question, is this really a legitimate science site? Are you really about discovery, or just attacking creationism and ID? I guess you can't answer can you?

IBelieveInGod said: Is this really a science site? I have read through the articles posted here over the last two months and the majority of articles are against creationism and ID, I really don't understand why so much coverage against creationism and ID, when you think it is myth and lies anyway. Are you really a science site or a site with an anti-creationism/ID agenda? A true scientist would respect the assumptions of others, even though their assumption is different, and would be open to other opposing views..(snip)

Is this a science site? NO!!!

Is this a anti-creationism/ID propaganda site? Yes!!!

IBelieveInGod said: You have not answered my question, is this really a legitimate science site? Are you really about discovery, or just attacking creationism and ID? I guess you can't answer can you?

Are viruses alive?

Are Prions alive?

let's see how many honest answers I receive!

Origins of life on Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life

Biochemists reason that all living organisms on Earth must share a single last universal ancestor, because it would be virtually impossible that two or more separate lineages could have independently developed the many complex biochemical mechanisms shared by all living organisms.[31][32] However the earliest organisms for which fossil evidence is available are bacteria, which are far too complex to have arisen directly from non-living materials.[33] The lack of fossil or geochemical evidence for earlier types of organism has left plenty of scope for hypotheses, which fall into two main groups: that life arose spontaneously on Earth, and that it was "seeded" from elsewhere in the universe.[34]

Did you read this:
"many complex biochemical mechanisms shared by all living organisms"

So, all life would have come from one common ancestor, there could only have been one first living organism that all life evolved from right? If life came from two different first living organisms then how would they share the same biochemical mechanisms? So abiogenesis would have only happened once in billions of years, don't you even see a problem with this? This is evidence that it is highly improbable that abiogenesis ever occurred in the first place. If many complex biochemical mechanisms are shared by all living organism, then there are only two explanations, all living things came from one and only one living organism, or they would have been created by a creator, who happen included many of the same shared mechanisms with all living organisms that were created.

This evidence reveals how improbable abiogenesis really is, we are asked to accept that it happened once in 4 billion years, and was so successful in that one event, that all life that we see today came from that one single abiogenesis event. What are the odds of that first life being successful at reproducing offspring much less living for more the a very short time.

Stanton said: IBelieve, you are an idiot. Do you honestly think quotemining from Wikipedia will provide you the deathblow to abiogenesis? Why don't you discuss this with the Nobel Prize Committee and see what they have to say about your screechy inanity?

Stanton said: IBelieve, you are an idiot. Do you honestly think quotemining from Wikipedia will provide you the deathblow to abiogenesis? Why don't you discuss this with the Nobel Prize Committee and see what they have to say about your screechy inanity?

Bias is holding an opinion formed without regard to relevant evidence and logic.

The negative opinion of ID and Creationism held by people here was formed after due consideration of the relevant evidence and logic (or lack of them).

Therefore that negative opinion is not bias.

Henry

So, all life would have come from one common ancestor, there could only have been one first living organism that all life evolved from right?

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said: IBelieve, you are an idiot. Do you honestly think quotemining from Wikipedia will provide you the deathblow to abiogenesis? Why don't you discuss this with the Nobel Prize Committee and see what they have to say about your screechy inanity?

Logical fallacy - appeal to authority just because someone in authority says something is true does not make it true.

I'm not using "appeal to authority," you babbling twit. I'm being facetious: I was implying that, if you really have found evidence that disproves abiogenesis, you should win a Nobel Prize for having negating an entire branch of science. But, given as how you've achieved this so-called "checkmate" solely through deliberately misreading and twisting the words and meanings you found in Wikipedia articles, the only things you deserve are derision and scorn.

IBelieveInGod said: do you dispute that all life came from one common ancestor?

No, I said you were an idiot. The evidence for all life coming from a common ancestor is overwhelming, especially if you've actually taken the time to study biology. And you're also a hypocrite, IBelieve, especially since you've lambasted other people for allegedly putting words in my mouth, but here you are, trying to put words into my mouth.

First life is expected to have been far simpler than modern life, so examining the complexities of a modern microbe is not an appropriate way of estimating probabilities for abiogenesis.

Also, the conclusion that modern life shares an ancestral type doesn't imply that only one abiogenesis event occurred, since other such events might simply have not left any descendants where we could find them.

There's also a chance that the common ancestor of modern life contained components from more than one abiogenesis event; mergers can't be ruled out a priori.

Besides that, if life is here now (it is), and if there was a time when life didn't exist (that's what current evidence indicates), that would mean that life arose at least once in a place that didn't previously have life.

If life didn't always exist then abiogenesis happened at least once by some means. (And saying that it couldn't happen "naturally" is saying that a "Designer" could not arrange for natural processes to do this, and that contradicts the usual concept of what a "Designer" can do.)

Henry J

IBelieveInGod said: do you dispute that all life came from one common ancestor?

Do you?

Here are biochemical mechanisms shared by all living organisms correct me if this information is wrong:

1. Proteins are constructed from the same set of 20 amino acids.

2. DNA stores the "instructions" for making proteins in the same "language"

3. RNA is used to "read" the DNA instructions and assemble proteins.

4. The use of "left-handed" forms of proteins that have both forms.

5. complex, multi-stage chemical reactions occur with all living organisms.

My point is that all organisms, if they truly evolved would have come from one Last Universal Common Ancestor. All life would have come from one single abiogenesis event. This is evidence right?

If true, successful abiogenesis only occurred once in 4 billion years.

Just Bob said: I vote for bouncing any troll after, say, 3 posts, who has absolutely NO scientific credentials, yet has the arrogance to tell all professional biologists that they're wrong about the very basics of biology (and in the case of YECs, virtually all the rest of modern science).

Are the above 5 biochemical mechanisms shared with all living organisms correct or am I wrong? If I'm wrong feel free to correct me.

I presented this because I consider this evidence, didn't you all ask for evidence?

IBelieveInStupidity said: Here are biochemical mechanisms shared by all living organisms correct me if this information is wrong: 1. Proteins are constructed from the same set of 20 amino acids. 2. DNA stores the "instructions" for making proteins in the same "language" 3. RNA is used to "read" the DNA instructions and assemble proteins. 4. The use of "left-handed" forms of proteins that have both forms. 5. complex, multi-stage chemical reactions occur with all living organisms. My point is that all organisms, if they truly evolved would have come from one Last Universal Common Ancestor. All life would have come from one single abiogenesis event. This is evidence right? If true, successful abiogenesis only occurred once in 4 billion years.

IBelieveInFraud said: What was first life? Exactly where did it become life? Exactly when did it become life? how long did it live? Was it able to reproduce? If not then how many times did first life come from non-living matter before it evolved into self replicating life? Exactly what chemical reactions created first life? What was the atmosphere at first life? What was the exact composition of the oceans at first life?

IBelieveInGod said: My point is that all organisms, if they truly evolved would have come from one Last Universal Common Ancestor. All life would have come from one single abiogenesis event. This is evidence right? If true, successful abiogenesis only occurred once in 4 billion years.

Dave Luckett said:

Stanton said: Was it in the Bible that was said about certain people who can swallow camels, but strain at gnats?

Yep. Jesus himself, in fact. He had a way of dinging the perfect phrase.

I feel so immature doing this, but I need to vent. My best friend is the most unintelligent person I've ever known. She's really big into pretending to be things she isn't because she thinks it's cool, and lately she's decided to pretend to be smart. She reads stupid Oprah's Book Club books, looks up big words in the dictionary and then uses them incorrectly, and treats me like I'm an idiot. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that I am a lot smarter than she is, so it pisses me off when she acts like I'm handicapped. I've always been interested in psychology and want to be a psychiatrist someday. All of a sudden my friend has decided that she also wants to go into psychology, but acts like I'm copying her or something, which is so stupid and petty. She's convinced she's going to get into a university outside of our country, but she's failing more than three of her classes. I don't know how to tell her that her chances of being accepted are extremely low. She hasn't explored any other options for post-secondary education, and when she doesn't get into this university she's going to be without a school to go to once we grad. Also, she hasn't researched what she wants to do in relation to psychology whatsoever. For example, whenever people ask her what she's going to do when she's older, she says, "I want to go into the Humanities, because I want to be a psychiatrist." First of all, psychology is a Social Science, not a Humanity. Secondly, she thinks that to be a psychiatrist she won't need an M.D. When I tell her that in order to be a licensed psychiatrist you generally need to attend medical school after graduating university, she gives me weird looks and acts like I'm stupid. She literally has no idea what she's talking about. The only reason I care is because she's putting her future in jeopardy by trying to be cool and acting like an idiot. She isn't being realistic by thinking she's going to be able to get into an Ivy League school. Even if she were to be accepted, there is no way she could handle pre-med. I don't know how to tell her all this without being mean, but seriously, she's acting ridiculous.

By the way, IBelieveInGod:

The fact that you even feel the need to shove your beliefs down peoples' throats on a website is only proof that you're insecure about your faith.

Believe whatever you want, but the reality of the situation is that evolution is the more probable explanation and religion is a hindrance on the development and progress of mankind.

Even if you do believe in a higher power, that's fine. As long as you only use it as a means to better yourself as a person, and not to persecute others or belittle other peoples beliefs and lifestyle choices.

Also, I don't understand why Athiests have to prove to the world that the ludicrous theories proposed in the bible are false. I could tell the world I had superpowers. If I went up to someone and said, "Prove I can't fly!", they'd say, "What are you talking about? Prove you can!".

IBelieveInGod said: So abiogenesis would have only happened once in billions of years, don't you even see a problem with this?

IBelieveInGod said: So, all life would have come from one common ancestor, there could only have been one first living organism that all life evolved from right? If life came from two different first living organisms then how would they share the same biochemical mechanisms? So abiogenesis would have only happened once in billions of years,

Holden said: (Stuff about his friend)

IBelieveInGod (in a closed thread) said: I see evidence of intelligent design in everything I see,

Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.
–Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis
by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377–398, 1977

I'm sorry folks but there is absolutely no evidence that abiogenesis ever occurred, it is just the figment of someone's imagination, no different then your claims about creation.

When I see that all life have many shared biochemical mechanisms, that to me is evidence of a creator. A believe a creator would create the building blocks for life first, and then create life. You don't have to believe me or the Bible, you have the right to choose where to put your faith and trust, but please don't tell me I'm an idiot because I believe in a Living God, Creator of the universe. You see you believe that live arose from non-living matter by random events, but you will never be able to know if it really happened. So it really is an act of faith, trust and acceptance in the assumption of abiogenesis.

My contention all along is that the acceptance of abiogenesis, and evolution from common decent is really a form of belief system, or religion. You all have shown in your posts that you have a religious fervor for your acceptance that abiogenesis occurred billions of years ago. Even though it has never been observed, and no evidence exists that it ever did occur in the past. It is only assumed (believed)that it occurred. I'm sure that your answer to this will be that all science has to do is demonstrate the possibility that abiogenesis could have happened, and that will prove that a creator wasn't necessary. But, could have is not evidence that it actually happened that way. I happen to believe if science someday were to create life in a laboratory, that it would be evidence of a creator rather then abiogenesis.

So, is abiogenesis really science? You would say that it is, because it is a hypothesis to explain how things may have occurred, but creation is an belief of how things may have occurred. No difference!!!

Here is the logic that IBIG is trying to use:

All of my grandchildren are descended from only one of my sons. Therefore, I cannot have any other children. Therefore, since it is so hard to be born, I could not have been born. Therefore I must have magically poofed into existence! Tell me where I am wrong!!!

As others have pointed out:

The fact that all extant life can be traced to a single common ancestor does not preclude the occurrence of other origins of life.

The probability of life arising is irrelevant, since it obviously did.

If all known life came from a single common ancestor, then it must have diversified by a long slow process of evolution. The only role left for god would be the original creation of the original ancestor and there is no evidence for that. You wouldn't want anyone to just accept something for which there is no evidence now would you? Were you there?

This guy obviously just needs an excuse to believe in god. So what, who cares, he can have any religious beliefs he wants. Of course if he thinks that it is hard for life to arise from nonliving matter, he must think it is really hard for god to arise as well, so I guess he still has a problem. Who cares?

1 Corinthians 2:14

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20

18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; 20and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."

Since others here are going to post Bible scripture, then I think I have a right to do the same!!!

DS said: Here we go folks. Now all pretense at discussing science is out the window. Now the bible thumping and preaching start. Ban this fool to the bathroom wall forever. Anyone who responds to him here gets what they deserve.

I don't know who henry is, but to call someone moronic is not very civilized, and again this demonstrates your religious fervor for your belief.

Henry J said: First life is expected to have been far simpler than modern life, so examining the complexities of a modern microbe is not an appropriate way of estimating probabilities for abiogenesis. Also, the conclusion that modern life shares an ancestral type doesn't imply that only one abiogenesis event occurred, since other such events might simply have not left any descendants where we could find them. There's also a chance that the common ancestor of modern life contained components from more than one abiogenesis event; mergers can't be ruled out a priori. Besides that, if life is here now (it is), and if there was a time when life didn't exist (that's what current evidence indicates), that would mean that life arose at least once in a place that didn't previously have life. If life didn't always exist then abiogenesis happened at least once by some means. (And saying that it couldn't happen "naturally" is saying that a "Designer" could not arrange for natural processes to do this, and that contradicts the usual concept of what a "Designer" can do.) Henry J

Henry J said: Bias is holding an opinion formed without regard to relevant evidence and logic. The negative opinion of ID and Creationism held by people here was formed after due consideration of the relevant evidence and logic (or lack of them). Therefore that negative opinion is not bias. Henry

Holden said: By the way, IBelieveInGod: The fact that you even feel the need to shove your beliefs down peoples' throats on a website is only proof that you're insecure about your faith. Believe whatever you want, but the reality of the situation is that evolution is the more probable explanation and religion is a hindrance on the development and progress of mankind. Even if you do believe in a higher power, that's fine. As long as you only use it as a means to better yourself as a person, and not to persecute others or belittle other peoples beliefs and lifestyle choices. Also, I don't understand why Athiests have to prove to the world that the ludicrous theories proposed in the bible are false. I could tell the world I had superpowers. If I went up to someone and said, "Prove I can't fly!", they'd say, "What are you talking about? Prove you can!".

Dan said:

IBelieveInGod said: I don't know who henry is, but to call someone moronic is not very civilized,

henry behaves in a moronic fashion, and the only civilized thing to do is to call it what it is. To do otherwise is to lie, and it is never civil to lie.

But aren’t you assuming that an earlier more simple life existed without evidence?

You believe that life arose by natural causes by random events, and I believe that life arose by a hand of a creator.

Henry J said:

But aren’t you assuming that an earlier more simple life existed without evidence?

No. I'm acknowledging that the prior existence of simpler life is implied by the available evidence.

You believe that life arose by natural causes by random events, and I believe that life arose by a hand of a creator.

I don't see any contradiction between "life arose by natural causes" and "life arose by a hand of a creator". To establish a contradiction between those one would have to explain why a Creator would be unable to use natural processes to do stuff, and that contradicts the usual understanding of "Creator". Also the phrase "by random events" doesn't fit there. Events caused by natural processes are contingent on prior conditions, so while some things are effectively random, some aren't. (For instance, chemical reactions are a result of the particular chemicals and conditions that are present; at the level of individual atoms and molecules it may be random, but at larger scales it isn't.) Henry J

IBelieveInGod said: I'm not insecure about my beliefs whatsoever, I'm actually certain about my beliefs. But, you and others show that you aren't, by the anger in your posts. I have never called anyone here a name, I have never called anyone an idiot, moron, etc... But I have been called that on many occasions, does it bother me, not in the least! I just consider that those calling me those names are really insecure about what they believe. When I started posting on this site last week I knew I would be attacked, because I could tell that this was really an anti-christian, creationism, ID site, so it comes as not surprise and no big deal to me. I have posted my thoughts on the beginning of life and have been attacked because my thoughts aren't your thoughts. True science would be open to all possibilities of the origin of life, and not just a narrow assumption that life came about in a soupy pool of water by random events. I find the personal name calling quite childish and humorous:)

True science would be open to all possibilities of the origin of life, and not just a narrow assumption that life came about in a soupy pool of water by random events.

IBelieveInGod said: So, you are saying that abiogenesis wasn't a random event? That the supposed conditions that brought about life occurred with a purpose?

IBelieveInGod said: I'm not insecure about my beliefs whatsoever, I'm actually certain about my beliefs.

stevaroni said: One thing I should point out, as long as we're talking about the "last Common Ancestor"... It's easy to slip and imagine this as one individual organism, after all, we usually speak of it that way. But it was actually the last common ancestral species from which we were all descended, before all the irretrievable branching started. Even then, because simple bacteria are somewhat promiscuous with their DNA horizontal gene transfer can still happen (when two blobs of jelly try to eat each other sometimes neither wins, and both go home with some new parts ). So there's still some slight possibility for genes to "swim upstream" and get into other branches. As someone pointed out last night, some investigators even imagine two common ancestor species, which mixed and matched in an incestuous stew to produce the 4 basic branches of bacterial fauna ( gram+ / gram- / eukarya / archaea ).

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: I'm not insecure about my beliefs whatsoever, I'm actually certain about my beliefs. But, you and others show that you aren't, by the anger in your posts. I have never called anyone here a name, I have never called anyone an idiot, moron, etc... But I have been called that on many occasions, does it bother me, not in the least! I just consider that those calling me those names are really insecure about what they believe. When I started posting on this site last week I knew I would be attacked, because I could tell that this was really an anti-christian, creationism, ID site, so it comes as not surprise and no big deal to me. I have posted my thoughts on the beginning of life and have been attacked because my thoughts aren't your thoughts. True science would be open to all possibilities of the origin of life, and not just a narrow assumption that life came about in a soupy pool of water by random events. I find the personal name calling quite childish and humorous:)

Maybe people here are angry because they have seen Creationists come and go on this site for years and just get fed up with the same lame, bogus arguments being thrown at them over and over by the various people. From your perspective, this is the first time you've been here. I've been here for about five or six years. I don't think you are insecure about your beliefs, you are just brainwashed with them. Look at your statement again:

True science would be open to all possibilities of the origin of life, and not just a narrow assumption that life came about in a soupy pool of water by random events.

You don't get to redefine "science" to fit your own assumptions, for then EVERYONE gets to do that and then it has no real meaning. Science that is not based on methodlogical naturalism ceases to explain anything about the natural universe. Saying that a supernatural entity that is unknowable created life is not an explanation; it is what results when you STOP looking for explanations. Why should we stop looking for explanations just because it bothers you? If you were honest, you'd deny science altogether and be done with this discussion.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: I'm not insecure about my beliefs whatsoever, I'm actually certain about my beliefs. But, you and others show that you aren't, by the anger in your posts. I have never called anyone here a name, I have never called anyone an idiot, moron, etc... But I have been called that on many occasions, does it bother me, not in the least! I just consider that those calling me those names are really insecure about what they believe. When I started posting on this site last week I knew I would be attacked, because I could tell that this was really an anti-christian, creationism, ID site, so it comes as not surprise and no big deal to me. I have posted my thoughts on the beginning of life and have been attacked because my thoughts aren't your thoughts. True science would be open to all possibilities of the origin of life, and not just a narrow assumption that life came about in a soupy pool of water by random events. I find the personal name calling quite childish and humorous:)

Maybe people here are angry because they have seen Creationists come and go on this site for years and just get fed up with the same lame, bogus arguments being thrown at them over and over by the various people. From your perspective, this is the first time you've been here. I've been here for about five or six years. I don't think you are insecure about your beliefs, you are just brainwashed with them. Look at your statement again:

True science would be open to all possibilities of the origin of life, and not just a narrow assumption that life came about in a soupy pool of water by random events.

You don't get to redefine "science" to fit your own assumptions, for then EVERYONE gets to do that and then it has no real meaning. Science that is not based on methodlogical naturalism ceases to explain anything about the natural universe. Saying that a supernatural entity that is unknowable created life is not an explanation; it is what results when you STOP looking for explanations. Why should we stop looking for explanations just because it bothers you? If you were honest, you'd deny science altogether and be done with this discussion.

So, you aren't open to the possibility that science will be able to test the supernatural in the future? Wasn't there a time when scientists ridiculed those with ideas that have since turned out to be correct. The natural universe that you refer to, applies to where we live here an now, how do you know that those natural laws applied in the past, or in other parts of the universe now?

IBIG,

You never answered my question. Where is my reasoning wrong? After all, it is the same reasoning that you are using.

No one cares what you believe based on faith. Studies of the history of life continue because we are constantly looking for more evidence. You apparently have given up on that. That is the difference between science and faith. Now if you have any evidence let's have it. If not stop berating others for not having as much as you would like.

I admit that I believe in God and do it by faith, but you all are in denial of the fact that you believe in abiogenesis by faith.

DS said: IBIG, You never answered my question. Where is my reasoning wrong? After all, it is the same reasoning that you are using. No one cares what you believe based on faith. Studies of the history of life continue because we are constantly looking for more evidence. You apparently have given up on that. That is the difference between science and faith. Now if you have any evidence let's have it. If not stop berating others for not having as much as you would like.

So, you are saying that abiogenesis wasn’t a random event? That the supposed conditions that brought about life occurred with a purpose?

When you see a watch, tv, car, house, etc… it is implied by available evidence that someone actually created those.

Implied by the available evidence? Now that is a good one, I could use that same argument.

Isn’t evolution supposedly random mutations that leads to change over time? How would random changes in more then one lineage have brought about the shared biochemical mechanisms?

Why are there comments on the bathroom wall that say they've been moved to the bathroom wall?

Oh well. It doesn't matter. The fool has already admitted that there was one common ancestor. Once he admits that then all of evolution must necessarily follow. He is now reduced to yammering about abiogenesis and demanding evidence when he himself has none. What a hypocrite. I think this guy can be safely ignored. His twisted pretzel logic has marked him as a troll of the worst kind. He sounds like Byers with a spell checker. Too bad it doesn't correct grammar and punctuation.

Henry J said: Why are there comments on the bathroom wall that say they've been moved to the bathroom wall?

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

Henry J said: Why are there comments on the bathroom wall that say they've been moved to the bathroom wall?

If we told you, we'd have to kill you.

Henry J said: Why are there comments on the bathroom wall that say they've been moved to the bathroom wall?

I also wondered what level of stupidity gets you banned from the wall.

nmgirl said: I also wondered what level of stupidity gets you banned from the wall.

If you are banned from the bathroom wall, are your comments flushed down the toilet? Seems somehow appropriate.

I also wondered what level of stupidity gets you banned from the wall.

Critique of 'Primordial Soup' Vindicates Creation Research
Share this Article
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Where, when, and how did life arise on earth? These questions have intrigued mankind for centuries. Evolutionary theorists have tried to answer them, but without definitive success. And now even their prized “primordial soup” recipe has failed them. Where can they turn next?

In the 19th century, French chemist Louis Pasteur conducted repeatable experiments that demonstrated the impossibility of life arising spontaneously from non-life.1 Although he is widely credited with disproving “spontaneous generation,” some theorists simply added imaginary long spans of time to that general idea and re-branded it “chemical evolution.” This holds that life on earth started in a “primordial soup” of chemicals and then evolved over millions of years into the life forms observed today.

Evolutionary biologists A. I. Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane popularized the chemical evolution theory in the 1920s. By 1993, however, it had been plagued by “decades of persistent failure to create life by the ‘spark in the soup’ method.”2 And a new report has finally faced the fact that chemicals do not evolve in soup.

The new study appears in the journal BioEssays and summarizes solid reasons “why that old and familiar view won’t work at all.”3 Interestingly, many of those same arguments have been presented by creation scientists for decades, but were met at the time with disdain and scorn from the scientific community.

The belief that life arose solely through natural processes is not based on scientific observation, but on the atheistic logic of naturalism. It stands to reason that since humans are here, then “those who deny the Creator’s existence must believe [spontaneous generation] happened once upon a time.”4 Science clearly points to a supernatural cause for life, but the atheistic worldview denies the supernatural. So, no matter how unscientific the primordial soup hypothesis was proved to be, it remained a prominent fixture in public school biology textbooks because it fit a particular preconception—and because evolutionary theory didn’t have anything better to offer.

Nick Lane, lead author of the study refuting the “soup” theory, said in a press release that it suffers from “bioenergetic and thermodynamic failings.”3 Bioenergetics deals with energy management that is vital to living cells. This involves production of ATP, the molecule that fuels cells.5 The researchers’ summary shows that not only are scientists still waiting to discover a way to generate ATP in a primordial soup mixture, but that they have also discovered that there are no soup recipes left to try.

In the authors’ words, soup “has no capacity for energy coupling” because ATP production requires protons to be densely packed and separated out.6 What actually happens in a soup is the exact opposite―protons rapidly disperse. The late, preeminent creation scientist A. E. Wilder-Smith made this thermodynamic deal-breaker clear back in 1970:

Thus, long time spans would not only give more time for the “lucky” synthetic reaction to evolve, they would also give more time for the “unlucky” (and often more probable) decomposition reaction to occur, away from life, back to non-life!7

So, why is it that soup-denying scientific observations―which creation advocates have been pointing to for so long, like the instability of RNA in soup, and the destructive power of ultraviolet light and oxygen―are now permitted a voice in an evolutionary journal?

It is because Lane and his colleagues were able to suggest another purely naturalistic possibility. Instead of primordial soup, they presented “the alternative that life arose from gases (H2, CO2, N2, and H2S) and that the energy for first life came from harnessing geochemical gradients created by mother Earth at a special kind of deep-sea hydrothermal vent.”3

However, experiments are already showing that deep-sea vents are just as unlikely to be “special” enough to produce the material or information required for an even minimally functional cell.8 Even if “primordial soup” gets replaced with a “primordial vent,” science will continue to demonstrate that a theory of life coming about in the absence of a living Creator falls short of reality.

Why have scientific critiques coming from those who suggest God as an alternative source for life not been published in the standard scientific journals? As demonstrated by this new study, it is not due to the quality of the science, but to how well the proposed alternative fits into the particular belief system of the scientific elite. Censorship never leads to good science.

Mike Elzinga said: This copy/paste troll cannot be educated. He doesn’t read the crap he posts, and he has no capacity for understanding why it is totally wrong. Ship the troll to the Bathroom Wall.

The tide is turning buddy:)

IBIG,

Do you still agree that there was one common ancestor? You do realize that that does not mean that there was only one origin of life now right? You do realize that your nonsensical reasoning has shown everyone that you have no idea what you are talking about right? You do realize that no one will take anything on the bathroom wall seriously right? You do realize that you are wasting your time and making a fool out of yourself right?

IBelieveInGod said: The tide is turning buddy:)

DS said:

IBelieveInGod said: The tide is turning buddy:)

The tide is washing you ass out to sea.

I'm going to make a prediction about scientists attempting to recreate abiogenesis!

Scientists will never create life. It will never happen in the near future, nor will it happen in the next million years!!!

I'll stop by once and a while to see if life has been created:):):)

why have you never revealed just what those beliefs are? [SNIP] Just what did (or does) the creator do? Push atoms around, think things into existence or what?

IBelieveInGod said: Creation scientists have been saying for years that primordial soup hypothesis wasn't possible because the law of thermodynamics prevented it from happening.

Yes, that's what he's saying. The fact that IBIG wouldn't know the Laws of Thermodynamics from a bar of soap is demonstrated by the fact that he refers to them in the singular. "Creation scientists" my hairy foot.

I'm going to make a prediction about IBIG attempting to ever learn some science!

IBIG will never learn anything about science. It will never happen in the near future, nor will it happen in the next million years!!!

I'll stop by once and a while to see if IBIG has learned any science. The fool will still be banished to the bathroom wall and chances are he still won't understand why:):):)

Richard Simons said: IBelieve's previous comment was taken from the Institute of Creation Research but he has not yet learned how to insert links (or perhaps does not want us to know the source). The author seems to be unaware of the last 20 years of origins research and only one reference in the article might be to peer-reviewed research (BioEssays - I do not know it myself). IBelieve: to remind you, you've not answered my question.

why have you never revealed just what those beliefs are? [SNIP] Just what did (or does) the creator do? Push atoms around, think things into existence or what?

Dave Luckett said: Yes, that's what he's saying. The fact that IBIG wouldn't know the Laws of Thermodynamics from a bar of soap is demonstrated by the fact that he refers to them in the singular. "Creation scientists" my hairy foot.

IBIG wrote:

"God spoke things into existence. He is the big bang, He is the one who created all laws of nature, He is the one who created life."

And he wonders why it is illegal to teach that as science in public schools!

Hey IBIG, are you going to teach that there was one common ancestor? You do know that that means that common descent is true right? You do know that that is the main point of evolution right? You do know your logic is totally screwed up right? You do know that refusing to answer questions means that no one will answer your questions right? You do know that everyone is laughing at you right?

One of the most commonly used tricks by atheistic abiogenesis evolutionists is to attack the messenger rather then the message! Call anyone who doesn't have your view an idiot, moron, liar, nutcase, wingnut, etc... I've found that the more personal attacks occur, when the atheistic abiogenesis evolutionists are on the defensive:):):) That is when then don't only call me names, but blaspheme the Living God. All because their giant ego can't accept that there is a Being that is more intelligent and greater then they are!!!

The double standard gives me the pip. IBIG demands every single detail of the emergence of life, with exhaustive evidence of exactly how it happened three or four billion years ago, while completely ignoring all the evidence that is known; but for his explanation, no evidence is necessary, because he believes by faith. The false equivalence should reek to the eye.

I can see what he's up to, of course. But I'm not sure that the point has been made strongly enough: The proposition is "the evidence suggests that life arose from non-living matter by natural means". It is not "life arose in this specified way". IBIG is arguing as if it were. That's why he's saying that scientists believe in abiogenesis out of faith, the same reason that he believes God created life.

But scientists don't "believe" in abiogenesis the same way that he believes in divine creation. They accept the proposition tentatively, so that they can ask questions about its implications, and search for further evidence to test them. He accepts his proposition unreservedly, and seeks no further evidence at all. These two approaches to understanding are in the deepest possible conflict.

One of them works, and the other doesn't. One gives good fruit, and the other gives no fruit. Jesus put it like that. I can't put it better.

DS said: IBIG wrote: "God spoke things into existence. He is the big bang, He is the one who created all laws of nature, He is the one who created life." And he wonders why it is illegal to teach that as science in public schools! Hey IBIG, are you going to teach that there was one common ancestor? You do know that that means that common descent is true right? You do know that that is the main point of evolution right? You do know your logic is totally screwed up right? You do know that refusing to answer questions means that no one will answer your questions right? You do know that everyone is laughing at you right?

All ID/creationist fanatics are like this. The “Christian” taunting is central to their indoctrination. They want to be called names. It has been like this as far back as I can remember; from the snarky quad preachers, to Duane Gish and Henry Morris, to Ken Ham and his crowd, to the DI and the “fellows” there.

This troll is an immature adolescent (whatever his chronological age). He doesn’t understand that his incessant taunting only makes him look like a screeching monkey jumping around with a big erection. It’s not attractive in the least (well; maybe it is to his cohorts).

But he is tossing every piece of crap in the creationist arsenal at PT to get attention drawn onto himself. It’s not worth responding to him. He can’t learn anything anyway.

I say let him endure the pain of being ignored. If he gets annoying enough to the monitors, eventually he won’t be able to post anything in the regular threads if at all.

Jim Harrison said: Part of the problem with thinking about abiogenesis is the unspoken premise that there is a bright line between living and nonliving when it is more likely that what happened was that chemical processes simply became more and more complex without ever making some single dramatic leap. I expect that progress on abiogenesis will require a much better understanding of the phylogenetic relationship of living organisms. We don't know how many stages might have occurred before the planet saw something like a bacterium. We already know of a couple of kinds of semi-living beings (viruses, prions). Maybe we'll find, or create many more that are representative of the sexy chemistry/protolife/first organisms of primeval times. And there may be novel mechanisms of change to discover that are as distinct from the various processes envisaged in existing theories of abiogenesis as they are from natural selection/genetic drift/symbiosis. Hey, the crucial things happened 4 billion years ago. We shouldn't be too surprised if it takes some doing to figure things out!

Mike Elzinga said: All ID/creationist fanatics are like this. The “Christian” taunting is central to their indoctrination. They want to be called names. It has been like this as far back as I can remember; from the snarky quad preachers, to Duane Gish and Henry Morris, to Ken Ham and his crowd, to the DI and the “fellows” there. This troll is an immature adolescent (whatever his chronological age). He doesn’t understand that his incessant taunting only makes him look like a screeching monkey jumping around with a big erection. It’s not attractive in the least (well; maybe it is to his cohorts). But he is tossing every piece of crap in the creationist arsenal at PT to get attention drawn onto himself. It’s not worth responding to him. He can’t learn anything anyway. I say let him endure the pain of being ignored. If he gets annoying enough to the monitors, eventually he won’t be able to post anything in the regular threads if at all.

I will like to take a poll:

How many here are high school science teachers?

How many here are college professors?

How many here are working scientists?

Richard Simons responded to a troll yammering about the Second Law of Thermodynamics: You realise that when they do this, they are forgetting that Earth is circling a great big source of energy?

The great creationist triumph: protein formation shown to violate the 2LoT E_required > E_available Therefore, no evoltuion

IBIG,

Way to answer my questions asshat. You have proven beyond doubt that creationism doesn't belong in public schools. You can crap all over the bathroom wall all you want and no one will ever care.

IBelieveInGod said: I will like to take a poll: How many here are high school science teachers? How many here are college professors? How many here are working scientists?

IBelieveInGod -

I couldn't care less if you "believe in God"; that is completely irrelevant to the discussion here; many of the strongest opponents of unconstitutional favoritism for one particular sectarian dogma in public schools also believe in God.

You seem to be denying abiogenesis rather than evolution.

(If you are denying evolution, if your God cannot coexist with evolution, then of course, your particular religion is false. Whether you would go to Hell or not, if another God who uses evolution exists, would be a matter of theological debate. The pope says that evolution deniers can still go to heaven [assuming they are sincere, which rules out the uneducated ones, who will roast for breaking the commandment against False Witness]. I am not Catholic and don't believe in Hell, I'm just raising an interesting philosophical point.)

Now, of course, you can deny abiogenesis without denying current science. Do we have a strong, detailed mechanism for abiogenesis? No, although I personally believe that life did arise naturally on earth (a belief that is independent of the existence or non-existence of God). But that approach is called "god of the gaps". The problem is that you are left scrambling even after science eventually fills in the gap. If you hang your religion on some "unexplainable" physical event, where will you be when it is explained?

Richard Simons said:

IBelieveInGod said: Creation scientists have been saying for years that primordial soup hypothesis wasn't possible because the law of thermodynamics prevented it from happening.

Err - are you talking about their claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics? You realise that when they do this, they are forgetting that Earth is circling a great big source of energy?

Oops, typo, I wrote "uneducated" instead of "educated".

Also, I am not a high school teacher. I have been a university professor (medical school, clinical track). I am not a working scientist. Many regular posters here are, though.

You do know how to spell realize don’t you? realise - convert into cash; of goods and property

DS said: IBIG, Way to answer my questions asshat. You have proven beyond doubt that creationism doesn't belong in public schools. You can crap all over the bathroom wall all you want and no one will ever care.

harold said: IBelieveInGod - I couldn't care less if you "believe in God"; that is completely irrelevant to the discussion here; many of the strongest opponents of unconstitutional favoritism for one particular sectarian dogma in public schools also believe in God. You seem to be denying abiogenesis rather than evolution. (If you are denying evolution, if your God cannot coexist with evolution, then of course, your particular religion is false. Whether you would go to Hell or not, if another God who uses evolution exists, would be a matter of theological debate. The pope says that evolution deniers can still go to heaven [assuming they are sincere, which rules out the uneducated ones, who will roast for breaking the commandment against False Witness]. I am not Catholic and don't believe in Hell, I'm just raising an interesting philosophical point.) Now, of course, you can deny abiogenesis without denying current science. Do we have a strong, detailed mechanism for abiogenesis? No, although I personally believe that life did arise naturally on earth (a belief that is independent of the existence or non-existence of God). But that approach is called "god of the gaps". The problem is that you are left scrambling even after science eventually fills in the gap. If you hang your religion on some "unexplainable" physical event, where will you be when it is explained?

Have you read the constitution?

Do you even know what it says?

No, I didn’t think so!!!

harold said: IBelieveInGod wrote -

You do know how to spell realize don’t you? realise - convert into cash; of goods and property

However, the point about the sun was correct, despite the trivial typo. If you're not desperate and insecure, you're sure fooling me.

harold said:

Have you read the constitution?

Yes. It isn't very long. In fact I have it in my house right now, but I moved recently and it is packed. It is a VERY small book.

Do you even know what it says?

Yes.

No, I didn’t think so!!!

Looks like your god didn't supply you with psychic powers. You'll be roasting in Hell unless you're judged by a god who approves of hubris and hypocrisy (or not judged at all). You better hope the Bible isn't literally true!

I couldn’t care less if you “believe in God”; that is completely irrelevant to the discussion here; many of the strongest opponents of unconstitutional favoritism for one particular sectarian dogma in public schools also believe in God.

sorry:

make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

IBelieveInGod said: I will like to take a poll: How many here are high school science teachers? How many here are college professors? How many here are working scientists?

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said: IBIG, Way to answer my questions asshat. You have proven beyond doubt that creationism doesn't belong in public schools. You can crap all over the bathroom wall all you want and no one will ever care.

I would think that an unbiased scientist who just wants to do scientific experiments, to learn and gain more knowledge, wouldn't be so upset over someone else's beliefs on the origin of life. Your anger shows that you really feel vulnerable don't you:)

IBelieveInGod said: Have you read the constitution? Do you even know what it says? No, I didn't think so!!!

IBelieveInGod said:

harold said:

Have you read the constitution?

Yes. It isn't very long. In fact I have it in my house right now, but I moved recently and it is packed. It is a VERY small book.

Do you even know what it says?

Yes.

No, I didn’t think so!!!

Looks like your god didn't supply you with psychic powers. You'll be roasting in Hell unless you're judged by a god who approves of hubris and hypocrisy (or not judged at all). You better hope the Bible isn't literally true!

If you had read the constitution then you would know that what the first amendment actually says is that congress shall make no respecting the establishment of religion. It does not say that religion can't be taught. Here is the actual first amendment: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

I couldn’t care less if you “believe in God”; that is completely irrelevant to the discussion here; many of the strongest opponents of unconstitutional favoritism for one particular sectarian dogma in public schools also believe in God.

It is not unconstitutional to even teach religion in schools, as long as the US Congress does pass a law establishing a state religion. Any court rulings to the contrary is legislation from the bench, and shows a total disregard for the constitution.

IBelieveInGod said:

harold said: IBelieveInGod wrote -

You do know how to spell realize don’t you? realise - convert into cash; of goods and property

However, the point about the sun was correct, despite the trivial typo. If you're not desperate and insecure, you're sure fooling me.

Why would I be desperate and insecure? I have a God that is bigger then any problem that I have, and if I need anything, I just call on His name and He takes care of me. Am I the one calling others names here? Am I the one sending posts to a bathroom, for fear that others may read them and be swayed? Am I the one afraid that the theory of evolution isn't able to withstand arguments from creationists?

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Sure. You could teach Christianity in a history of religion class. You could teach it in a humanities class. You just can't teach that it's TRUE. 'cause that would violate the Constitution.

IBelieveInGod said: Am I the one sending posts to a bathroom, for fear that others may read them and be swayed? Am I the one afraid that the theory of evolution isn't able to withstand arguments from creationists?

Stanton said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Sure. You could teach Christianity in a history of religion class. You could teach it in a humanities class. You just can't teach that it's TRUE. 'cause that would violate the Constitution.

Sure he could teach it was true, in Sunday school. Teaching it as true in a science classroom violates the Constitution.

IBelieveInGod said: God spoke things into existence. He is the big bang, He is the one who created all laws of nature, He is the one who created life.

Richard Simons said:

IBelieveInGod said: God spoke things into existence. He is the big bang, He is the one who created all laws of nature, He is the one who created life.

How can sound waves make living things? If it comes to that, how can you have sound waves before there is anything? Your 'explanation' make no sense whatsoever.

Sigh. For the sake of instruction, which will be wasted on IBIG, but for others, here's the chain of logic.

The Constitution prohibits the making of any law that establishes a religion. That means that the State (and since the fourteenth amendment, all the States) may not permit its servants to establish one either, because the ancient Common Law maxim is that the acts of an officer of the State when done in that officer's official capacity, as part of his position, are the acts of the State itself.

"Establishing a religion" means giving preference to one religion over another, AND ALSO preferring any religion over no religion.

Hence, an officer of the State (including a teacher or administrator in a public school, being one funded by the State) may not, in his or her official capacity, act to prefer any religion over any other, or over no religion. One such act would be to teach (as fact) the teachings specific to any given religion. One such teaching - peculiar to some sects of the Abrahamic religions - is that the Earth and life were created by God, singular. Such a belief is necessarily and intrinsically religious, by the very terms it uses. It would also be religious in its essential nature if the word "God" were replaced by an equivalent concept, such as "Creator" or "Designer".

Hence, teachers, administrators, curriculum designers and other persons engaged in public education are prohibited by the Constitution from teaching, or allowing to be taught, creationism in the public schools. QED.

IBelieveInGod said: You do know how to spell realize don't you? realise - convert into cash; of goods and property

IBelieveInFraud said: I'm going to make a prediction about scientists attempting to recreate abiogenesis! Scientists will never create life. It will never happen in the near future, nor will it happen in the next million years!!! I'll stop by once and a while to see if life has been created:):):)

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Sure. You could teach Christianity in a history of religion class. You could teach it in a humanities class. You just can't teach that it's TRUE. 'cause that would violate the Constitution.

IBelieveInGod said:

harold said:

Have you read the constitution?

Yes. It isn't very long. In fact I have it in my house right now, but I moved recently and it is packed. It is a VERY small book.

Do you even know what it says?

Yes.

No, I didn’t think so!!!

Looks like your god didn't supply you with psychic powers. You'll be roasting in Hell unless you're judged by a god who approves of hubris and hypocrisy (or not judged at all). You better hope the Bible isn't literally true!

If you had read the constitution then you would know that what the first amendment actually says is that congress shall make no respecting the establishment of religion. It does not say that religion can't be taught. Here is the actual first amendment: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

I couldn’t care less if you “believe in God”; that is completely irrelevant to the discussion here; many of the strongest opponents of unconstitutional favoritism for one particular sectarian dogma in public schools also believe in God.

It is not unconstitutional to even teach religion in schools, as long as the US Congress does pass a law establishing a state religion. Any court rulings to the contrary is legislation from the bench, and shows a total disregard for the constitution.

Dave Luckett said: Sigh. For the sake of instruction, which will be wasted on IBIG, but for others, here's the chain of logic. The Constitution prohibits the making of any law that establishes a religion. That means that the State (and since the fourteenth amendment, all the States) may not permit its servants to establish one either, because the ancient Common Law maxim is that the acts of an officer of the State when done in that officer's official capacity, as part of his position, are the acts of the State itself. "Establishing a religion" means giving preference to one religion over another, AND ALSO preferring any religion over no religion. Hence, an officer of the State (including a teacher or administrator in a public school, being one funded by the State) may not, in his or her official capacity, act to prefer any religion over any other, or over no religion. One such act would be to teach (as fact) the teachings specific to any given religion. One such teaching - peculiar to some sects of the Abrahamic religions - is that the Earth and life were created by God, singular. Such a belief is necessarily and intrinsically religious, by the very terms it uses. It would also be religious in its essential nature if the word "God" were replaced by an equivalent concept, such as "Creator" or "Designer". Hence, teachers, administrators, curriculum designers and other persons engaged in public education are prohibited by the Constitution from teaching, or allowing to be taught, creationism in the public schools. QED.

If you speak against a religion in schools, then that would be an example of favoritism against a religion, if you teach anything that is contrary to a particular religions beliefs, then you would be demonstrating favoritism!!! If you teach abiogenesis, then you would be showing favoritism of giving preference for a view that opposes that of other religions. See the state, according to some here constitutionally can't show favoritism. So, teaching abiogenesis,and evolution is unconstitutional!!!

Please explain where all living matter, gases, and energy came from by only natural causes?

Stanton said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Sure. You could teach Christianity in a history of religion class. You could teach it in a humanities class. You just can't teach that it's TRUE. 'cause that would violate the Constitution.

Sure he could teach it was true, in Sunday school. Teaching it as true in a science classroom violates the Constitution.

Richard Simons said:

IBelieveInGod said: God spoke things into existence. He is the big bang, He is the one who created all laws of nature, He is the one who created life.

How can sound waves make living things? If it comes to that, how can you have sound waves before there is anything? Your 'explanation' make no sense whatsoever.

IBelieveInGod said: So the the Constitution states that teaching Christianity is true is unlawful? Would you mind showing me where that is in the constitution, I'm sorry but I missed that.

IBelieveInGod said:

Richard Simons said:

IBelieveInGod said: God spoke things into existence. He is the big bang, He is the one who created all laws of nature, He is the one who created life.

How can sound waves make living things? If it comes to that, how can you have sound waves before there is anything? Your 'explanation' make no sense whatsoever.

Sound waves had nothing to do with God creating! Do you want me to teach the Bible here? It would take several posts and scripture to explain how God operates. Do you think that the moderators really want me to do that?

IBelieveInGod said: So the the Constitution states that teaching Christianity is true is unlawful? Would you mind showing me where that is in the constitution, I'm sorry but I missed that.

IBelieveInGod said: Sound waves had nothing to do with God creating! Do you want me to teach the Bible here? It would take several posts and scripture to explain how God operates. Do you think that the moderators really want me to do that?

SWT:

Good luck. Ricky Retardo isn't going to answer your questions. He can't, he hasn't got a clue. Doesn't even have the faintest notion of what science is, let alone what it has discovered, probably couldn't care less either.

Who cares if he thinks he knows more than the supreme court, they make the decisions not him. He can start teaching creationism as science in public schools any time he wants. He won't though, he apparently lacks the courage to do so.

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: Sound waves had nothing to do with God creating! Do you want me to teach the Bible here? It would take several posts and scripture to explain how God operates. Do you think that the moderators really want me to do that?

By your own admission your "evidence" consists of scripture, not empirical observations. That makes it religion. And that is why its unconstitutional to teach creationism in science classes. I mean, how are you going to get around the constitutional hurdle of having to quote scripture in order to tell students how God created?

IBelieveInGod said: Sound waves had nothing to do with God creating! Do you want me to teach the Bible here? It would take several posts and scripture to explain how God operates. Do you think that the moderators really want me to do that?

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: Sound waves had nothing to do with God creating! Do you want me to teach the Bible here? It would take several posts and scripture to explain how God operates. Do you think that the moderators really want me to do that?

By your own admission your "evidence" consists of scripture, not empirical observations. That makes it religion. And that is why its unconstitutional to teach creationism in science classes. I mean, how are you going to get around the constitutional hurdle of having to quote scripture in order to tell students how God created?

DS said: SWT: Good luck. Ricky Retardo isn't going to answer your questions. He can't, he hasn't got a clue. Doesn't even have the faintest notion of what science is, let alone what it has discovered, probably couldn't care less either. Who cares if he thinks he knows more than the supreme court, they make the decisions not him. He can start teaching creationism as science in public schools any time he wants. He won't though, he apparently lacks the courage to do so.

IBelieve:

BTW, you asked earlier for our credentials: I have been a university lecturer and research scientist (in an area of biology) with more peer-reviewed papers to my credit than the entire community of creationists and IDers has achieved in the last 50 years. At a guess, about half of the other commentators here are in a similar situation.

It doesn't mean much as it is the strength of the arguments that really matters, but what are your credentials? I suspect zero when it comes to science.

Dan said:

IBelieveInGod said: So the the Constitution states that teaching Christianity is true is unlawful? Would you mind showing me where that is in the constitution, I'm sorry but I missed that.

The Constitution does NOT state "that teaching Christianity is true is unlawful". It is legal for any private school, for any Sunday School, for any Saturday School to teach that Christianity is true, or that Christianity is false. But the government must legally take no position on the truth or falsity of Christianity, or Judaism, or Zoroastrianism. This includes government schools. This is where it is in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". I'm sorry you missed it too.

IBelieveInGod said: You see this amendment was also to protect our religious freedom, but has been turned around by people like you to take religious freedom away.

Richard Simons said:

IBelieveInGod said: God spoke things into existence. He is the big bang, He is the one who created all laws of nature, He is the one who created life.

How can sound waves make living things? If it comes to that, how can you have sound waves before there is anything? Your 'explanation' make no sense whatsoever.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dan said:

IBelieveInGod said: So the the Constitution states that teaching Christianity is true is unlawful? Would you mind showing me where that is in the constitution, I'm sorry but I missed that.

The Constitution does NOT state "that teaching Christianity is true is unlawful". It is legal for any private school, for any Sunday School, for any Saturday School to teach that Christianity is true, or that Christianity is false. But the government must legally take no position on the truth or falsity of Christianity, or Judaism, or Zoroastrianism. This includes government schools. This is where it is in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". I'm sorry you missed it too.

So the Constitution states that public schools can't teach that Christianity is true? So, how does individual school districts selecting curriculum equate with Congress making a law establishing a religion? You are reading something into the constitution that isn't there, in the same way that you look at abiogenesis, evidence isn'[t there but it is implied. You see this amendment was also to protect our religious freedom, but has been turned around by people like you to take religious freedom away. You would say that we have religious freedom in your own home, church, private school, but you have no freedom in public places. But the constitution meant to give us religious freedom anywhere and everywhere in our great country. This whole argument clearly shows that there is an anti-christian agenda.

So the Constitution states that public schools can’t teach that Christianity is true? So, how does individual school districts selecting curriculum equate with Congress making a law establishing a religion? You are reading something into the constitution that isn’t there,

in the same way that you look at abiogenesis, evidence isn’[t there but it is implied.

You see this amendment was also to protect our religious freedom, but has been turned around by people like you to take religious freedom away.

You would say that we have religious freedom in your own home, church, private school, but you have no freedom in public places.

But the constitution meant to give us religious freedom anywhere and everywhere in our great country.

This whole argument clearly shows that there is an anti-christian agenda.

IBelieveInGodToo said:

IBelieveInGod said: So the the Constitution states that teaching Christianity is true is unlawful? Would you mind showing me where that is in the constitution, I'm sorry but I missed that.

I take it, then, that you think you understand the meaning of the Constitution of the United States better than every Supreme Court that has addressed the issue of teaching creationism in science classes in public schools? By the way, I disclosed my credentials, you should enlighten us about yours. Also, if you're arguing that we should be teaching creationism in public school science classes, what, exactly, does that mean? Help me out here: 1) How old is the universe? 2) How is the Earth? 3) How long has there been life on Earth? 4) What do you think is the best scientific explanation for the current diversity of life on Earth? Remember, one of the characteristics of a scientific explanation can be used to make specific predictions that can be tested. SWT

Okay, fine. You want that taught in science class? Present your evidence.

A 2000 year old book of campfire tales is not evidence.

You clowns all want the same thing: the veneer of the respectability of science without doing the fucking work.

Is it any wonder no-one takes you seriously?

IBelieveInGod said: But it's okay to teach that abiogenesis is true? That God is a myth?

I contend that teaching against religion is really establishing the religion of atheism, secularism, humanism!!!

IBelieveInGod said: So the Constitution states that public schools can't teach that Christianity is true?

So, how does individual school districts selecting curriculum equate with Congress making a law establishing a religion?

But the constitution meant to give us religious freedom anywhere and everywhere in our great country.

Once more: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion."

The United States is governed by the rule of law. The law is found in the words of the Constitution, not in what anybody thinks the intention of the Founders was. Under law, the State may not do anything except that which the law authorises it to do. This limitation of State power under the law is the vital difference between constitutional government and arbitrary tyranny.

What is the law? The law is in this case the Constitution itself, which overrides legislation passed by Congress.

Congress may not make any law establishing a religion. "Establishing" means favouring by State power any religion over any other, or over no religion. The State therefore is specifically denied authorisation to favour a religion. That means that it can't do it and remain under the rule of law.

What the State cannot do, its servants and officials cannot do, when acting in their official capacity, for the acts in office of a State official are the acts of the State itself.

The doctrine that God created life by divine power is ipso facto a religious doctrine. To teach it in public schools is to use State power to favour, and hence establish, a religion. This the State is forbidden to do.

A child could understand this. But of course, IBIG can't and won't.

Robert Byers said: Creationism is the original, ancient, and then and now well accepted framework, one way or another, of the origin of things.

Robert Byers said: The attack against it in schools represents establishment bodies and agitators working behind the scenes, or in front when ready, to interfere with the public will.

I have found what I was attempting to find out about your site, and what your actual mission is. Pandasthumb.org is on a mission to keep anything about Christianity out the the public schools, you fear that if our children are given more then one view of origin of life, that they will not choose your view, and that your view will eventually become irrelevant.

I ask earlier how all matter, gas, and energy in the universe came from nothing by natural causes only, and no one, absolutely no one was able to answer.

Dave Luckett said: Once more: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion." The United States is governed by the rule of law. The law is found in the words of the Constitution, not in what anybody thinks the intention of the Founders was. Under law, the State may not do anything except that which the law authorises it to do. This limitation of State power under the law is the vital difference between constitutional government and arbitrary tyranny. What is the law? The law is in this case the Constitution itself, which overrides legislation passed by Congress. Congress may not make any law establishing a religion. "Establishing" means favouring by State power any religion over any other, or over no religion. The State therefore is specifically denied authorisation to favour a religion. That means that it can't do it and remain under the rule of law. What the State cannot do, its servants and officials cannot do, when acting in their official capacity, for the acts in office of a State official are the acts of the State itself. The doctrine that God created life by divine power is ipso facto a religious doctrine. To teach it in public schools is to use State power to favour, and hence establish, a religion. This the State is forbidden to do. A child could understand this. But of course, IBIG can't and won't.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dan said:

IBelieveInGod said: So the the Constitution states that teaching Christianity is true is unlawful? Would you mind showing me where that is in the constitution, I'm sorry but I missed that.

The Constitution does NOT state "that teaching Christianity is true is unlawful". It is legal for any private school, for any Sunday School, for any Saturday School to teach that Christianity is true, or that Christianity is false. But the government must legally take no position on the truth or falsity of Christianity, or Judaism, or Zoroastrianism. This includes government schools. This is where it is in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". I'm sorry you missed it too.

So the Constitution states that public schools can't teach that Christianity is true? So, how does individual school districts selecting curriculum equate with Congress making a law establishing a religion? You are reading something into the constitution that isn't there, in the same way that you look at abiogenesis, evidence isn'[t there but it is implied. You see this amendment was also to protect our religious freedom, but has been turned around by people like you to take religious freedom away. You would say that we have religious freedom in your own home, church, private school, but you have no freedom in public places. But the constitution meant to give us religious freedom anywhere and everywhere in our great country. This whole argument clearly shows that there is an anti-christian agenda.

IBelieveInGod said: I don't know how old the universe is .... Again I don't know how old the earth is ....

IBelieveInGod said: I have found what I was attempting to find out about your site, and what your actual mission is. Pandasthumb.org is on a mission to keep anything about Christianity out the the public schools, you fear that if our children are given more then one view of origin of life, that they will not choose your view, and that your view will eventually become irrelevant. I ask earlier how all matter, gas, and energy in the universe came from nothing by natural causes only, and no one, absolutely no one was able to answer.

No, the constitution clearly states, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion". It clearly states make a law, it doesn't say their shall be no favoritism by a state power of one religion over another. It clearly states that Congress shall not make a law. England actually had a law establishing a national church, and our founding fathers included that in the constitution from preventing that from happening.

I've heard from progressives that the Constitution is a living breathing document, but that was not our founders intent whatsoever, they fought for our freedom from England to free us from such tyranny.

We are a representative government, and for the Supreme Court to make laws when they aren't voted in by the people, and don't represent the people, is a form of tyranny. We have no recourse, as we can't vote them out.

A student may pray in class, privately. Nothing to stop that. Indeed, I've made special arrangements for Muslim students to do so. But are you seriously attempting to say that students can't be stopped from preaching in school?

Leaving right aside the fact that the man who you think is God specifically said not to do that, a school is lawfully entitled to enforce a reasonable academic discipline on students. This includes a requirement for appropriate behaviour conducive to planned learning in class, with sanctions on deliberately disruptive behaviour.

Or to put it another way, your right to preach your religion stops precisely at the point where it interferes with my child's right to an education. But of course, understanding this would involve respecting the rights of others. Religious fanatics don't have a good record in this area.

IBIG actually said this: It (the Constitution) clearly states make a law, it doesn’t say their shall be no favoritism by a state power of one religion over another.

IBIG wrote:

"We are a representative government, and for the Supreme Court to make laws when they aren’t voted in by the people, and don’t represent the people, is a form of tyranny. We have no recourse, as we can’t vote them out."

Still waitin for you do so somethin about it.

IBIG wrote:

"God created diversity in life. I also believe that he created all living things to be unique among their own kind."

So much for a single common ancestor. I call POE. Even the most retarded cretin would realize that he has contradicted himself here. Apparently banning to the bathroom wall isn't good enough for him. Check his address, this has to be Byers or some equally deluded imposter. Ban him says I, once and for all. Let him scream censorship to himself.

IBelieveInGod said: No, the constitution clearly states, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion".

IBelieveInGod said:

Dan said:

IBelieveInGod said: So the the Constitution states that teaching Christianity is true is unlawful? Would you mind showing me where that is in the constitution, I'm sorry but I missed that.

The Constitution does NOT state "that teaching Christianity is true is unlawful". It is legal for any private school, for any Sunday School, for any Saturday School to teach that Christianity is true, or that Christianity is false. But the government must legally take no position on the truth or falsity of Christianity, or Judaism, or Zoroastrianism. This includes government schools. This is where it is in the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". I'm sorry you missed it too.

So the Constitution states that public schools can't teach that Christianity is true?

So, how does individual school districts selecting curriculum equate with Congress making a law establishing a religion?

You are reading something into the constitution that isn't there,

in the same way that you look at abiogenesis, evidence isn'[t there but it is implied.

You see this amendment was also to protect our religious freedom, but has been turned around by people like you to take religious freedom away.

You would say that we have religious freedom in your own home, church, private school, but you have no freedom in public places

But the constitution meant to give us religious freedom anywhere and everywhere in our great country.

This whole argument clearly shows that there is an anti-christian agenda.

It's time for IBelieveInGod to stop chattering and actually do something.

I suggest that he visit or write to his congressman, and encourage that congressman to introduce the following simple bill on the floor of Congress:

"Public schools in the United States may teach that Christianity is true."

Then, he can come back here to the Bathroom Wall and tell us all how it went.

If IBeleiveInGod refuses to take that simple step, then we know that his chatter is nothing but "vanity and chasing after the wind".

Dave Lovell said: If only you had been taught science at school. You would then not only know the answer to these questions, but you would also understand how we know the answer to these questions.

IBelieveInGod said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Sure. You could teach Christianity in a history of religion class. You could teach it in a humanities class. You just can't teach that it's TRUE. 'cause that would violate the Constitution.

IBelieveInGod said:

harold said:

Have you read the constitution?

Yes. It isn't very long. In fact I have it in my house right now, but I moved recently and it is packed. It is a VERY small book.

Do you even know what it says?

Yes.

No, I didn’t think so!!!

Looks like your god didn't supply you with psychic powers. You'll be roasting in Hell unless you're judged by a god who approves of hubris and hypocrisy (or not judged at all). You better hope the Bible isn't literally true!

If you had read the constitution then you would know that what the first amendment actually says is that congress shall make no respecting the establishment of religion. It does not say that religion can't be taught. Here is the actual first amendment: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

I couldn’t care less if you “believe in God”; that is completely irrelevant to the discussion here; many of the strongest opponents of unconstitutional favoritism for one particular sectarian dogma in public schools also believe in God.

It is not unconstitutional to even teach religion in schools, as long as the US Congress does pass a law establishing a state religion. Any court rulings to the contrary is legislation from the bench, and shows a total disregard for the constitution.

But it's okay to teach that abiogenesis is true? That God is a myth? I contend that teaching against religion is really establishing the religion of atheism, secularism, humanism!!!

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Sure. You could teach Christianity in a history of religion class. You could teach it in a humanities class. You just can't teach that it's TRUE. 'cause that would violate the Constitution.

Sure he could teach it was true, in Sunday school. Teaching it as true in a science classroom violates the Constitution.

So the the Constitution states that teaching Christianity is true is unlawful? Would you mind showing me where that is in the constitution, I'm sorry but I missed that.

IBelieveInGod said:

Richard Simons said:

IBelieveInGod said: God spoke things into existence. He is the big bang, He is the one who created all laws of nature, He is the one who created life.

How can sound waves make living things? If it comes to that, how can you have sound waves before there is anything? Your 'explanation' make no sense whatsoever.

Sound waves had nothing to do with God creating! Do you want me to teach the Bible here? It would take several posts and scripture to explain how God operates. Do you think that the moderators really want me to do that?

IBelieveInGod said: I have found what I was attempting to find out about your site, and what your actual mission is. Pandasthumb.org is on a mission to keep anything about Christianity out the the public schools,

By the way, I know that normal threads fill up @ 1000 comments.

We're here at 960+ at the moment.

What happens when the bathroom wall fills up?

Where does stuff go?

Is it bad?

Do the servers fill up with lost bits and grind to a halt or something?

IBelieveInGod said: I have found what I was attempting to find out about your site, and what your actual mission is. Pandasthumb.org is on a mission to keep anything about Christianity out the the public schools, you fear that if our children are given more then one view of origin of life, that they will not choose your view, and that your view will eventually become irrelevant.

I ask earlier how all matter, gas, and energy in the universe came from nothing by natural causes only, and no one, absolutely no one was able to answer.

It clearly states make a law, it doesn’t say their shall be no favoritism by a state power of one religion over another.

stevaroni said: By the way, I know that normal threads fill up @ 1000 comments. We're here at 960+ at the moment. What happens when the bathroom wall fills up? Where does stuff go? Is it bad? Do the servers fill up with lost bits and grind to a halt or something?

stevaroni said: By the way, I know that normal threads fill up @ 1000 comments. We're here at 960+ at the moment. What happens when the bathroom wall fills up? Where does stuff go? Is it bad? Do the servers fill up with lost bits and grind to a halt or something?

IBelieveInGod said: So, I take it that you think that a ruling by the Supreme Court that isn't actually based on the US Constitution is a correct ruling? The Supreme Court can only rule based on the Constitution correct? So, you don't have a problem with the Supreme Court making their own laws?

I don't know how old the universe is, are you referring to the matter that makes up the universe, or the actual current state of the universe? Again I don't know how old the earth is, I have never made a claim as to how old it is. The Bible doesn't even state how old the earth is. The Bible says that the everything was created in 6 days, but it does not say how long a day is with God. ... I don't know how long life has been on the earth.

God created diversity in life. I also believe that he created all living things to be unique among their own kind.

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

IBelieveInGod said: I ask earlier how all matter, gas, and energy in the universe came from nothing by natural causes only, and no one, absolutely no one was able to answer.

And this has nothing whatever to do with teaching Christianity. And in fact, I'll answer: we have no evidence that anything came from nothing. Sorry, my child.

IBelieveInGod said: No, the constitution clearly states, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion". It clearly states make a law, it doesn't say their shall be no favoritism by a state power of one religion over another. It clearly states that Congress shall not make a law. England actually had a law establishing a national church, and our founding fathers included that in the constitution from preventing that from happening. I've heard from progressives that the Constitution is a living breathing document, but that was not our founders intent whatsoever, they fought for our freedom from England to free us from such tyranny. We are a representative government, and for the Supreme Court to make laws when they aren't voted in by the people, and don't represent the people, is a form of tyranny. We have no recourse, as we can't vote them out.

IBelieveInGod said: I don't know how old the earth is, I have never made a claim as to how old it is. The Bible doesn't even state how old the earth is. The Bible says that the everything was created in 6 days, but it does not say how long a day is with God.

we have a troll who is a constitutional law expert, a biblical scholar and a complete idiot. interesting combo!

IBelieveInGod said: I ask earlier how all matter, gas, and energy in the universe came from nothing by natural causes only, and no one, absolutely no one was able to answer.

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

IBelieveInGod said: I have found what I was attempting to find out about your site, and what your actual mission is. Pandasthumb.org is on a mission to keep anything about Christianity out the the public schools, you fear that if our children are given more then one view of origin of life, that they will not choose your view, and that your view will eventually become irrelevant.

And this shows that you either are incapable of reading, or that you are irremediably stupid. The Constitution of the United States says that no publically-funded school may teach that Christianity is true or false. That's the law. That's the first amendment you yourself brought up. Teaching abiogenesis and evolution is not teaching that Christianity is false. Period.

I ask earlier how all matter, gas, and energy in the universe came from nothing by natural causes only, and no one, absolutely no one was able to answer.

And this has nothing whatever to do with teaching Christianity. And in fact, I'll answer: we have no evidence that anything came from nothing. Sorry, my child.

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: I don't know how old the earth is, I have never made a claim as to how old it is. The Bible doesn't even state how old the earth is. The Bible says that the everything was created in 6 days, but it does not say how long a day is with God.

Of all the creationist cop-outs I hate this one the most. Everything in the Bible is absolute literal truly except - ya know - the simple concept of a day. That's the one metaphor. But it's not really a metaphor it's um, just subjective reality from God's point of view. Yeah, that's it. Could be anything God says it is. Well, you know what. God says it's a day. He says he made the Universe on Sunday and the earth on Monday and so forth and knocked off on Friday afternoon and put his feet up on Saturday and that's the way he told the story. And there's no reason to think that somehow this was the only a metaphor but the rest of the document in an absolutely literal text. There is no footnote. God told you exactly how he did it, and he clearly said 130 hours, more or less, start to finish. If you're going to profess your belief that the parables in a 3000 year old book of religious poetry are the literal truth then at least man up and grow a pair and stick with your story.

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: I don't know how old the earth is, I have never made a claim as to how old it is. The Bible doesn't even state how old the earth is. The Bible says that the everything was created in 6 days, but it does not say how long a day is with God.

Of all the creationist cop-outs I hate this one the most. Everything in the Bible is absolute literal truly except - ya know - the simple concept of a day. That's the one metaphor. But it's not really a metaphor it's um, just subjective reality from God's point of view. Yeah, that's it. Could be anything God says it is. Well, you know what. God says it's a day. He says he made the Universe on Sunday and the earth on Monday and so forth and knocked off on Friday afternoon and put his feet up on Saturday and that's the way he told the story. And there's no reason to think that somehow this was the only a metaphor but the rest of the document in an absolutely literal text. There is no footnote. God told you exactly how he did it, and he clearly said 130 hours, more or less, start to finish. If you're going to profess your belief that the parables in a 3000 year old book of religious poetry are the literal truth then at least man up and grow a pair and stick with your story.

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

IBelieveInGod said: I have found what I was attempting to find out about your site, and what your actual mission is. Pandasthumb.org is on a mission to keep anything about Christianity out the the public schools, you fear that if our children are given more then one view of origin of life, that they will not choose your view, and that your view will eventually become irrelevant.

And this shows that you either are incapable of reading, or that you are irremediably stupid. The Constitution of the United States says that no publically-funded school may teach that Christianity is true or false. That's the law. That's the first amendment you yourself brought up. Teaching abiogenesis and evolution is not teaching that Christianity is false. Period.

I ask earlier how all matter, gas, and energy in the universe came from nothing by natural causes only, and no one, absolutely no one was able to answer.

And this has nothing whatever to do with teaching Christianity. And in fact, I'll answer: we have no evidence that anything came from nothing. Sorry, my child.

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: I ask earlier how all matter, gas, and energy in the universe came from nothing by natural causes only, and no one, absolutely no one was able to answer.

So....therefore Goddidit? Seriously, have your pages and pages of posts been leading up to merely a regurgitation of the false dichotomy rejected since the 1980s? Because pointing out something science doesn't know only leads to one of two places. Either god-of-the-gaps logic, or total irrelevancy to belief in religion.

Really Dude.

Nobody cares that you feel wronged by the way 230 years of jurisprudence has interpreted the Constitution.

They have, and many of them have written briefs stretching into the hundreds of pages explaining exactly why.

If you actually gave a shit about why thousands of judges, many of which are religious, conservative, men who would actually did believe in God, have decided things the way they did you could have just gone to Wikipedia and typed in "Separation of Church and State in America" and you'd get a painfully detailed history with 49 footnotes and hundreds of links.

But you didn't do that, now did you? You came back to whine about how you're being persecuted.

That tells me volumes about you, IBIG.

None of which is flattering in the least.

IBelieveInGod said: Where does is say that God did something on Sunday, on Monday, etc... The Bible says on the first day, the second day, etc... Where does the Bible say that God created everything in 130 hours? Don't get me wrong I believe God could have done it in 6 actual days, but I really don't know. I'll ask God when I see Him.

IBelieveInGod said: Do you believe in anything other then natural causes?

If you don't then you would have a problem explaining how all matter came from nothing, and how all energy came from nothing only by natural causes.

IBIG, nobody claimed matter and energy came from nothing. Do TRY to keep up, child.

Rilke's granddaughter said: IBIG, nobody claimed matter and energy came from nothing. Do TRY to keep up, child.

IBIG, you are astonishing. Your intellect is far superior to all I have encountered. So FINALLY, I have found a person who can answer the following questions.
1) Was Jesus crucified on 14 Nisan or 15 Nisan?
2) For Jesus' birthday, should we rely on the the date of Quirinus, or Herod's reign?
3) How did Judas die?
4) What happened to the payola?
5) Can you reconcile Paul's contradictory sequence of events of the parousia?
[5b -- what is the parousia?]
6) How many anti-Christs are there, anyway? (only time it is mentioned it is plural).
7) What is the mechanism for controlling coat color of domestic livestock by exposing them to striped and spotted poles?

Happy 'splainin' dude!

And he's here to tell us that the Constitution of the United States of America allows one religion (his) to be favoured by the State, when it says exactly the opposite.

Orwell would have chuckled.

IBIG: Here's another question that has befuddled me. In numerous descriptions of the escaton, such as the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus tells us that the sinners will not be condemned to the eternal burning until the last judgment. Yet in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, Jesus tells us that Lazarus ascends to Abraham's bosom immediately after death, where he sees Dives burning the fire of Hades. In which story was Jesus lying?

Rilke's granddaughter said: IBIG, nobody claimed matter and energy came from nothing. Do TRY to keep up, child.

mplavcan said: IBIG: Here's another question that has befuddled me. In numerous descriptions of the escaton, such as the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus tells us that the sinners will not be condemned to the eternal burning until the last judgment. Yet in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, Jesus tells us that Lazarus ascends to Abraham's bosom immediately after death, where he sees Dives burning the fire of Hades. In which story was Jesus lying?

Dave Luckett said: And he's here to tell us that the Constitution of the United States of America allows one religion (his) to be favoured by the State, when it says exactly the opposite. Orwell would have chuckled.

I will post more later, but I've got work to do.

IBelieveInGod said: I will post more later, but I've got work to do.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: I will post more later, but I've got work to do.

Please don't post more, unless you want to expose your idiocy to further ridicule.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dave Luckett said: And he's here to tell us that the Constitution of the United States of America allows one religion (his) to be favoured by the State, when it says exactly the opposite. Orwell would have chuckled.

I never said that one religion should be favored over another, I was pointing out that the Supreme Court is actually making law rather then interpreting law, this is a clear case of violating the separation of powers. The problem is that I believe that one is being favored over all others. I consider evolution a religion - Webster’s Dictionary defines religion as follows: “Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Surely, this is an apt description of evolution. Evolution is a belief system—a religion! "But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology." Stephen J. Gould, ‘Evolution’s erratic pace,’ Natural History (1977), 86:14. "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint. . . the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Michael Ruse, ‘Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,’ National Post (May 13, 2000), B3.

IBelieveInGod said: I will post more later, but I've got work to do.

So, if evolution is a religion, who are its priests? What are its rituals? What is the focus of prayer in evolution? What is prayer in evolution? Why are there no holy books in evolution?

That, and tell us again why should we trust you when you, among other things, put words in our mouth (while accusing us of doing that), and deliberately misread Wikipedia articles? You never explained to us why we're supposed to consider you an authority... Is it because you use your own faith in God to act like an argumentative asshole (and then accuse us of being rude religious fanatics)?

IBelieveInGod said at 8:52 am: I will post more later, but I've got work to do.

IBelieveInGod said at 9:09 am:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: I will post more later, but I've got work to do.

Please don't post more, unless you want to expose your idiocy to further ridicule.

My idiocy? You have shown clearly the evolution is a religion for you!

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: I will post more later, but I've got work to do.

Please don't post more, unless you want to expose your idiocy to further ridicule.

My idiocy? You have shown clearly the evolution is a religion for you!

Dan said:

IBelieveInGod said at 8:52 am: I will post more later, but I've got work to do.

IBelieveInGod said at 9:09 am:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: I will post more later, but I've got work to do.

Please don't post more, unless you want to expose your idiocy to further ridicule.

My idiocy? You have shown clearly the evolution is a religion for you!

What happened to that work you needed to do?

Dave Luckett said: Orwell would have chuckled.

IBelieveInGod said: Sheol (Hebrew) - It is the non-permanent place.... ....for the soul, not the body.

Sheol (Hebrew) - It is the non-permanent place.... ....for the soul, not the body. - http://www.matthewmcgee.org/helwords.html

stevaroni said:

Dave Luckett said: Orwell would have chuckled.

But Big Brother would have been proud.

Says IBIG, 12 February 11:18 am: the constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law establishing a religion”. It clearly states make a law, it doesn’t say their shall be no favoritism by a state power of one religion over another.

So let's recap, shall we?

The troll, IBelieveInGod, claims that evolution is a religion, and thus, forbidden from being taught in a science classroom by the 1st Amendment. In order to prove it's a religion, he then goes on to quotemine Stephen Jay Gould and Michael Ruse. When I point out that only an idiot proves something through quotemining, he then accuses me of being a religious fanatic.

And yet, people wonder why I consider the majority of creationists to be scummy and untrustworthy people.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dave Luckett said: And he's here to tell us that the Constitution of the United States of America allows one religion (his) to be favoured by the State, when it says exactly the opposite. Orwell would have chuckled.

I never said that one religion should be favored over another, I was pointing out that the Supreme Court is actually making law rather then interpreting law, this is a clear case of violating the separation of powers. The problem is that I believe that one is being favored over all others. I consider evolution a religion - Webster’s Dictionary defines religion as follows: “Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Surely, this is an apt description of evolution. Evolution is a belief system—a religion! "But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology." Stephen J. Gould, ‘Evolution’s erratic pace,’ Natural History (1977), 86:14. "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint. . . the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Michael Ruse, ‘Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,’ National Post (May 13, 2000), B3.

Dan said:

IBelieveInLying said at 8:52 am: I will post more later, but I've got work to do.

IBelieveInLying said at 9:09 am:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: I will post more later, but I've got work to do.

Please don't post more, unless you want to expose your idiocy to further ridicule.

My idiocy? You have shown clearly the evolution is a religion for you!

What happened to that work you needed to do?

IBelieveInGod said:

mplavcan said: IBIG: Here's another question that has befuddled me. In numerous descriptions of the escaton, such as the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus tells us that the sinners will not be condemned to the eternal burning until the last judgment. Yet in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, Jesus tells us that Lazarus ascends to Abraham's bosom immediately after death, where he sees Dives burning the fire of Hades. In which story was Jesus lying?

Two different places. The first is Sheol, and the second is Hell

As to whether anything came from nothing: where space, time, and energy came from is still speculative, last I heard. There are some hypothesis being considered. Matter is a form of energy, and energy can change forms, so that's where matter came from.

Henry J

nmgirl said:

IBelieveInGod said: No, the constitution clearly states, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion". It clearly states make a law, it doesn't say their shall be no favoritism by a state power of one religion over another. It clearly states that Congress shall not make a law. England actually had a law establishing a national church, and our founding fathers included that in the constitution from preventing that from happening. I've heard from progressives that the Constitution is a living breathing document, but that was not our founders intent whatsoever, they fought for our freedom from England to free us from such tyranny. We are a representative government, and for the Supreme Court to make laws when they aren't voted in by the people, and don't represent the people, is a form of tyranny. We have no recourse, as we can't vote them out.

we have a troll who is a constitutional law expert, a biblical scholar and a complete idiot. interesting combo!

Hey, IBIG! How about actually trying to respond intelligently to a question?

Teaching abiogenesis and evolution is not teaching that Christianity is false. Period.

For you to claim otherwise is a lie.

Deal with it.

IBelieveInGod said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: IBIG, nobody claimed matter and energy came from nothing. Do TRY to keep up, child.

So you are saying matter and energy came from something? What did it come from then? Or are you saying that matter, atoms, etc. are eternal?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: I will post more later, but I've got work to do.

Please don't post more, unless you want to expose your idiocy to further ridicule.

My idiocy? You have shown clearly the evolution is a religion for you!

By feeding your inane martyr complex?

Henry J said:

By feeding your inane martyr complex?

If it's irreducible, it doesn't need feeding.

IBelieveInGod said: Do you believe in anything other then natural causes? If you don't then you would have a problem explaining how all matter came from nothing, and how all energy came from nothing only by natural causes.

What if it’s a bottomless pit?

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: Sheol (Hebrew) - It is the non-permanent place.... ....for the soul, not the body.

OK, here's another creationist pet peeve of mine. If you're going to cut and paste big blocks attribute it. It doesn't take much work, just one tag line...

Sheol (Hebrew) - It is the non-permanent place.... ....for the soul, not the body. - http://www.matthewmcgee.org/helwords.html

That makes it possible to quickly ascertain the veracity and context of the quote. If you had actually ever read any of those research papers we keep pointing you to, you would understand that this is important. It's also the difference between a reference and plagiarism. By the way, that's an interesting search engine you have there IBIG. Apparently, it can find this sort of stuff all day long but somehow can't turn up a good solid synopsis of Constitutional law or big-bang cosmology. What are you guys all using Godgle or something? Because all the creationist search engines seem to run exactly the same way.

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: Do you believe in anything other then natural causes? If you don't then you would have a problem explaining how all matter came from nothing, and how all energy came from nothing only by natural causes.

So what? I also have a problem explaining why my cat likes to go out in the snow, but my ignorance is not a good reason to invoke a God to explain it. Which is what your argument amounts to. You've got a dressed-up version of 'we don't know where lightning comes from...therefore Zeus.' It wasn't convincing to philosophers 3000 years ago, and its drastically less convincing to scientists today.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: No, that's one thing we HAVEN'T got. Notice IBIG's error in attempting to create a distinction between Hell and Sheol. IBIG is many things, but being well-versed in the Bible isn't one of them. I always find it interesting how little Christians understand of their own holy book.

nmgirl said:

IBelieveInGod said: No, the constitution clearly states, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion". It clearly states make a law, it doesn't say their shall be no favoritism by a state power of one religion over another. It clearly states that Congress shall not make a law. England actually had a law establishing a national church, and our founding fathers included that in the constitution from preventing that from happening. I've heard from progressives that the Constitution is a living breathing document, but that was not our founders intent whatsoever, they fought for our freedom from England to free us from such tyranny. We are a representative government, and for the Supreme Court to make laws when they aren't voted in by the people, and don't represent the people, is a form of tyranny. We have no recourse, as we can't vote them out.

we have a troll who is a constitutional law expert, a biblical scholar and a complete idiot. interesting combo!

IBelieveInGod said: If it couldn't happen by natural causes, then you have a problem. Every building has a foundation which holds up the building, and without a good foundation it will come crashing down. Your belief that everything came about without a Creator is like a building without a good foundation. If you are to assume that all things including life on earth came about by natural causes, without a creator, then the universe including all matter, and energy also would have come about by natural causes without a Creator!!! How is that possible?

Rilke's Granddaughter said: A bit slow on the uptake, aren't you my child? Bingo. Matter/energy have existed at all points in time, so far as we know. Deal with it.

IBelieveInGod said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: IBIG, nobody claimed matter and energy came from nothing. Do TRY to keep up, child.

So you are saying matter and energy came from something? What did it come from then? Or are you saying that matter, atoms, etc. are eternal?

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: If it couldn't happen by natural causes, then you have a problem. Every building has a foundation which holds up the building, and without a good foundation it will come crashing down. Your belief that everything came about without a Creator is like a building without a good foundation. If you are to assume that all things including life on earth came about by natural causes, without a creator, then the universe including all matter, and energy also would have come about by natural causes without a Creator!!! How is that possible?

What we've been trying to tell you, and what you've refused to let into your lead-lined skull is that "GODDIDIT" is not considered a valid scientific explanation, and has not been considered a valid scientific explanation for centuries.

IBelieveInGod said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: A bit slow on the uptake, aren't you my child? Bingo. Matter/energy have existed at all points in time, so far as we know. Deal with it.

IBelieveInGod said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: IBIG, nobody claimed matter and energy came from nothing. Do TRY to keep up, child.

So you are saying matter and energy came from something? What did it come from then? Or are you saying that matter, atoms, etc. are eternal?

So you are saying that matter and energy are eternal? Please explain how this would be possible in a natural universe.

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: I have found what I was attempting to find out about your site, and what your actual mission is. Pandasthumb.org is on a mission to keep anything about Christianity out the the public schools,

No. Pandas Thumb has the mission of keeping anything that isn't objectively verifiable by actual demonstration from being taught as science in public schools. You can teach about the glories of God as fact just as soon as you can provide a genuine, verifiable, miracle to teach about. Just because your God does not deign to provide you with any tangible evidence of his existence is not PT' problem, nor is it the problem of the American educational system. I suggest you take it up with Jesus, since you apparently speak to him regularly.

So tell us how these miracles inspired you to quotemine and lie about evolution allegedly being a religion?

IBelieveInGod said: If you are to assume that all things including life on earth came about by natural causes, without a creator,

Or, could you at least explain to us how your mother's surviving and recovering lead you to acting like a pompous jackass who takes what very very little you read of our replies in order to twist them around and attack us with utterly inane accusations of being religious anti-Christian fanatics?

Really? It says "miracle" on her medical records? I'd like to see a copy of that record. I really would.

Around and around in endless circles. This was answered a long, long way back, even before you were sent to the BW.

If you're arguing that God is the first cause, the primal cause to which all effects ultimately lead, there's no way of proving you're wrong.

Matter, energy, time and space originated in the Big Bang. Theoretical descriptions of exactly what happened can be found on the web, and all you have to do is look. But that would involve actual willingness to find out.

But before you ask, we don't know where the Big Bang came from. If you want to say God did it, feel free. Nobody can say for certain that He didn't.

What we can say is that every effect that science has so far investigated has a natural cause that leads back to the fundamental properties of time, space, matter and energy.

Life is a natural effect, and it is reasonable to posit that it, too, derives ultimately from those properties.

Where do those properties come from? Again, we don't know. Feel free to say it was God. Nobody can prove you wrong. But scientists will go on investigating effects, expecting that they'll derive from natural causes. So far, they haven't been shown to be wrong, and they can show a record of spectacular success.

While "God did it" can show... nothing.

IBelieveInGod said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: No, that's one thing we HAVEN'T got. Notice IBIG's error in attempting to create a distinction between Hell and Sheol. IBIG is many things, but being well-versed in the Bible isn't one of them. I always find it interesting how little Christians understand of their own holy book.

nmgirl said:

IBelieveInGod said: No, the constitution clearly states, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion". It clearly states make a law, it doesn't say their shall be no favoritism by a state power of one religion over another. It clearly states that Congress shall not make a law. England actually had a law establishing a national church, and our founding fathers included that in the constitution from preventing that from happening. I've heard from progressives that the Constitution is a living breathing document, but that was not our founders intent whatsoever, they fought for our freedom from England to free us from such tyranny. We are a representative government, and for the Supreme Court to make laws when they aren't voted in by the people, and don't represent the people, is a form of tyranny. We have no recourse, as we can't vote them out.

we have a troll who is a constitutional law expert, a biblical scholar and a complete idiot. interesting combo!

I guess you will find out if I'm right or wrong after you die. Could you tell me my error about the difference between Sheol of the Old Testament, and Gehenna (the lake for fire) of the New Testament? Sheol was a temporary place for the spirit after death, sort of like a holding cell prior to judgment, and Gehenna is a permanent place after judgement. Why don't you read the Bible for you self!!!

IBelieveInGod said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: A bit slow on the uptake, aren't you my child? Bingo. Matter/energy have existed at all points in time, so far as we know. Deal with it.

IBelieveInGod said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: IBIG, nobody claimed matter and energy came from nothing. Do TRY to keep up, child.

So you are saying matter and energy came from something? What did it come from then? Or are you saying that matter, atoms, etc. are eternal?

So you are saying that matter and energy are eternal? Please explain how this would be possible in a natural universe.

IBelieveInGod said:

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: Do you believe in anything other then natural causes? If you don't then you would have a problem explaining how all matter came from nothing, and how all energy came from nothing only by natural causes.

So what? I also have a problem explaining why my cat likes to go out in the snow, but my ignorance is not a good reason to invoke a God to explain it. Which is what your argument amounts to. You've got a dressed-up version of 'we don't know where lightning comes from...therefore Zeus.' It wasn't convincing to philosophers 3000 years ago, and its drastically less convincing to scientists today.

If it couldn't happen by natural causes, then you have a problem. Every building has a foundation which holds up the building, and without a good foundation it will come crashing down. Your belief that everything came about without a Creator is like a building without a good foundation. If you are to assume that all things including life on earth came about by natural causes, without a creator, then the universe including all matter, and energy also would have come about by natural causes without a Creator!!! How is that possible?

IBelieveInGod said:

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: I have found what I was attempting to find out about your site, and what your actual mission is. Pandasthumb.org is on a mission to keep anything about Christianity out the the public schools,

No. Pandas Thumb has the mission of keeping anything that isn't objectively verifiable by actual demonstration from being taught as science in public schools. You can teach about the glories of God as fact just as soon as you can provide a genuine, verifiable, miracle to teach about. Just because your God does not deign to provide you with any tangible evidence of his existence is not PT' problem, nor is it the problem of the American educational system. I suggest you take it up with Jesus, since you apparently speak to him regularly.

I have provided a verified miracle of the woman with cancer. It is listed as a miracle in her medical record. You can read what I posted about her in an earlier post. My mother is another miracle, at the age of 12 she didn't have long to live, she was 5 feet tall and weighed just 47 lbs. She had diabetes, albumin of the kidneys and bleeding colitis. Doctors said there was nothing they could do for her, and that she didn't have long to live. My great grandfather who was a pastor prayed for her, and the next day my mother developed large red splotches all over her body. So my grandmother immediately took my mom to the hospital thinking the worst, but to her amazement after admitting my mom to the hospital and doing extensive testing, it was discovered that every single one of her conditions the diabetes, albumin, and bleeding colitis were all gone, she was completely healed of all of those. These don't get better on there own. I have seen many more miracles in my life.

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said: IBIG wrote: "God spoke things into existence. He is the big bang, He is the one who created all laws of nature, He is the one who created life." And he wonders why it is illegal to teach that as science in public schools! Hey IBIG, are you going to teach that there was one common ancestor? You do know that that means that common descent is true right? You do know that that is the main point of evolution right? You do know your logic is totally screwed up right? You do know that refusing to answer questions means that no one will answer your questions right? You do know that everyone is laughing at you right?

Actually if you are a boss you can speak and things will happen right? If you tell an employee to do something, most of the time what you speak happens correct? Just because you don't believe that God exists, or that He is able to speak things into existence, doesn't mean that it isn't true. I have experienced the touch of God in my life. I have a friend who was sent home from the hospital with inoperable lung cancer, and she was given just a few months to live, that was 30 years ago and she is still alive and cancer free. While she was praying in her bathroom of all places, she experienced a bright light engulf her body, she felt a warm feeling all over her body. She started immediately feeling better, and was able to breath normally again. She went back for more xrays and testing, and guess what the cancer was completely gone, there were scares left were the cancer was, but the cancer was gone. Now tell me would this have been a natural act of nature? Her case is listed as an unexplained miracle at West Virginia University. Please quantify approximately how much knowledge is known about the universe and life.

fnxtr said: Really? It says "miracle" on her medical records? I'd like to see a copy of that record. I really would.

IBIG said: My mother is another miracle, at the age of 12 she didn't have long to live, she was 5 feet tall and weighed just 47 lbs. She had diabetes, albumin of the kidneys and bleeding colitis.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Sorry, but this is a blatant lie. You have NOT provided a verified miracle of the woman with cancer. You have provided an anecdotal account. Epic fail.

IBelieveInGod said:

stevaroni said:

IBelieveInGod said: I have found what I was attempting to find out about your site, and what your actual mission is. Pandasthumb.org is on a mission to keep anything about Christianity out the the public schools,

No. Pandas Thumb has the mission of keeping anything that isn't objectively verifiable by actual demonstration from being taught as science in public schools. You can teach about the glories of God as fact just as soon as you can provide a genuine, verifiable, miracle to teach about. Just because your God does not deign to provide you with any tangible evidence of his existence is not PT' problem, nor is it the problem of the American educational system. I suggest you take it up with Jesus, since you apparently speak to him regularly.

I have provided a verified miracle of the woman with cancer. It is listed as a miracle in her medical record. You can read what I posted about her in an earlier post. My mother is another miracle, at the age of 12 she didn't have long to live, she was 5 feet tall and weighed just 47 lbs. She had diabetes, albumin of the kidneys and bleeding colitis. Doctors said there was nothing they could do for her, and that she didn't have long to live. My great grandfather who was a pastor prayed for her, and the next day my mother developed large red splotches all over her body. So my grandmother immediately took my mom to the hospital thinking the worst, but to her amazement after admitting my mom to the hospital and doing extensive testing, it was discovered that every single one of her conditions the diabetes, albumin, and bleeding colitis were all gone, she was completely healed of all of those. These don't get better on there own. I have seen many more miracles in my life.

fnxtr said: Really? It says "miracle" on her medical records? I'd like to see a copy of that record. I really would.

stevaroni said:

IBIG said: My mother is another miracle, at the age of 12 she didn't have long to live, she was 5 feet tall and weighed just 47 lbs. She had diabetes, albumin of the kidneys and bleeding colitis.

First of all, she was 12. were you there?. Secondly, your mother was sick. She sought medical help. She got better. Many more people are sick and they pray and they die instead. Does this then mean that God doesn't exist?

Rilke's Granddaughter said: This is not evidence. This is an anecdote without support. Prove it.

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said: IBIG wrote: "God spoke things into existence. He is the big bang, He is the one who created all laws of nature, He is the one who created life." And he wonders why it is illegal to teach that as science in public schools! Hey IBIG, are you going to teach that there was one common ancestor? You do know that that means that common descent is true right? You do know that that is the main point of evolution right? You do know your logic is totally screwed up right? You do know that refusing to answer questions means that no one will answer your questions right? You do know that everyone is laughing at you right?

Actually if you are a boss you can speak and things will happen right? If you tell an employee to do something, most of the time what you speak happens correct? Just because you don't believe that God exists, or that He is able to speak things into existence, doesn't mean that it isn't true. I have experienced the touch of God in my life. I have a friend who was sent home from the hospital with inoperable lung cancer, and she was given just a few months to live, that was 30 years ago and she is still alive and cancer free. While she was praying in her bathroom of all places, she experienced a bright light engulf her body, she felt a warm feeling all over her body. She started immediately feeling better, and was able to breath normally again. She went back for more xrays and testing, and guess what the cancer was completely gone, there were scares left were the cancer was, but the cancer was gone. Now tell me would this have been a natural act of nature? Her case is listed as an unexplained miracle at West Virginia University. Please quantify approximately how much knowledge is known about the universe and life.

I know that you will never believe me, but I am absolutely 100% certain that both stories are absolutely true.

You have shown your lack of objectivity, by stating that what I posted about the miracles with the lady with cancer, and mom were a blatant lie.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Easy. There is - so far as we can determine - no point in time at which matter/energy did not exist. Problem solved. Do some thinking, child. It will make this conversation a lot more fun if you actually bring some intellectual challenge to the table. So far, you're batting 0 for 27.

IBelieveInGod said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: A bit slow on the uptake, aren't you my child? Bingo. Matter/energy have existed at all points in time, so far as we know. Deal with it.

IBelieveInGod said:

Rilke's granddaughter said: IBIG, nobody claimed matter and energy came from nothing. Do TRY to keep up, child.

So you are saying matter and energy came from something? What did it come from then? Or are you saying that matter, atoms, etc. are eternal?

So you are saying that matter and energy are eternal? Please explain how this would be possible in a natural universe.

IBelieveInGod said: This is true whether you believe me or not. So, this really proves that you really aren't objective about possibilities that don't fit into your belief and faith in only the natural.

You don't know the lady and her family who was healed and haven't talked with her family. You asking me for her medical records is the oldest trick by people like you, because you know that I can't post someones medical records online. Are you going to post your medical records online?

I really feel sorry for you people, I really do. When you call me a liar it really doesn't hurt in the least, because I know that I'm actually 100% truthful.

So the poor deluded twit is absolutely certain about something that happened before he was born and everyone else lacks objectivity! Terrific. Two thousand comments and not one bit of evidence for a single claim, except of course to prove that there was one common ancestor of all extant life on earth. And that was supposed to be some kind of evidence AGAINST evolution! Amazing.

Well the twit can smear feces all over the bathroom wall forever if it wants. That's what it's for I guess. No one will care in the slightest and no one will ever be convinced of anything except that the twit is mentally unstable. More is the pity.

Oh and just for the record, I never claimed that god does not exist. The twit just made that up to reveal his prejudice to everyone. And, since the twit refuses to answer even the simplest questions, I suppose it is worthless to demand that it quantify exactly how much knowledge is known about god, or whatever the hell that is even supposed to mean.

I'll check back every week or so to see if the twit is still being allowed to rant and rave about fairies and miracles and other made up crap. It's mildly amusing to see someone who screams about censorship use so much bandwidth to display his ignorance. What a foolish troll.

And don't you just love this?

"You can't explain how all energy/matter came from nothing."

= Heads, I win.

"You can't explain how all energy/matter have existed eternally."

= Tails, you lose.

Altair IV said:

IBelieveInGod said: This is true whether you believe me or not. So, this really proves that you really aren't objective about possibilities that don't fit into your belief and faith in only the natural.

On the contrary, it's an excellent example of objectivity. Credulously accepting what a person says at face value is pretty much the opposite of being objective. You need to look up what the word really means.

You don't know the lady and her family who was healed and haven't talked with her family. You asking me for her medical records is the oldest trick by people like you, because you know that I can't post someones medical records online. Are you going to post your medical records online?

Exactly. We don't know this person or her family. Indeed, we know precisely nothing about the circumstances surrounding this supposed "miracle". So why should anyone accept that it really happened, or happened in the way you state it did? Why should we take your word for it? Asking for proof is not a "trick", it's simply an expectation that extraordinary claims be supported by hard evidence. The real trick here is coming from the person making a claim that he knows he is unable to provide corroboration for, and expecting others to simply accept it. Truth is, everyone here already knows you're completely unable to provide any evidence for this event; it's just nice to see you confirm it.

I really feel sorry for you people, I really do. When you call me a liar it really doesn't hurt in the least, because I know that I'm actually 100% truthful.

You may "know" you're 100% truthful, but nobody else here does, unless and until you provide something concrete to back up your anecdotes. Considering your behavior here so far, it's perfectly logical for others to seriously doubt anything you present here as being factual.

Why don't all of you post your medical records here? Hmmmm.

You know that I can't post someone else's medical records here. You don't have to believe this wonderful miracle or even the wonderful miracle with my mother, but you also would be displaying a lack of objectivity to say that it is a blatantly lie, when you don't have evidence to the contrary.

Altair IV said: And don't you just love this? "You can't explain how all energy/matter came from nothing." = Heads, I win. "You can't explain how all energy/matter have existed eternally." = Tails, you lose.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Sorry, but this is a blatant lie. You have NOT provided a verified miracle of the woman with cancer. You have provided an anecdotal account. Epic fail.

IBelieveInGod said: Why don't all of you post your medical records here? Hmmmm. You know that I can't post someone else's medical records here. You don't have to believe this wonderful miracle or even the wonderful miracle with my mother, but you also would be displaying a lack of objectivity to say that it is a blatantly lie, when you don't have evidence to the contrary.

IBelieveInGod said: I have provided a verified miracle of the woman with cancer.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: Why don't all of you post your medical records here? Hmmmm. You know that I can't post someone else's medical records here. You don't have to believe this wonderful miracle or even the wonderful miracle with my mother, but you also would be displaying a lack of objectivity to say that it is a blatantly lie, when you don't have evidence to the contrary.

People assume you are lying because you have lied to us before, as well as the fact that you have this nasty habit of distorting virtually everything else you quote or mention, and the fact that you casually automatically dismiss anything we say or quote. Thus the reason behind why people assume you're lying about your mother's recovery.

Just to clarify my mom never had cancer. She had diabetes, albumin of the kidneys, and bleeding colitis.

Our family friend Patti is the one who was healed of incurable cancer.

Altair IV said: No, the claims of miracles are simply unsupported anecdotal accounts. The "blatant lie" was this:

IBelieveInGod said: I have provided a verified miracle of the woman with cancer.

Which, as Rilke's Granddaughter pointed out, you have actually completely failed to do. And stop demanding that everyone "post their medical records", We all know that's just a smokescreen. You know perfectly well that nobody is demanding medical records in particular. We're just demanding evidence of some kind, any kind, that can be used to objectively verify the account you gave. Quit being purposely obtuse.