Now I'm going to have nightmares

No competitors? Isn't that what Jehovah told the Hebrews a few thousand years ago?

Henry

As an archaeologist, I have an absolute certainty that all civilizations fail. As a student of ancient literature, I am cetain that we have not actaully progressed very far form the ancient past.

Hey there PZ, we are screwed because some people won't stand against the abuse of others. Case in point is the abuse of Paul Mirecki, which Panda's Thumb rightwing fatheads like Ed Brayton denied, and you down played.

Ham's statement surprises you...why? Following is quoted from their statement of faith...

"No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)

This really explains pretty much everything about the entire movement, from IDiots like Dembski, to frothing Trolls like Keith, to authoritarian proselytizers like Ham. Arguing with people like this is a complete waste of time, unless it can illustrate to others the hard-core demagogery and rigid ideological extremism that forms their opinions. Of far greater concern are the reports that I have seen pointing to the domination of the military academies -- in particular the Air Force Academy -- by right wing evangelical fundamentalists. This might be a product of that. Nice to know that we have a bunch of people who pray for Armageddon with their fingers on the bomb.

Can someone explain as to why in the world Ken Ham would be asked to speak at a prayer breakfast in the Pentagon, let alone why there are prayer breakfasts in the Pentagon, a government agency?

I'm clutching at straws here but...

Maybe Ken Ham lied?
He's got truth issues with everything else.
Maybe he's just making stuff up to make himself sound good.

Is there any way somebody can verify that this 'prayer breakfast' actually happened?

Who invited him?

Where exactly did it take place?

( The situation room? The front lawn outside? The Burger King across the street?)

Who was there?

(The entire staff? Just the Top Brass with Cheney looking on? Some idiot nephew of a desk-jockey Major?)

Please let this be the fevered delusion of a loon.

DavidK said: Can someone explain as to why in the world Ken Ham would be asked to speak at a prayer breakfast in the Pentagon, let alone why there are prayer breakfasts in the Pentagon, a government agency?

Pentagon prayer breakfasts.

White House prayer breakfasts.

Now go hurl.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Pentagon prayer breakfasts. Now go hurl.

A Review of Infiltrating the U.S. Military: Is the Religious Right Engaged in a Seditionist Bid to Takeover America?

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/InfiltratingTheUSMilitaryGenBoykinsWarriors.html

From this reference it would appear that Pentagon prayer breakfasts are part of the military chaplaincy program. The US military employs thousands of chaplains of many diverse faiths around the world and to my knowledge their right to do this has never been legally challenged (at least successfully).

I like to remind people of Psalm 115:16, “The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S; But the earth He has given to the children of men.” Scripture certainly makes earth the center stage. The heavens are there to “declare the glory of God,” but the earth was made for humans to inhabit. So it seems even from these passages, one would not expect life in outer space—-only the earth was made specially for intelligent physical beings to dwell on. Also, the Bible makes it clear that the whole of creation groans because of sin (Romans 8:22)—and that Jesus stepped into history on earth to become a human (the God man)—-a perfect man, but God, so He could die on a cross, be raised from the dead and offer a free gift of salvation. Jesus remains the “God man,” as he is our Savior. Jesus did not become a “Martian” or a “Klingon” or some other being—he became a human (as God). So, it wouldn’t make any sense for there to be intelligent beings like us on other planets—they would be suffering from the effects of sin but can’t have salvation, as only descendants of Adam can be saved. One day the whole universe will be wound up—the judgment by fire—and there will be a New Heavens and Earth. I always say that there can’t be intelligent life like us on other planets—the Bible does not say there is or is not animal or plant life on other planets—but I highly suspect not.

While this would be fine on Pharyngula, I don't believe it's the job of PT to bash Christianity. But I agree it is very worrying.

Venus Mousetrap, I don't see how this feature is bashing Christianity, and thus I consider it fair game for a PT post.

It seems to me that the most worrying aspect of it is that Ken Ham, a known liar, has been invited to speak to a group of people (whose constituents are not clear) by the Pentagon in an official capacity.

From Ken's point of view, this must be a wonderful opportunity to claim some official validation of his ideas.

As a non-US citizen, I find it worrying that the people that control the largest nuclear arsenal in the world are showing official respect for Ken Ham's brand of insidious claptrap.

Now, I would not expect many people in this forum to agree with Ken Ham’s explanation. But there’s nothing unreasonable about it from a Christian perspective

But if there were alien intelligences, they could not be free from original sin. Romans 8:22 reminds us that “the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.” It would seem odd for these poor alien intelligences to be affected by the sin of another intelligent being on one obscure planet somewhere else in the universe. Although my faith would not be shaken if I encountered an alien, these passages lend support to the idea that humans are the only intelligences in the universe, and Earth is the only place where God has created life.

I think we should be pleased that Ham actually made some sort of definitive statement. Odds are pretty good that when we do find alien life there will be no doubt it did not come from here. I fully would have expected him to weasel on the issue and claim that he doesn't find it likely but that it has no direct contradiction to the Bible. He has made a prediction that would falsify his beliefs by his own admission. Here's to hoping we get a little lucky soon!

I don’t believe it’s the job of PT to bash Christianity.

Now, I would not expect many people in this forum to agree with Ken Ham’s explanation. But there’s nothing unreasonable about it from a Christian perspective.

Jeff Sharlett has a few interesting things to say on this topic.

Venus Mousetrap says: "While this would be fine on Pharyngula, I don’t believe it’s the job of PT to bash Christianity. But I agree it is very worrying."

.

Plus, as PT’s PvM has indicated, in the Collins vs Coulter thread (and elsewhere), where he was “sorry to hear that [I supposedly agreed] with the atheist position of the Christian God to be a delusion”----the “simple fact [is] that there is no irreconcilability of Christianity and Darwinism,” and “Since science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural, the suggestion that science rejects or is at odds with Christianity is flawed.” etc.

But then if there is no irreconcilability between Christianity and Darwinism (and/or science) as PvM claims, then why would the Dawinians here be getting so upset when a xian speaks at a prayer breakfast, and/or that people with big guns even have prayer breakfasts? Maybe genuine Darwinians do perceive an irreconcilability between Christianity and Darwinism (and/or science and/or reality) after all? Maybe genuine Dawinians do believe that PvM’s “Christian God” is a delusion after all? Imagine that.

Historically the debate over the existence of intelligence life has been very wrapped up in theology. Indeed, prior to about 1900 one had all sorts of theological arguments being made, and the theological arguments were often intertwined with scientific arguments. Moreover, many atheistic and deistic writers in the 19th century actually argued essentially as Ham does but ran the argument in reverse, saying that the universe was obviously teaming with life and therefore Christianity should be rejected.

I wrote a blog entry on this a month or so ago:
http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/2008/05/old-friends-vatican-and.html

The definitive work on this issue is Michael J. Crowe, “The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, 1750-1900”

P. Z. Meyers says: “Disallow or at least avoid criticizing the dominant source of credulity in our culture, so that we can avoid alienating the believers, so they can go on being credulous idiots . . . “

.

OMG, then PT’s PvM has gotten it wrong after all----genuine Darwinians like Meyers do see believers as being idiots, genuine Darwinians are convinced that Christianity is utterly irreconcilable with Darwinism (and/or science and/or reality). I hope someone is able to break this gently to PvM (and the other Darwinians that were taken in by PvM’s credulity).

bigbang said: OMG, then PT’s PvM has gotten it wrong after all----genuine Darwinians like Meyers do see believers as being idiots, genuine Darwinians are convinced that Christianity is utterly irreconcilable with Darwinism (and/or science and/or reality). I hope someone is able to break this gently to PvM (and the other Darwinians that were taken in by PvM’s credulity).

bigbang: ...why would the Dawinians [sic] here be getting so upset when a xian speaks at a prayer breakfast, and/or that people with big guns even have prayer breakfasts?

Because the USA is worryingly close to becoming a full-fledged theocracy.

This is very disturbing to me, and I am NOT anti-religion. I strongly SUPPORT the right of Americans (and other human beings) to live and believe as they see fit.

However, certain beliefs, if sincere, rule out the choice of certain professions.

Ken Ham is a raving anti-science nutjob. Some military jobs are compatible with his views - low level jobs. However, high level military command should require a decent grasp of applied science. Anyone ignorant or delusional enough to believe in Ken Ham's nonsense should not be in a high military command position.

Yes, this kind of thing should play a role in military promotion. Candidates who hold certain types of amoral or delusional beliefs are not suited. This has nothing to do with religious discrimination. It is Ken Ham's denial of science that is the issue here. To fully explain the logic, imagine if Ken Ham started to argue that airplanes don't need fuel to fly, but rather, are carried by angels. This is no more irrational than his recorded anti-science nonsense. High military command requires sufficient grasp of applied science to understand military systems and weapons. Ken Ham's views on science rule out dependable understanding of such items by those who accept said views.

Everyone has a right to believe as they see fit, but no-one has a right to a military promotion. Someone whose scientific education is poor enough that they could believe that the earth is 6000 years old should be denied significant promotion. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the fact that if the earth were 6000 years old, nuclear weapons might not work, etc. All of our science, including military applications, would be wrong. A high ranking officer cannot function if he or she believes such nonsense.

The typical PT squawking about whether or not evolution is "compatible with" Christianity at some rarified philosophical level is, as always, utterly irrelevant to the point under discussion.

Speaking of prayers in the military, who remembers this Dembski classic?

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/05/design_detector.html

Well at least this yahoo had the guts to make a definitive statement about exactly what physical evidence would completely invalidate his position.

Imagine that, science looking for signs of life elsewhere in the universe and religious nutcases closing their eyes and hoping that is doesn't happen.

Now when alien life forms are eventually discovered, do you think that this guy will admit that he was completely wrong about everything, including the age of the earth. Maybe he will try to deny the evidence or claim that he never said these things. More likely he will claim that the type of life discovered doesn't qualify by some obscure criteria he will make up later.

A real scientist doesn't make up his mind based on the pronouncments of a 2 - 6,000 year old book. A real scientist decides such issues by looking for evidence. This is just one more reason to intensify the search for extraterrestrial life. Then Ken can have an alien exhibit in his "museum".

High military command requires sufficient grasp of applied science to understand military systems and weapons. Ken Ham’s views on science rule out dependable understanding of such items by those who accept said views.

So there are apparently people in the Pentagon who are sympathetic to YEC. So what? There are also people in the Pentagon who think it's fine and dandy to try to negotiate with terrorists.

Every day, I find it more and more difficult to care.

Both presidential candidates are sympathetic to ID and utterly ignorant of the basic rules of science and reason. One candidate's entire party platform systematically denies that science, reason, history, or the study thereof is any use at all. (Indeed, some would argue that both parties' platforms do this.)

Science will not play a role in this election, and the winner will not care a lick about science, reason, history, or the study thereof.

Get used to it.

Before we waste any more time with bogbang or FL, I think I should make a few observations:

First, FL has admitted in at least one previous thread that he's a Young-Earth Creationist, and that he believes his God created the Universe with an "appearance of age." Since he believes in a God who lies on a literally Universal scale, there is no reason to expect him to behave honestly in any situation.

Second, both bigbang and FL have gummed up one thread with ignorant and dishonest statements, had those statements clearly refuted, and have run off to repeat the same statements, unaltered, on another thread. Both appear to be doing the same thing on this thread, so there is, again, no reason for us to expect them to behave with any trace of honesty or maturity. Both of these trolls have proven themselves uneducable, so responding to them yet again would probably be a complete waste of time.

wikipedia AIG: Financing and fundraising has been an important of the ministry. Its US revenue in 2005 was $13.7M.[17] According to Charity Navigator, in FYE 2006, Answers in Genesis had $13,675,653 in total revenue and $12,257,713 in expenses.[18]

wolfwalker said: Both presidential candidates are sympathetic to ID ...

McCain believes in evolution, personally believes that :"intelligent design" "creationism" shouldn't be taught in SCIENCE class, but is willing to leave that decision up to the states, ultimately, and also, believes that students should be exposed to the theory elsewhere, presumably in religion or social studies class. Mark Salter, McCain's long-time chief of staff and co-author and close friend, confirmed that our summary matches McCain's views

OMG, then PT’s PvM has gotten it wrong after all—-genuine Darwinians like Meyers do see believers as being idiots, genuine Darwinians are convinced that Christianity is utterly irreconcilable with Darwinism (and/or science and/or reality). I hope someone is able to break this gently to PvM (and the other Darwinians that were taken in by PvM’s credulity).

Well at least this yahoo had the guts to make a definitive statement about exactly what physical evidence would completely invalidate his position

There are also people in the Pentagon who think it’s fine and dandy to try to negotiate with terrorists.

PvM said:

OMG, then PT’s PvM has gotten it wrong after all—-genuine Darwinians like Meyers do see believers as being idiots, genuine Darwinians are convinced that Christianity is utterly irreconcilable with Darwinism (and/or science and/or reality). I hope someone is able to break this gently to PvM (and the other Darwinians that were taken in by PvM’s credulity).

Meyers believes this because he is an atheist not because he is a Darwinian. Again BB looks foolish. What a crock... Fascinating though to hear once again that BB's faith is so strongly undermined by atheist arguments and statements.

I have no problem with the pentagon having prayer breakfasts. Though they have invited Ken Ham, this does not necessarily imply a majority, or even a significant minority, endorsement of his views by officials at the pentagon. I assume that a small number of low level people (perhaps 1) could have invited Ken Ham, since these things are generally not decided in vast meetings. So, until there is further information on the mater, I'm not going to worry too much.

The most serious problem w/ having YEC at the pentagon is that YEC seriously calls into question a persons ability to think objectively and rationally. If someone is a YEC it requires that they ignore evidence which contradict their views when forming opinions. This kind of thinking can lead to devastatingly ignorant policy decisions.

Just my 2 cents.

PvM says: “Meyers believes this because he is an atheist not because he is a Darwinian.”

.

So Meyers’s Darwinism and/or grasp and understanding of science and/or reality has nothing to do with his atheism, nor his contempt for religion and/or believers, nor the fact that he find’s Ken Millers religion wish-washy, and that he finds that “religion itself is a lie and a danger.”?

Then what, in the world, is his atheism/anti-theism based on? Hey, I have an idea, let’s ask PZ. Hey PZ, what say you?

Cedric Katesby said: I'm clutching at straws here but... Maybe Ken Ham lied? He's got truth issues with everything else. Maybe he's just making stuff up to make himself sound good. Is there any way somebody can verify that this 'prayer breakfast' actually happened? Who invited him? Where exactly did it take place? ( The situation room? The front lawn outside? The Burger King across the street?) Who was there? (The entire staff? Just the Top Brass with Cheney looking on? Some idiot nephew of a desk-jockey Major?) Please let this be the fevered delusion of a loon.

bigbang said: Venus Mousetrap says: "While this would be fine on Pharyngula, I don’t believe it’s the job of PT to bash Christianity. But I agree it is very worrying." . Plus, as PT’s PvM has indicated, in the Collins vs Coulter thread (and elsewhere), where he was “sorry to hear that [I supposedly agreed] with the atheist position of the Christian God to be a delusion”----the “simple fact [is] that there is no irreconcilability of Christianity and Darwinism,” and “Since science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural, the suggestion that science rejects or is at odds with Christianity is flawed.” etc. But then if there is no irreconcilability between Christianity and Darwinism (and/or science) as PvM claims, then why would the Dawinians here be getting so upset when a xian speaks at a prayer breakfast, and/or that people with big guns even have prayer breakfasts? Maybe genuine Darwinians do perceive an irreconcilability between Christianity and Darwinism (and/or science and/or reality) after all? Maybe genuine Dawinians do believe that PvM’s “Christian God” is a delusion after all? Imagine that.

Cedric Katesby said: I'm clutching at straws here but... Maybe Ken Ham lied? He's got truth issues with everything else. Maybe he's just making stuff up to make himself sound good. Is there any way somebody can verify that this 'prayer breakfast' actually happened? Who invited him? Where exactly did it take place? ( The situation room? The front lawn outside? The Burger King across the street?) Who was there? (The entire staff? Just the Top Brass with Cheney looking on? Some idiot nephew of a desk-jockey Major?) Please let this be the fevered delusion of a loon.

Venus Mousetrap said: While this would be fine on Pharyngula, I don't believe it's the job of PT to bash Christianity. But I agree it is very worrying.

Well said.

I just had another thought. Do you suppose he might have been invited to serve as an example of "Don't let this happen to you", "Fanatics and how they think", or perhaps "This is what happens when religion is abused."?

Wishful thinking, I suppose.

bigbang said: PvM says: “Meyers believes this because he is an atheist not because he is a Darwinian.” . So Meyers’s Darwinism and/or grasp and understanding of science and/or reality has nothing to do with his atheism, nor his contempt for religion and/or believers, nor the fact that he find’s Ken Millers religion wish-washy, and that he finds that “religion itself is a lie and a danger.”? Then what, in the world, is his atheism/anti-theism based on? Hey, I have an idea, let’s ask PZ. Hey PZ, what say you?

Then what, in the world, is his atheism/anti-theism based on? Hey, I have an idea, let’s ask PZ. Hey PZ, what say you?

FL and Bigbang, you know nothing of science or Christianity.

Yikes, I get a personal reply from PZ. I feel honoured. :)

I know how PZ feels about the appeasers-in-the-middle people, but I stand by what I said. Talking about the crazy Christian deity and his nutty followers sure looks like Christian bashing to me, and it just gives ammunition to the people who frame this as atheism vs. religion. I don't believe it's a good way for PT to go, but like you say, I don't get to decide that.

Ah, good ol Gary Hurd has crawled back out from under his rock to spew that same old lie about me. No matter how much you drink, Gary, your lies do not transform into the truth. Nor do I, by any stretch of your fevered imagination, become "rightwing." Crawl back into your bottle and shut the fuck up.

iml8 said:

wolfwalker said: Both presidential candidates are sympathetic to ID ...

Ahhhhhh ... no. Obama: "And I think it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry."

But Hagee is at the bleeding edge of a Christian Zionist movement seeking to accelerate the Second Coming of Christ and the final battle in Israel. Since the 1990's, Hagee and his group CUFI (Christians United for Israel) has tried without success to breed the "red heifer," the perfect calf that will signal the Second Coming." As Sarah Posner writes in the American Prospect, "for Hagee's new project - agitating for war with Iran - his influence over Washington is less important than his influence over his audience." His book Jerusalem Countdown sold over 500,000 copies. And as Posner reports, Hagee is not alone: Hagee calls pastors "the spiritual generals of America" an appropriate phrase given his reliance on them to rally their troops behind his message. The CUFI board of directors includes the Reverend Jerry Falwell, former Republican presidential candidate and religious right activist Gary Bauer, and George Morrison, pastor to the 8,000-member Faith Bible Chapel in Arvada, Colorado, and chairman of the board of Promise Keepers. Rod Parsley, the Ohio televangelist who is rapidly becoming a major political figure in the Christian right, signed on as a regional director.

To see just how big a problem this Pentagon-Fundamentalist takeover is, see my research here:

http://fundamentalistdeceit.blogspot.com/

It started shortly after 2004, when Jewish, atheist, and women soldiers at several of our military academies began complaining about Fundamentalists harrassing them, and how the chain of command ignored their complaints.

wolfwalker said: Interesting. Now where did I get the idea he's an ID-symp? Oh, I know. I heard he was a fan of the vaccine-autism nonsense, and figured he'd be a pushover for the IDers.

DaveScot: DaveScot A commenter on my previous article asked whether John McCain supports intelligent design or not. After a quick google I can happily say the answer is yes.

McCain sounds like presidential hopeful By C.J. Karamargin ARIZONA DAILY STAR Tucson, Arizona | Published: 08.24.2005 As the Gallup Poll noted, McCain has a generally consistent conservative voting record but forged a national reputation after a series of notable breaks with fellow Republicans. On Tuesday, though, he sided with the president on two issues that have made headlines recently: teaching intelligent design in schools and Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who has come to personify the anti-war movement. McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes “all points of view” should be available to students studying the origins of mankind.

I wonder what Barack Hussein Obama has to say about Intelligent Design. Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

FL: Specifically, if you think either Ham’s or Taylor’s explanation is unreasonable from a Christian perspective, please tell me your considered reasons for thinking so.

chuck said: I know what they think at UD:

wolfwalker: Interesting. Now where did I get the idea he’s an ID-symp? Oh, I know. I heard he was a fan of the vaccine-autism nonsense, and figured he’d be a pushover for the IDers.

Interesting. A commenter demonstrates that you have deliberately lied about Obama's position, so you respond by peddling out another false statement.

The candidate has expressed his concerns regarding the possible link (of which there is none - s1mplex), but he has not said, "Vaccines cause autism." His position is that continued research into the onset of autism is necessary, and that evidence for its causes are as of yet inconclusive.

Of course, there is not scientific evidence for a link between vaccines and autism. But, the aetiology of the disease is not well understood. Obama, with his statements and concern, is not in any fashion being a "fan of the vaccine-autism nonsense."

So, what do you really have against Obama?

PZ Myers said:

I don’t believe it’s the job of PT to bash Christianity.

Funny how that one-way ratchet works, isn't it? Disallow or at least avoid criticizing the dominant source of credulity in our culture, so that we can avoid alienating the believers, so they can go on being credulous idiots, who will then go on to whine piteously at every critici

Specifically, if you think either Ham’s or Taylor’s explanation is unreasonable from a Christian perspective, please tell me your considered reasons for thinking so. And thanks!

Ed Brayton said: Ah, good ol Gary Hurd has crawled back out from under his rock to spew that same old lie about me. No matter how much you drink, Gary, your lies do not transform into the truth. Nor do I, by any stretch of your fevered imagination, become "rightwing." Crawl back into your bottle and shut the fuck up.

iml8 said:

chuck said: I know what they think at UD:

Heh! I am sure your agree that if I was after actual information (as opposed to figuring out the ID spin on such) I would not click on the links to UD that came up in a Google search. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net

PZ Myers said: Disallow or at least avoid criticizing the dominant source of credulity in our culture . . .

so they can go on being credulous idiots. . .

but hey, that's the crazy Christian deity, always doing irrational stuff and encouraging his followers to be equally nut

PvM protests: “No need to side track the discussion. You were wrong, time to let go.”

.

No offense, PvM, but I’d rather hear it from the man himself.

And really PvM, have a little faith, in PZ as well as in your “Christian God”----I’m guessing PZ, being more or less your ally of sorts, will almost certainly respond in a way that doesn’t expose your silliness on this issue, maybe say something like although he thinks “religion itself is a lie and a danger,” he nevertheless doesn’t think that your particular “Christian God” is a lie or a danger, or wishy-washy, or delusional, or some such thing. (Assuming he can control his gag reflex long enough to get it out.)

PZ? . . . Oh PZ . . .

FL said: Specifically, if you think either Ham's or Taylor's explanation is unreasonable from a Christian perspective, please tell me your considered reasons for thinking so. And thanks! FL

Balanaced said:

ndt said:

Venus Mousetrap said: While this would be fine on Pharyngula, I don't believe it's the job of PT to bash Christianity. But I agree it is very worrying.

We're not bashing Christianity, we're bashing Ken Ham's childish, backwards version of it. More importantly, we're bashing anyone at the Pentagon who subscribes to a similar version.

What is the concept that Ken Ham promotes that you think is the most childish?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Pentagon prayer breakfasts. White House prayer breakfasts. Now go hurl.

DavidK said: Can someone explain as to why in the world Ken Ham would be asked to speak at a prayer breakfast in the Pentagon, let alone why there are prayer breakfasts in the Pentagon, a government agency?

Sorry to interrupt. :-) ... As a retired military member, I must say that this whole Ken Hamm breakfast thing has goten blown out of proportion.

Let me explain.

Ken Hamm has quite an ego if he thinks that he is someone "special" to have been asked to speak "at a prayer breakfast at the Pentagon !" WoW!! WooHoo!!

The breakfast he spoke at was a weekly prayer breakfast sponsored by the Chaplains office. It's not like the entire Pentagon shut down to go see him speak.

Here's a good link. You can see how important the prayer breakfast is for yourself.

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/07c/pentagon_chaplain_spinks.pdf

And keep in mind ...

Defense Department policy states that it " does not endorse any one religion or religious organization; it provides free access of religion for all members of the military services; it does not judge the validity of any one religious expression over the validity of any other and it supports free access for service personnel to the religious expression of their choosing."

s1mplex said: wolfwalker: Interesting. Now where did I get the idea he’s an ID-symp? Oh, I know. I heard he was a fan of the vaccine-autism nonsense, and figured he’d be a pushover for the IDers. Interesting. A commenter demonstrates that you have deliberately lied about Obama's position, so you respond by peddling out another false statement.

Eric: thanks for a clear and solid response to FL's nonsense. Of course, I also offered him -- at his request -- a similar explanation of how many Christians reconcile evolution with their beliefs, and FL completely ignored the whole lot of it; so I'm guessing he'll ignore you too and keep on repeating his tired old refrain. But hey, some of us appreciate your contribution...

Stacy S. said: And keep in mind ... Defense Department policy states that it " does not endorse any one religion or religious organization; it provides free access of religion for all members of the military services; it does not judge the validity of any one religious expression over the validity of any other and it supports free access for service personnel to the religious expression of their choosing."

bigbang said: PvM protests: “No need to side track the discussion. You were wrong, time to let go.” . No offense, PvM, but I’d rather hear it from the man himself. And really PvM, have a little faith, in PZ as well as in your “Christian God”----I’m guessing PZ, being more or less your ally of sorts, will almost certainly respond in a way that doesn’t expose your silliness on this issue, maybe say something like although he thinks “religion itself is a lie and a danger,” he nevertheless doesn’t think that your particular “Christian God” is a lie or a danger, or wishy-washy, or delusional, or some such thing. (Assuming he can control his gag reflex long enough to get it out.) PZ? . . . Oh PZ . . .

I have to add: "We were thinking of inviting Kent Hovind, but he
had a prior commitment."

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Unless you claim the earth is literally groaning (i.e. expressing grief, pain or displeasure), you must take Romans 8 as allegorical.

20 For the creation (nature) was subjected to frailty (to futility, condemned to frustration), not because of some intentional fault on its part, but by the will of Him Who so subjected it--[yet] with the hope 21 That nature (creation) itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and corruption [and gain an entrance] into the glorious freedom of God's children. (Amplified Bible)

23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves too, who have and enjoy the firstfruits of the [Holy] Spirit [a foretaste of the blissful things to come] groan inwardly as we wait for the redemption of our bodies [from sensuality and the grave, which will reveal] our adoption (our manifestation as God's sons.

Funny how FL insists that something is literal but lacks objective measures to make such a claim. Hence I could equally well argue that a Christian interpretation does not require a literal reading.

And again, literal versus allegorical without a way to resolve these matters, other than through ad hoc claims.

Genesis 4: When you [Cain, after murdering Abel] work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." God says Cain will restlessly wander the earth. Deleted verses Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Where did his wife come from? Supposedly there were only 3 people on the earth at this time. Cain was then building a city, Why was Cain building a city? Supposedly there were only 5 people at this time, the parents, Cain, the mystery wife, and the kid. How did he even know what a city was with 5 people on the earth. So where did all the urbanites come from? And wasn't Cain supposed to be a "restless wanderer" like god told him. Either god is an incompetent seer or Cain can't follow instructions and god can't enforce them. and he named it after his son Enoch.

Bigbang, I will address your illogic.

Atheism existed long before modern science.

Likewise, even in the unlikely event that PZ Meyers personally "converted" to atheism directly as a result of learning about evolution, we can easily observe that a number of equal experts in evolution and molecular genetics are not atheists.

Thus, it is clear, to anyone who is willing to think logically, that knowledge of the theory of evolution is neither necessary nor sufficient to "cause atheism".

If your own personal religious views are at odds with the theory of evolution, or any other strongly documented scientific reality, that is your problem. Not the problem of "religion" or "Christianity", but YOUR problem.

Your constant efforts to trap other religious people with a false dichotomy are embarrassing.

I assume, of course, that you are YEC. One of the sneaky ones. I am unaware of any sincere non-YEC religious perspective that is compatible with ID but not with science.

For full disclosure, I am neither anti-religion nor anti-atheism. I am in favor of the right of everyone to live and believe as they see fit, subject only to the restriction that they respect the same rights in others.

I second the comments by Stacy S. - the prayer breakfast is not a big deal. Certainly, in my opinion, it does not deserve the attention given here.

I presume that PZ Myers is not too familiar with the military, but yes prayer breakfasts are held regularly throughout the military. This is not an accusation of any sort, just a statement of fact. Like the scientific community, the inner workings of the military community are not necessarily common knowledge to the general population.

Graduation ceremonies at boot camps do tend to include a prayer and the oath of office does include the 'so help me God' statement.

The Chaplain Corps in the Military tends to be very low key in regards to proselytizing - their main focus is providing support to troops so they can carry out their duties. Regardless whether one thinks that religion is false or not - the fact remains that a large majority of people are religious and the Chaplain Corps plays a vital role in helping the leadership maintain good order and morale.

There have been a few cases of overzealous Chaplains, the recent issues at the Air Force Academy are a good example of this, but the Chaplain Corps has always condemned such 'activism' and taken action to correct it. I ran into one 'activist' chaplain at one time in my military career. He did not last long in the military - not because of me, but because the leadership and the Chaplain Corps took care of him.

Yes - everyone is 'on the clock' when attending prayer breakfasts. Everyone in the military is salaried - there is no punching of a clock or anything like that. Generally, you are on duty 24/7. Yes - Chaplains are paid with taxpayer money. All religious buildings in the military are built with taxpayer money. Trainees march in formation every Sunday morning to services (many of them go just to get away from the Drill Sergeants).

The Pentagon does not decide to send our sons, daughters, etc, into harms way. Others do that, the Pentagon implements the policies.

The Pentagon does not, and cannot, decide to lauch missiles, nuclear or otherwise, others make that decision, the Pentagon implements the decision.

Just as the public image of scientists is 'tarnished' by the 'mad-man in a lab coat' movies so is the image of the military 'tarnished' by "Dr. Strangelove" type movies.

I am not sure how Ken Ham got invited. I would bet that most people in the prayer breakfast did not know who he was or what he stood for or paid much attention to him. It may be great publicity for him back in creationist circles but he'd be making much about nothing.

As the Police Officer would say after the traffic accident: Keep moving, there's nothing to see here.

raven said: Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Where did his wife come from? Supposedly there were only 3 people on the earth at this time.

This is not a problem for people who take the Bible metaphorically. For the literalist however, their god must lax the rule now and then to accommodate some weird stuffs.

Well, such a God is definitely the God of ID.

Sorry, typing gibberish

To me-this is much more of a story than the breakfast thing. I was just alerted that there is an "Intelligent Design game!" ROTFL LMAO!

According to the AIG and some apologetics, Cain did lay with an unnamed sister who also came from Adam and Eve.

Richard said: Trainees march in formation every Sunday morning to services (many of them go just to get away from the Drill Sergeants).

Harold says: “Likewise, even in the unlikely event that PZ Meyers personally “converted” to atheism directly as a result of learning about evolution.”

.

Perhaps PZ will explain for you what fellow Darwinian and friend Dawkins observed: “although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Perhaps PZ can also explain to you how and why Darwinian Dawkins concludes in his God Delusion that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion. And why “religion itself is a lie and a danger.”

I use to think that the intellectual dishonesty and/or denial of the YEC crowd was pretty bad, but guys like PvM, Stanton, and Harold here definitely have them beat. Congratulations boys. Maybe PZ will set you straight, but probably not. Oh well.

Raven,

Ohhh, but if Genesis is not literal then the part about morality may not be literal! By that logic everything will become subjective! The word of God can't be subjective! You either believe everything in it or none at all,just like you are either going to hell or heaven, no middle ground.

Besides, if there are no set laws, no hell to fear what is stopping me from bashing you in the head with a stone?!?! Darwin leads to Hitler remember??

See? It's a slippery slope no Bible literalist will consider, their brains can't compute.

So, given as how bigbangMoronic Bigot has confessed that his sole purpose at Panda's Thumb is to ensnare people in his incompetently constructed false dichotomy, and that he is physically incapable of holding even rudimentary polite conversation, can we have his posts moderated and or sent immediately to the Bathroom Wall?

Why must we persist in having him continue to disrupt every thread he infests with him repeating the same mental diarrhea? Is bigbangMoronic Bigot being used as an example for us, like the way one trains a dog or a cat by forcibly rubbing its nose in excrement?

Stanton rants: So, given as how bigbangMoronic Bigot has blah, blah, blah.”

.

It's almost funny, but this Stanton fellow seems to have some major self-control issues. Perhaps he should consider anger management classes? Hopefully Dr. Meyers can calm the little guy down.

Yes - you are right, attendance to services is voluntary.
I meant to say that.
Thanks

Point of information: is attendance at church services really voluntary or only officially voluntary? After all, high schools aren't supposed to actively promote Christianity either but in many areas they may as well be seminaries...or Southern Baptist madrasas. In my experience, military culture is highly authoritarian and only grudgingly loyal to dubious ideas like freedom of conscience; but I certainly don't have first hand information.

bigbangMoronic Bigot said: Stanton rants: So, given as how bigbangMoronic Bigot has blah, blah, blah.” . It's almost funny, but this Stanton fellow seems to have some major self-control issues. Perhaps he should consider anger management classes? Hopefully Dr. Meyers can calm the little guy down.

harold said: Atheism existed long before modern science.

Jim Harrison said: Point of information: is attendance at church services really voluntary or only officially voluntary? After all, high schools aren't supposed to actively promote Christianity either but in many areas they may as well be seminaries...or Southern Baptist madrasas. In my experience, military culture is highly authoritarian and only grudgingly loyal to dubious ideas like freedom of conscience; but I certainly don't have first hand information.

Or, perhaps bigbangMoronic Bigot can explain why absolutely none of his comments have even a tangential relation with the threads he infests? I mean, how does his demanding that all Christians, with the exception of the current Pope, must take the stated opinions of atheists to heart, or they must deny reality, with the exception of the current Pope,How relate directly to a lunatic being invited to a breakfast held at the Pentagon?

P.S. On a 6 month "cruise" with 5000 sailors on board - I never once even saw the Chaplain. I didn't even know where his ofice was.

Stacy S. said: In my experience it was TRULY voluntary.

No ETs? I think our solar system has been officially designated as "quarantined" by the galactic powers that be. They fear that a species capable of such irrational thinking exhibited by Ken Ham et al might pose a threat to the peaceable galaxy if they ever get some seriously advanced technologies like warp drive or planet-killing death stars.

Dear FL
Like you, Hamm thinks dinosaurs walked with man 6000 years ago, this was while Chinese and Sumerians were forming great civilizations and didn't know about Adam & Eve. Plus like you, Hamm believes in the “Fall” of Adam & Eve. Now, if I started punishing your great grandchildren because of something you did 50 years ago you would rightly call me evil. So what do you call your god, the punisher because of the Fall. (like you, he is full of crap!

I use to think that the intellectual dishonesty and/or denial of the YEC crowd was pretty bad, but guys like PvM, Stanton, and Harold here definitely have them beat. Congratulations boys. Maybe PZ will set you straight, but probably not. Oh well.

I worked as a contractor for the Army at one point. Most of the head government people including the top man were fundies and these damn prayer breakfasts were common with all sorts of fundy luminaries as the speakers. This was over 4 years ago. So if you're all scared now just keep in mind this has been going on for a long time. Ken Ham doesn't surprise me at all though most of the people we got were lesser, um one hates to call them "lights". I guess the people at the Pentagon can get the Top Krazies though.

Stacy S. said: P.S. On a 6 month "cruise" with 5000 sailors on board - I never once even saw the Chaplain. I didn't even know where his ofice was.

FL said:

FL and Bigbang, you know nothing of science or Christianity.

Let's assume, just for the PandasThumb fun of it, that you are correct in this claim. Perhaps you can kindly educate me a little.

Having read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, I can affirm the following:

1. You do not need to beleive in the Bible to beleive in God. You can deduce a Creator from simple logic.

2. Belief in evolution does not deny belief in God. Equating atheism with evolutionism is a non-sequitur.

3. To claim that an obviously flawed book like the Bible is infallible is to lie.

4. To lie in the name of God is to commit BLASPHEMY!

Therefore, FL and others like him are ILLOGICAL LIARS, BLASPHEMERS and the very sort of people Jesus warned us about in Matthew 7:21-23.

“Not everyone who calls to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do my Father’s will may enter. On the Judgement Day many will say to me, ‘Lord, didn’t we prophesy, cast out demons, and do many miracles in your name?’ But I will say to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you that do evil!’”

I would suggest that the thing which will condemn someone to hell, even though they profess to believe in Jesus, will be the person’s placing the Bible above God Himself. Fundamentalists have claimed for over a century that the Bible is the Word of God and is therefore infallible. This claim has no support whatsoever. Attempts to support it by references to the Bible are circular reasoning. Only God Himself should ever be seen as infallible, and since we have no direct contact with Him, we have nothing that may be considered infallible. The Bible, the Quran, and other religious books may be inspired by faith in God, but they are still human products, and are thus prone to error like all other human products. The Quran itself condemns the tendency of man to make partners with Allah, so should it be acceptable for any Muslim to make the Quran a partner with Allah?

In this physical world, there is NOTHING and NO ONE that may rightfully be called infallible!

bigbang said: But then if there is no irreconcilability between Christianity and Darwinism (and/or science) as PvM claims, then why would the Dawinians here be getting so upset when a xian speaks at a prayer breakfast, and/or that people with big guns even have prayer breakfasts?

Maybe genuine Darwinians do perceive an irreconcilability between Christianity and Darwinism (and/or science and/or reality) after all? Maybe genuine Dawinians do believe that PvM’s “Christian God” is a delusion after all? Imagine that.

bigbang said: P. Z. Meyers says: “Disallow or at least avoid criticizing the dominant source of credulity in our culture, so that we can avoid alienating the believers, so they can go on being credulous idiots . . . “ . OMG, then PT’s PvM has gotten it wrong after all----genuine Darwinians like Meyers do see believers as being idiots, genuine Darwinians are convinced that Christianity is utterly irreconcilable with Darwinism (and/or science and/or reality). I hope someone is able to break this gently to PvM (and the other Darwinians that were taken in by PvM’s credulity).

wolfwalker said: So there are apparently people in the Pentagon who are sympathetic to YEC. So what? There are also people in the Pentagon who think it's fine and dandy to try to negotiate with terrorists. Every day, I find it more and more difficult to care. Both presidential candidates are sympathetic to ID and utterly ignorant of the basic rules of science and reason. One candidate's entire party platform systematically denies that science, reason, history, or the study thereof is any use at all. (Indeed, some would argue that both parties' platforms do this.) Science will not play a role in this election, and the winner will not care a lick about science, reason, history, or the study thereof. Get used to it.

Yes arguing a 6000 yr earth is difficult. Ham is definitely on the far end of this spectrum. YEC, OEC, ID, Atheism, Panspermia, theological evolution. Bene, Dembski, Berlinski, Dawkins.

How would we arrange all these on the spectrum.

And what is the strongest argument against natural selection and common descent?

Darwinian Dale Husband said: “Having read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, I can affirm the following . . . .To lie in the name of God is to commit BLASPHEMY! . . . . Jesus warned in Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who calls to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

.

How utterly foolish.

Dear Dr. Meyers, please, your immediate intervention is requested.

Please explain to these “credulous idiots” why the “dominant source of their credulity in our culture” is indeed “dangerous and a lie,” why their belief in a god qualifies as a delusion, or is wishy-washy at best. Please explain to them Dawkins’s observation that “although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist,” and that virtually all the top Darwinians (except for a few wish-washy incongruities---essentially closet cosmology IDers----like Miller) are atheists.

And for goodness sake, Dr Meyers, please don’t, as you admonished against in your above post, “avoid alienating the believers” here b/c otherwise, as you observe, they will almost certainly “go on being credulous idiots,” making their so-called Darwinism, and ultimately the genuine Darwinism of guys like you, Dawkins, Mayr, Provine, Gould, Dennett, etc., etc., look foolishly inconsistent, and therefore rather questionable.

bigbang: ...guys like you, Dawkins, Mayr, Provine, Gould, Dennett, etc., etc., look foolishly inconsistent, and therefore rather questionable.

Hey, that looks like fun! Let me give it a try:

Guys like de Grasse Tyson, 't Hooft, Feynman, Hawking, etc., etc., look foolishly inconsistent, and therefore rather questionable.

Wow, that was fun, and I feel superior to everyone!

And what is the strongest argument against natural selection and common descent?

The devil buried fossils to trick us.

Dear Dr. Meyers, please, your immediate intervention is requested.

You sound like an obsessed lunatic. I mean, Dr. Myers is quite a handsome gentleman, so I don't really blame you, but FYI... he's married, and not interested in a relationship with you.

s1mplex said: And what is the strongest argument against natural selection and common descent? The devil buried fossils to trick us.

HamStrung said: There must be some decent argument against NS.

FL said:

Unless you claim the earth is literally groaning (i.e. expressing grief, pain or displeasure), you must take Romans 8 as allegorical.

Romans 8 (and Romans 8:22) is definitely not allegorical, Eric. That much, is for sure. Both text and context make that clear. You and I may not be able to understand all that's going on with creation itself groaning (systenazo) and travailing in pain (sunedino) until the day Jesus Christ sets everything straight and consummates history itself, but make no mistake: Paul is talking totally literally there and the intention is that you the reader will take it literally. No allegory, no "fiction", at all. How do we know this? Because verse 22 directly follows these two verses and there's ZERO doubt about their extreme literalness:

20 For the creation (nature) was subjected to frailty (to futility, condemned to frustration), not because of some intentional fault on its part, but by the will of Him Who so subjected it--[yet] with the hope 21 That nature (creation) itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and corruption [and gain an entrance] into the glorious freedom of God's children. (Amplified Bible)

Verses 20 and 21 supply you not only with a literal reason, but in fact a literal reason based in actual history, for verse 22. Creation has a LITERAL REASON to literally groan (in whatever manner it does so), because it has been set in bondage to decay and corruption---the effects of The Fall, the effects of the literal sin of a literal Adam and Eve. And in fact, not only does Creation literally groan for real (somehow), we Christians do too!

23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves too, who have and enjoy the firstfruits of the [Holy] Spirit [a foretaste of the blissful things to come] groan inwardly as we wait for the redemption of our bodies [from sensuality and the grave, which will reveal] our adoption (our manifestation as God's sons.

We Christians, like the created universe, are subject to literal decay and corruption because of the Fall, and we too do the groaning thing somehow (but it's a real groaning, not fictional, not allegorical.). No, we don't understand all of what's going on there with the "groaning" business. But Paul is NOT doing even one pennyworth of allegorical language there. Not at all. So, even if you may happen reject the truth claims of Romans 8, at least be clear that you're dealing with truth claims that were intended by the biblical writer to be taken LITERALLY. Including Romans 8:22. FL

HamStrung said:

s1mplex said: And what is the strongest argument against natural selection and common descent? The devil buried fossils to trick us.

I hope you are being sarcastic. That is a weak argument. There must be some decent argument against NS.

Sorry to interrupt. :-) ... As a retired military member, I must say that this whole Ken Hamm breakfast thing has goten blown out of proportion.

Have any Wiccans been invited to these events? IF so, what was the public reaction?

Draconiz said:

raven said: Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Where did his wife come from? Supposedly there were only 3 people on the earth at this time.

Raven, Correct me if I am wrong(Buddhist here, atheist by nature). But here's what I know According to the AIG and some apologetics, Cain did lay with an unnamed sister who also came from Adam and Eve. However, by fundie logic incest was not wrong at that time because the fall was only recent and we haven't degenerate much. Thus, genetic diseases haven't crept in and it is perfectly ok to sleep with your sister. Another good example would be the righteous Lot who slept with both his daughters, biblical account states that he was drunk at the time but you and I both know that alcohol makes it a bit hard to perform. Perhaps we were all studs back then(The fall was recent!) but that is my conjecture. This is not a problem who take the Bible metaphorically. For the literalist however, their god must lax the rule now and then to accommodate some weird stuffs. Well, such a their God is definitely the God of ID.

That is a weak argument.

I was being kinda sarcastic. Natural selection is a very simple and elegant concept, and to argue against its occurrence would involve an amazing act of cognitive dissonance.

Populations of organisms are presented with environmental conditions. Those organisms with favorable heritable traits will be more likely to survive, and thus pass on those traits to future generations. Unfavorable traits are less likely to be passed on. The resulting population(s) have traits that are presumably favorable in the existing environmental conditions, which will allow them to survive and reproduce more successfully (on average) than those populations without those traits. In this manner, "Nature" has selected for those favorable traits. If the environmental conditions change (as they are wont to do), a different set of heritable traits may be favored, and will thus be more likely to be passed on.

The only arguments one can make against this mechanism:

1) Goddidit
2) It's circular/tautological

If you care to make these arguments, we may proceed from there.

I would also like to second Stanton's point that there are indeed other "forces" at work in evolution besides natural selection.

Evolution is an evolving theory. :)

Dale,

Very nicely said. I agree.

Bigbang and FL,

You lose again.

Romans 8 (and Romans 8:22) is definitely not allegorical, Eric.

Rreally? You've heard the Earth groaning? Did you manage to get it on tape? If the Earth is literally groaning, why haven't the rest of us -- including MILLIONS of Christians all over the world -- not heard it too?

Creation has a LITERAL REASON to literally groan (in whatever manner it does so)...

"In whatever manner?" I thought you were dead certain it groans in a LITERAL manner. Now you're not so sure? Congratulations, Skippy, you've just undermined your entire argument with a mere two sentences. You can go to bed now, your work here is done.

No, we don’t understand all of what’s going on there with the “groaning” business. But Paul is NOT doing even one pennyworth of allegorical language there. Not at all.

If we don't understand what's going on, than how can you be sure of your opinion here? Oh wait, you worship a deceiver-God and think that's perfectly okay. That explains a lot...

s1mplex said: That is a weak argument. I was being kinda sarcastic. Natural selection is a very simple and elegant concept, and to argue against its occurrence would involve an amazing act of cognitive dissonance. Populations of organisms are presented with environmental conditions. Those organisms with favorable heritable traits will be more likely to survive, and thus pass on those traits to future generations. Unfavorable traits are less likely to be passed on. The resulting population(s) have traits that are presumably favorable in the existing environmental conditions, which will allow them to survive and reproduce more successfully (on average) than those populations without those traits. In this manner, "Nature" has selected for those favorable traits. If the environmental conditions change (as they are wont to do), a different set of heritable traits may be favored, and will thus be more likely to be passed on. The only arguments one can make against this mechanism: 1) Goddidit 2) It's circular/tautological If you care to make these arguments, we may proceed from there.

Anyone who has any doubts about the true spirit of Young-Earth Creationism, can resolve their doubts by checking out the following link:

http://www.dispatch.com/wwwexportcontent/sites/dispatch/local_news/stories/2008/06/19/Freshwater.pdf

Nice company you're hanging with, FL.

Oh, and before you protest that this is an "isolated" incident, just ask yourselves why this "teacher" got away with his overtly sadistic acts for so long. Short answer: he wasn't "isolated."

HamStrung said: Yes of course NS happens. It certainly can cause small body plan changes. But there does not seem to be a way to test that it can turn a reptile into a mammal.

HamStrung said: But there does not seem to be a way to test that it can turn a reptile into a mammal.

But there does not seem to be a way to test that it can turn a reptile into a mammal.

Well, that's where that pesky devil comes into the picture...

(thanks for the heads up, Stanton)

Paul Burnett said:

HamStrung said: But there does not seem to be a way to test that it can turn a reptile into a mammal.

"...the platypus continues to strain credulity, bearing genetic modules that are in turn mammalian, reptilian and avian." - http://www.mcall.com/chi-platypus- dna_08may08,0,5295674.story "From 195 million to 150 million years ago, dinosaurs ruled the land. Scampering around their feet were platoons of diminutive insect-eating animals, part reptile, part something new. When a meteor strike or some other unknown calamity wiped out the giant reptiles and many other animals some 65 million years ago, the shrewlike newcomers prospered. They began evolving into different types of mammals..." - http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/05.24/01-mammal.html Or you discredit anything from Harvard because it's not a Bible college?

Can we ask the Administration to ban bobby's latest incarnation and send his posts to the Bathroom Wall?

Sure HamStrung is a human, and not a computer program. But how do we know he is not a donkey-raping shit-eater?

Only science can say.

FL said: 21 That nature (creation) itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and corruption [and gain an entrance] into the glorious freedom of God's children. (Amplified Bible) Verses 20 and 21 supply you not only with a literal reason, but in fact a literal reason based in actual history, for verse 22. Creation has a LITERAL REASON to literally groan (in whatever manner it does so), ...No, we don't understand all of what's going on there with the "groaning" business....

Hi PZ,

As someone who calls himself a conservative Republican with a strong Libertarian bias, the very thought of having Ken Ham
officiating at a Pentagon "prayer breakfast" scares the hell out of me. It's almost akin to having Josef Goebbels having "breakfast" with the editors of The New York Times. After Ham, who's next? Reverend Moon? How about a Shiite Muslim cleric too, preferably from Iran?

Regards,

John

Unless you are willing to say that the psalm YOU BROUGHT UP is also literal, then you must accept that some parts of the bible aren’t literal.

“The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s; But the earth He has given to the children of men.”

"The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise."

Biblical inerrancy is all or nothing

FL,

What about the part where insects have 4 legs? How do you know whether it is literal or not?

Lev. 11:20-3 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

The context doesn't indicate this verse as a metaphor(because it is law), how do you reconcile this with your logic?

Besides, everyone has a different notion of how to interpret "figure of speech" in the Bible,hence the YEC,OEC,IDiot. PVM made a great point about St. Augustine's treatise in an earlier post, how can you know your way is right if you don't consult the real world first?

PS. Thank you Jeff for pointing that out, although that doesn't make the verse less silly. My original point to Raven is that even though Lot's daughters got him drunk, he has to be quite conscious in order to perform (Any partygoer will attest to that fact) and since his daughters are taking turn lot must know what is happening on the second night.

Sure there is progression in the fossil record. But how do we know that NS cause the reptile to become a mammal?

Then let’s you and I be clear on this as well: Psalm 115:16, which supports Ken Ham’s first main point, is 100 percent literal.. Totally NOT an allegory.

The highest heavens belong to the LORD,but the earth he has given to man.

Yes of course NS happens. It certainly can cause small body plan changes. But there does not seem to be a way to test that it can turn a reptile into a mammal.

PvM said:

Sure there is progression in the fossil record. But how do we know that NS cause the reptile to become a mammal?

Fossil evidence, genetic evidence and logic make this the best explanation. Of course we can always invoke a 'miracle' but then again, that explains anything and thus nothing. You should familiarize yourself with science and abandon appeal to magic.

Hamstrung said:

Evolution has been subjected to the scientific method Hamstrung. It has been tested through the fossil record, DNA, phylogenetic tree and various other means. The testing has been going on for 150 years. You should read the archive here at Panda's Thumb, it's full of articles and papers about all these things you ask for. Reading Prof. LEnski's paper alone is very illuminating.

Hamstrung said: We should not have to accept NS as causation on faith. We should test.

Draconiz said:

Hamstrung said: We should not have to accept NS as causation on faith. We should test.

Evolution has been subjected to the scientific method for 150 years Hamstrung, evidence from all field of biology verify the theory just like the atomic bomb verify Einstein's theory You should read the archive here at Panda's thumb, it will answer a lot of your questions, Prof. Lenski's paper alone is very illuminating.

Paul has answered you that already,

“…the platypus continues to strain credulity, bearing genetic modules that are in turn mammalian, reptilian and avian.” http://www.mcall.com/chi-platypus

You can also go to Talkorigins.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html

http://members.tripod.com/~Cambrian/Reptile-Mammal

Don Exodus made some great Video on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F9729F67CD4034C9

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fp%3D0FB1F085BD950D0F%26index%3D2%26feature%3DPlayList%26v%3DK11knFKqW4s

Please read/watch what people here gave you before posting cause I think you are running in circle here.

Sure there is progression in the fossil record. But how do we know that NS cause the reptile to become a mammal?

Again evolution and NS happens. But there is no test that shows that a reptile can evolve into a mammal.

Draconiz said: Paul has answered you that already, “…the platypus continues to strain credulity, bearing genetic modules that are in turn mammalian, reptilian and avian.” http://www.mcall.com/chi-platypus You can also go to Talkorigins. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html http://members.tripod.com/~Cambrian/Reptile-Mammal Don Exodus made some great Video on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F9729F67CD4034C9 http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fp%3D0FB1F085BD950D0F%26index%3D2%26feature%3DPlayList%26v%3DK11knFKqW4s Please read/watch what people here gave you before posting cause I think you are running in circle here. Sure there is progression in the fossil record. But how do we know that NS cause the reptile to become a mammal? Again evolution and NS happens. But there is no test that shows that a reptile can evolve into a mammal.

Picky note: since "reptile" is pretty much a grab bag folk category--the word and its Hebrew, Greek, and Latin synonyms literally means creeping things--, it is inaccurate or at least anti-cladistic to talk about reptiles changing into mammals. If you go back far enough, you eventually arrive at the the tetrapod ancestor of various groups including the mammals along with a motley assortment of other animals including dinosaurs, birds, turtle, snakes, etc. Well, I suppose that beast did creep; and it is true that the therapids, the precursors of mammals prominent back in the Permian, were somewhat reptilish. They were also rather mammaly.

Obviously you haven't read anything we gave you.

There is no test that shows that a tiny Bristlecone seed can grow into a 3,000 year-old tree.

But we have seeds, and seedlings, and young Bristlecone pines, and somewhat older trees, and very old trees. And we know plants grow from seeds.

The analogy to evolution is this: we have several well-understood mechanisms, of which natural selection is an important, but not the only, one, we have a fossil record that shows clear homologies between extinct and extant organisms, in some cases with clear intermediates, we have the molecular evidence which not only shows the same kind of homologies but reveals that they fall into the nested heirarchies that the theory predicts, and, further, that these nested heirarchies are congruent with the heirarchies shown for other molecular data, as well as with the fossil record. The evidence allows for as clear an inference as any made in geology or astronomy (though I suppose you deny troublesome findings from those disciplines too).

Why don't you just admit that you don't care one whit for evidence? It's clear from your simplistic questions that you think you've moved your goalposts into an unassailable spot, where the evidence can never score. If you're happy with your ignorance, fine. Quit bothering us with it, and, most important, keep it far, far away from public education.

harold said: Another strong caveat is that definitive discovery of life elsewhere in the universe may not be an easy thing, even if it does exist in a way we could recognize.

What about the part where insects have 4 legs? How do you know whether it is literal or not? (Lev. 11:20-23) The context doesn’t indicate this verse as a metaphor(because it is law), how do you reconcile this with your logic?

Q: In Lev 11:20-21, is it wrong to say there are four-footed insects (an atheist asked this)? A: The Hebrew idiom, "on fours" means it does not walk upright. Thus a dog with a leg cut off still goes "on fours." The Hebrews apparently did not have the word parallel. Come to think of it, even in English or Chinese, how would you briefly explain to someone how four-, six-, and many-legged animals all walk in common without using the word parallel? http://www.biblequery.org/lev.htm

jkc said:

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Pentagon prayer breakfasts. Now go hurl.

From this reference it would appear that Pentagon prayer breakfasts are part of the military chaplaincy program. The US military employs thousands of chaplains of many diverse faiths around the world and to my knowledge their right to do this has never been legally challenged (at least successfully).

(1) literal and (2) logical.

The Hebrew idiom, “on fours” means it does not walk upright.

Would the birds count as well(this passage concerns fowl after all)? Doesn't seem logical to me.

Hamstrung is just Jacob/bobby/Bernard/whatever again, same old ignorant boring shit. He writes as if someone came up with evolutionary theory last week. Is blocking an IP so damned difficult, or is he changing computers all the time?

Draconiz said: Obviously you haven't read anything we gave you.

Larry Boy said: Why am I suppose to hurl

HamStrung said: Yes arguing a 6000 yr earth is difficult. Ham is definitely on the far end of this spectrum. YEC, OEC, ID, Atheism, Panspermia, theological evolution. Bene, Dembski, Berlinski, Dawkins.

HamStrung said: And what is the strongest argument against natural selection and common descent?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM replied to comment from HamStrung... You are conflating religion with science...

FL said: Btw, nobody's arguing that every single verse in the Bible is to be taken 100% literally.

That's the rule, honestly. To arbitrarily declare a Bible verse to be "non-literal" or "allegorical" just because the text clashes with your faith in Darwinism's or Materialism's claims, just won't work.

HamStrung said: There must be some decent argument against NS.

HamStrung said: Sure there is progression in the fossil record. But how do we know that NS cause the reptile to become a mammal?

Shebardigan said: bobby/jacob/george/balanced/hamstrung

Especially for FL, Bigbang, and all the other YEC's lurking on the Panda's thumb. Here's an excellent little radio series currently being broadcast on BBC Radio 4 tracing the history of cosmology and why the Big Bang is the only theory/fact that explains the origins of the Universe:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/cosmology/

Some of the previous episodes are still available if you have a real player (available free nowadays):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00bs1zf

Have a listen. Maybe you'll learn something about real science, why it's not some sort of Atheist conspricy to disprove the bible, and why Ken Ham's (and Dr. Jason Lisle views on cosmology really are utter nonsense (i.e Sh*te)

Also available on Youtube now is the excellent Earth story, presented by Professor Aubrey Manning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpbevfWrYg0&eurl=http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/video.html

I'd also urge you to have look through Todd Greene's excellent website where you'll find numerous articles on why YECism is complete nonsene:

http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/

To defend this whopper of a claim, you fall back to an argument from ignorance.

Larry Boy said: The thesis that Christianity is “the dominant source of credulity in our culture” is very poorly supported by reality. The thesis implies causality. It seems self evident that causality runs in exactly the opposite direction.

Larry Boy said: You may feel that this religious intolerance is justified, in fact I hope you do, but this stems more from a certain form of atheist-fundamentalism which is entirely unjustified. If you will allow me to speculate where it is impossible to know, I imagine this fundamentalism results from the observation that religious people are in general less intelligent than you and believe a whole bunch of pointless superstitions. This is a common theme in popular atheist writing. However, when you are more intelligent than the vast majority of people. Then with any opinion you possess you you will find that the majority of people who differ with your opinion are less intelligent than you (since this is tautological.)

FL,

You're not doing so well. "imply concede"?

A plain reading of Exodos, just after the 10 commandments, says:

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

My Christian God found in the words and teaching of Jesus is:
1) All powerful
2) Unconditionally loving and ethical

Seems like your god is sadly neither.

So, then, can FL explain why we should take the Bible literally when it speaks of hares, or hyraxes, depending on the mistranslation, as being ruminants, even though necropsies and dissections demonstrate that neither have four chambered stomachs, or how wheat seeds must die before germinating, or how mustard seeds are the smallest seeds known, even though orchid seeds are smaller?

Or, perhaps FL can explain how interpreting "walking on four legs" as being "parallel to the ground" is a literal interpretation, even though a literal interpretation of "walking on four legs" would literally mean someone or something that literally uses four legs to walk about?

Again evolution and NS happens. But there is no test that shows that a reptile can evolve into a mammal.

Henry J said:

Again evolution and NS happens. But there is no test that shows that a reptile can evolve into a mammal.

It's not whether every data point can be fully explained, it's whether the relevant patterns*, taken over all the relevant data points, match the patterns that are expected if the theory under consideration is correct (or at least a good approximation).

Henry J said:

Again evolution and NS happens. But there is no test that shows that a reptile can evolve into a mammal.

It's not whether every data point can be fully explained, it's whether the relevant patterns*, taken over all the relevant data points, match the patterns that are expected if the theory under consideration is correct (or at least a good approximation). *In this case, some of the relevant patterns are: good agreement among nested hierarchies constructed from comparing anatomical structures, DNA sequences, or protein composition; geographical clustering of close relatives; tendency for later species to be only slightly different than earlier species, in a series extending backwards in time; tendency of those predecessors to be closer to each other in form than are their successors; observations of adaptation and speciation in short-generation species; correlations between amount of genetic difference with amount of time since divergence indicated by fossil record. Henry

HamStrung said: But is there something else going on?

It seems like those here are saying the case is closed.

It has never been demonstrated that NS can be the sole cause of reptiles evolving into mammals.

And please, a youtube video really is not a reliable source and neither are blogs at talkorigins.

FL said:

To defend this whopper of a claim, you fall back to an argument from ignorance.

No, I have appealed straightforwardly to the text AND context,

Now, what have you done, **likewise**, to support your claim of "allegory"?

You claim that Ham's Bible verses are "allegory." You therefore have the obligation to SHOW, textually and contextually, that those particular verses really are as you claim. (Especially since, ahem, there doesn't seem to be any self-evident allegorical language in there, very honestly.)

Ken Ham has just responded to PZ:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/06/20/biology-professor-calls-me-%e2%80%9cwackaloon%e2%80%9d/

Biology Professor Calls Me “Wackaloon”

Published June 20th, 2008 in My Journeys, Thoughts and Things

PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota–Morris, ranted in a blog item (which is apparently quite popular among anti-creationists) about my speaking at a prayer breakfast at the Pentagon. The arrogance and intolerance of some of these people is remarkable. Considering this person is supposed to be an academic teaching good research skills to students at a university, I would not want to trust any of his lectures considering the logic he used in his recent blog. He stated:

Ken Ham, chief wackaloon at Answers in Genesis, was invited to speak…at a Pentagon prayer breakfast.

Just let that sink in.There are people at the Pentagon who are in charge of planning where your sons and daughter and nephews and nieces and other beloved family members and friends will be sent to put their lives at risk. There are military personnel there who can send missiles and bombers anywhere in the world. There are people there who control nuclear weapons.

And they think Ken Ham is a fine-and-dandy, clever feller.

It’s almost enough to make me wish I could pray. It’s not just Ham, either—it’s that the people with the big guns have prayer breakfasts.

Now consider this:

Over 23,000 people work at the Pentagon. I spoke to 100 Christians at a prayer breakfast—less than 0.5% of the Pentagon workforce (good response from those present by the way).
The military is now one of the most “politically correct” places in the USA. Not only do Christians have the freedom to meet—but so do Muslims, Hindus, and almost any other group you could name. Of course, if I had been a Muslim and went to the Pentagon to address a Muslim prayer breakfast, I’m sure PZ Myers would not have ranted against that—it is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems.
What’s he so worked up about anyway? If he’s right, God doesn’t exist—so prayer can’t do anything and, therefore, can’t harm anything. But, then, who cares about harm in a world without moral absolutes? It’s the survival of the fittest; so, evolution will inexorably eliminate these weak-minded “idiots” at the Pentagon. If they nuke some people along the way, so what? That’s just the death of the weakest in this purposeless accidental existence of ours; sooner or later the more fit will triumph, and the world will be more evolved. So, what’s Myers concerned about? This is all just time and chance and the laws of nature at work. What is, is. There are and can be no “oughts.”
Notice how these evolutionists use such emotive language and name calling (e.g., “wackaloon”)—very academic, scientific arguments!
People like PZ Myers are those who call for tolerance—but their intolerance for Christians illustrates clearly the spiritual nature of this battle—otherwise, why would they care?

Biology Professor Calls Me “Wackaloon” Published June 20th, 2008 in My Journeys, Thoughts and Things PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota–Morris, ranted in a blog item (which is apparently quite popular among anti-creationists) about my speaking at a prayer breakfast at the Pentagon. The arrogance and intolerance of some of these people is remarkable. Considering this person is supposed to be an academic teaching good research skills to students at a university, I would not want to trust any of his lectures considering the logic he used in his recent blog. He stated: Ken Ham, chief wackaloon at Answers in Genesis, was invited to speak…at a Pentagon prayer breakfast. Just let that sink in.There are people at the Pentagon who are in charge of planning where your sons and daughter and nephews and nieces and other beloved family members and friends will be sent to put their lives at risk. There are military personnel there who can send missiles and bombers anywhere in the world. There are people there who control nuclear weapons. And they think Ken Ham is a fine-and-dandy, clever feller. It’s almost enough to make me wish I could pray. It’s not just Ham, either—it’s that the people with the big guns have prayer breakfasts. Now consider this: Over 23,000 people work at the Pentagon. I spoke to 100 Christians at a prayer breakfast—less than 0.5% of the Pentagon workforce (good response from those present by the way). The military is now one of the most “politically correct” places in the USA. Not only do Christians have the freedom to meet—but so do Muslims, Hindus, and almost any other group you could name. Of course, if I had been a Muslim and went to the Pentagon to address a Muslim prayer breakfast, I’m sure PZ Myers would not have ranted against that—it is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems. What’s he so worked up about anyway? If he’s right, God doesn’t exist—so prayer can’t do anything and, therefore, can’t harm anything. But, then, who cares about harm in a world without moral absolutes? It’s the survival of the fittest; so, evolution will inexorably eliminate these weak-minded “idiots” at the Pentagon. If they nuke some people along the way, so what? That’s just the death of the weakest in this purposeless accidental existence of ours; sooner or later the more fit will triumph, and the world will be more evolved. So, what’s Myers concerned about? This is all just time and chance and the laws of nature at work. What is, is. There are and can be no “oughts.” Notice how these evolutionists use such emotive language and name calling (e.g., “wackaloon”)—very academic, scientific arguments! People like PZ Myers are those who call for tolerance—but their intolerance for Christians illustrates clearly the spiritual nature of this battle—otherwise, why would they care?

Peter Henderson said: Ken Ham has just responded to PZ: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/06/20/biology-professor-calls-me-%e2%80%9cwackaloon%e2%80%9d/

Biology Professor Calls Me “Wackaloon” Published June 20th, 2008 in My Journeys, Thoughts and Things PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota–Morris, ranted in a blog item (which is apparently quite popular among anti-creationists) about my speaking at a prayer breakfast at the Pentagon. The arrogance and intolerance of some of these people is remarkable. Considering this person is supposed to be an academic teaching good research skills to students at a university, I would not want to trust any of his lectures considering the logic he used in his recent blog. He stated: Ken Ham, chief wackaloon at Answers in Genesis, was invited to speak…at a Pentagon prayer breakfast. Just let that sink in.There are people at the Pentagon who are in charge of planning where your sons and daughter and nephews and nieces and other beloved family members and friends will be sent to put their lives at risk. There are military personnel there who can send missiles and bombers anywhere in the world. There are people there who control nuclear weapons. And they think Ken Ham is a fine-and-dandy, clever feller. It’s almost enough to make me wish I could pray. It’s not just Ham, either—it’s that the people with the big guns have prayer breakfasts. Now consider this: Over 23,000 people work at the Pentagon. I spoke to 100 Christians at a prayer breakfast—less than 0.5% of the Pentagon workforce (good response from those present by the way). The military is now one of the most “politically correct” places in the USA. Not only do Christians have the freedom to meet—but so do Muslims, Hindus, and almost any other group you could name. Of course, if I had been a Muslim and went to the Pentagon to address a Muslim prayer breakfast, I’m sure PZ Myers would not have ranted against that—it is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems. What’s he so worked up about anyway? If he’s right, God doesn’t exist—so prayer can’t do anything and, therefore, can’t harm anything. But, then, who cares about harm in a world without moral absolutes? It’s the survival of the fittest; so, evolution will inexorably eliminate these weak-minded “idiots” at the Pentagon. If they nuke some people along the way, so what? That’s just the death of the weakest in this purposeless accidental existence of ours; sooner or later the more fit will triumph, and the world will be more evolved. So, what’s Myers concerned about? This is all just time and chance and the laws of nature at work. What is, is. There are and can be no “oughts.” Notice how these evolutionists use such emotive language and name calling (e.g., “wackaloon”)—very academic, scientific arguments! People like PZ Myers are those who call for tolerance—but their intolerance for Christians illustrates clearly the spiritual nature of this battle—otherwise, why would they care?

Sorry I do not feed trolls. If you are hungry go elsewhere.

HamStrung: It has never been demonstrated that NS can be the sole cause of reptiles evolving into mammals.

You piece of shit troll. If you scroll back a few comments in this very post, you'll see that Stanton said the following, directly in response to your previous bullshit rantings:

...However, do also realize that there are other forces that act on evolution besides Natural Selection, such as genetic drift, and gene flow.

Get a fucking life. Thanks!

Is there really a reading problem here?

Not asking for EVERY data point to be explained. Just to test the overall theory.

It has never been demonstrated that NS can be the sole cause of reptiles evolving into mammals.

No, you said that ‘creation groans’ is literal and the reason we don’t hear any literal groaning is because we don’t fully understand what the author meant. This is a clear retreat into an argument from ignorance.

"By saying that Christians "groan in themselves", Paul suggests that these groans are not verbal utterances but inward, nonverbal 'sighs'." ---NICNT, Romans, Douglas Moo, pg. 519.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

• Non-human life on other planets
• Human-type life where there is no sin
• Human-type life where there is sin but no redemption
• Human-type life where there is sin and redemption (i.e., why is an omnipotent, omnipresent God limited to one redemptive act per universe-lifetime)

s1mplex said: HamStrung: It has never been demonstrated that NS can be the sole cause of reptiles evolving into mammals. You piece of shit troll. If you scroll back a few comments in this very post, you'll see that Stanton said the following, directly in response to your previous bullshit rantings: ...However, do also realize that there are other forces that act on evolution besides Natural Selection, such as genetic drift, and gene flow. Get a fucking life. Thanks!

HamStrung/bobby/jacob/bernard/george said:

s1mplex said: HamStrung: It has never been demonstrated that NS can be the sole cause of reptiles evolving into mammals. You piece of shit troll. If you scroll back a few comments in this very post, you'll see that Stanton said the following, directly in response to your previous bullshit rantings: ...However, do also realize that there are other forces that act on evolution besides Natural Selection, such as genetic drift, and gene flow. Get a fucking life. Thanks!

Get a bar of soap and clean out your mouth. I have reported this site as a porn site because of the fowl language.

FL said: What YOU are mistakenly insisting on, Eric, is that these groanings MUST fall within those Megahertz ranges by which you can then somehow hear or detect them physically, otherwise you automatically reject their literalness and automatically claim that they are allegory even though there's no allegorical language there. FL

jkc said: FL, This discussion of the interpretation of Romans 8:22 is all very interesting, but you haven't answered the original objection. Please tell us how Romans 8:22, even if taken absolutely literally, disproves the possibility of life on other planets. All we have so far is Ken Ham's assertion that human sin and God's redemption thereof make it unlikely. Please explain why any of the following possibilities would not be consistent with Romans 8:

• Non-human life on other planets
• Human-type life where there is no sin
• Human-type life where there is sin but no redemption
• Human-type life where there is sin and redemption (i.e., why is an omnipotent, omnipresent God limited to one redemptive act per universe-lifetime)

HamStrung said: Get a bar of soap and clean out your mouth. I have reported this site as a porn site because of the fowl language.

<

Oh, and that's "foul" language you ignorant twit, unless of course you are referring to someone calling you a chicken shit.

Okay, now that was funny. I needed a laugh this morning.

Oh, and that's "foul" language you ignorant twit, unless of course you are referring to someone calling you a chicken shit.

HamStrung said:

s1mplex said: HamStrung: It has never been demonstrated that NS can be the sole cause of reptiles evolving into mammals. You piece of shit troll. If you scroll back a few comments in this very post, you'll see that Stanton said the following, directly in response to your previous bullshit rantings: ...However, do also realize that there are other forces that act on evolution besides Natural Selection, such as genetic drift, and gene flow. Get a fucking life. Thanks!

Get a bar of soap and clean out your mouth. I have reported this site as a porn site because of the fowl language.

I have reported this site as a porn site because of the fowl language.

Eric,

I fully agree with you regarding the use of allegorical language in the Bible. You have more patience than I to keep trying to make headway there. I was just trying to get FL refocused on the main question and not get sidetracked.

How many angles do fit on the head of a pin?

Well, looks like P. Z. Meyers isn’t going to take this opportunity to explain to the Darwinians here claiming to believe in some sort of god that they are, using his words, “credulous idiots,” and that the “dominant source of their credulity in our culture” is indeed “dangerous and a lie,” and why their belief in a god is “wishy-washy” at best, and/or qualifies (as Dawkins notes in his God Delusion) as a delusion. Nor, it seems, will P. Z. be explaining, as Dawkins has observed, that “although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist,” and that virtually all the top Darwinians----top Darwinians like Meyers himself, Dawkins, Mayr, Provine, Gould, Dennett, etc., etc.(except for a few wish-washy incongruities, essentially closet cosmology IDers like Ken Miller)----are atheists.

Too bad.

I must say, however, that the back-n-forth between the YECs and the Darwinian god-believers here (and/or the Darwinian god-believer sympathizers), arguing scriptures and whatnot, has been rather bizarre, a case of the bland leading the bland.

Note to the YECs here----YEC is an argument you’ll never win; YEC is simply wrong, foolish; it’s an utterly un-winnable position, and all you’re doing is mucking things up, providing an easy target for the Darwinian side of the argument. YEC is an embarrassment. Wake up.

Note to The Darwinians here who claim to believe in some sort of god: Yeah, right----Let’s face it, you people just enjoy rubbing the noses of the YEC crowd in their lame BS . . . although, I suppose it is possible that some of you are like the (Meyers’s “wishy-washy”) Catholic Ken Miller, who believes in ID, except that his ID extends only as far as cosmology and physics, but apparently not (yet) into biology and evolution.

bigbang said: Well, looks like P. Z. Meyers isn’t going to take this opportunity to explain to the Darwinians here claiming to believe in some sort of god that they are, using his words, “credulous idiots,” and that the “dominant source of their credulity in our culture” is indeed “dangerous and a lie,” and why their belief in a god is “wishy-washy” at best, and/or qualifies (as Dawkins notes in his God Delusion) as a delusion. Nor, it seems, will P. Z. be explaining, as Dawkins has observed, that “although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist,” and that virtually all the top Darwinians----top Darwinians like Meyers himself, Dawkins, Mayr, Provine, Gould, Dennett, etc., etc.(except for a few wish-washy incongruities, essentially closet cosmology IDers like Ken Miller)----are atheists. Too bad. I must say, however, that the back-n-forth between the YECs and the Darwinian god-believers here (and/or the Darwinian god-believer sympathizers), arguing scriptures and whatnot, has been rather bizarre, a case of the bland leading the bland. Note to the YECs here----YEC is an argument you’ll never win; YEC is simply wrong, foolish; it’s an utterly un-winnable position, and all you’re doing is mucking things up, providing an easy target for the Darwinian side of the argument. YEC is an embarrassment. Wake up. Note to The Darwinians here who claim to believe in some sort of god: Yeah, right----Let’s face it, you people just enjoy rubbing the noses of the YEC crowd in their lame BS . . . although, I suppose it is possible that some of you are like the (Meyers’s “wishy-washy”) Catholic Ken Miller, who believes in ID, except that his ID extends only as far as cosmology and physics, but apparently not (yet) into biology and evolution.

HamStrung said: Yes of course NS happens. It certainly can cause small body plan changes. But there does not seem to be a way to test that it can turn a reptile into a mammal.

Hamstrung said: Ether, Humours, Geocentrism were the 'best explanations' at various times. Until they were subjected to the scientific method and TESTED.

... There could be other naturalistic explanations but as long as we cannot ask 'how do we know that NS caused the reptile to become a mammal?' then we will never find out.

If we must have absolute faith in NS we will never be able to find out if there are other mechanisms at work.

We should not have to accept NS as causation on faith.

We should test.

Hamstrung said: Again evolution and NS happens. But there is no test that shows that a reptile can evolve into a mammal. Please give me the study or cite.

Hamstrung said:

Draconiz said: Paul has answered you that already, “…the platypus continues to strain credulity, bearing genetic modules that are in turn mammalian, reptilian and avian.” http://www.mcall.com/chi-platypus You can also go to Talkorigins. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html http://members.tripod.com/~Cambrian/Reptile-Mammal Don Exodus made some great Video on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F9729F67CD4034C9 http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fp%3D0FB1F085BD950D0F%26index%3D2%26feature%3DPlayList%26v%3DK11knFKqW4s Please read/watch what people here gave you before posting cause I think you are running in circle here. Sure there is progression in the fossil record. But how do we know that NS cause the reptile to become a mammal? Again evolution and NS happens. But there is no test that shows that a reptile can evolve into a mammal.

Those are not tests, sorry.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Shebardigan said: bobby/jacob/george/balanced/hamstrung

Oops; still catching up comment by comment due to other stuff. Yes, it is obvious by now that it is a troll, and it looks like bobby the dullard. Will stop feeding.

Nigel D said:

Hamstrung said: Again evolution and NS happens. But there is no test that shows that a reptile can evolve into a mammal. Please give me the study or cite.

This is a typical creationist ploy. Hamstrung is pretending to be patient and reasonable by insisting that the process whereby mammals evolved from the ancestor they share with reptiles be demonstrated and / or affirmed by some kind of experiment. Yet, since the process took many millions of years, the demand for this level of evidence is quite clearly ludicrous. As part of the ploy, Hamstrung implies that (s)he would be convinced by such an experiment. However, what Hamstrung fails to acknowledge is that MET is the best explanation for the observed diversity and similarity observed in nature. That is after about 200 years of proposing and assessing explanations. Hamstrung additionally fails to recognise that, if MET were seriously wrong in any respect, science would already have uncovered such errors.

HamStrung said: But is there something else going on?

It seems like those here are saying the case is closed. It has never been demonstrated that NS can be the sole cause of reptiles evolving into mammals.

And where are tests/studies showing that NS is adequate to do this?

... a youtube video really is not a reliable source and neither are blogs at talkorigins.

HamStrung said: (In response to S1mplex's commment): Get a bar of soap and clean out your mouth. I have reported this site as a porn site because of the fowl language.

HamStrung said: No doubt MET is a plausible explanation just as ether was. And light wave and particle theories. And they worked as models in many ways. But the theory does not lend itself to easy falsification just as Popper stated. To say MET is as solid as heliocentrism is simply wrong. Heliocentrism can be experimentally validated but MET cannot.

Actually, you are wrong about Talk Origins. The articles there all heavily reference the scientific literature. This means that they are a reliable source, because their authors provide the audience with the means to check the facts for themselves.

... no that is not true. but anyhow why not use the original study instead of an opinion on a blog.

Nigel D said:

HamStrung said: No doubt MET is a plausible explanation just as ether was. And light wave and particle theories. And they worked as models in many ways. But the theory does not lend itself to easy falsification just as Popper stated. To say MET is as solid as heliocentrism is simply wrong. Heliocentrism can be experimentally validated but MET cannot.

You are lying. Show me an Ordiovician parrot and we'll talk about falsification. MET has been validated by many millions of observations. In what way are observations of the real world different from experiments conducted in a laboratory?

Nigel:

"" And where are tests/studies showing that NS is adequate to do this?

You see, you really are showing yourself up. You are displaying a fundamental ignorance of the way in which knowledge accrues. ""

No YOU are showing a profound ignorance of the scientific method.

HamStrung said: Nigel: "" And where are tests/studies showing that NS is adequate to do this? You see, you really are showing yourself up. You are displaying a fundamental ignorance of the way in which knowledge accrues. "" No YOU are showing a profound ignorance of the scientific method.

Nigel complains that “It would take millions of years to perform the test under laboratory conditions (if not tens of millions of years)”

.

Time is virtually irrelevant. What “it would take” is simply big population numbers, fast reproduction cycles, and good mutation rates. For example, the number of malaria cells and HIV in the past fifty or so years most likely have greatly surpassed the number of mammals that have lived during the last several hundred million years . . . and how much macroevolution have we seen in pathogens in the past fifty years? Well, let me think . . . ahhh, none----Overwhelming evidence that evolution by RM+NS is laughably inadequate to explain the complexity of life that we see today.

Bigbang’s prediction: One day in the (hopefully not too distant) future most people will realize the laughable inadequacy of RM+NS to explain most of evolution of the complexity that we see today; and will look back on the time when Darwinians believed that RM+NS (plus a few miscellaneous mechanisms like drift etc.) could essentially explain all of evolution; and they will laugh in disbelief.

Eric observes: “about how PZ thinks xianity is a crock while PvM is xian. We know that. We don’t care. In fact, not caring is one of things that makes secular science so incredibly valuable.”

.

IOW, although Meyers apparently thinks that Darwinian xians like PvM are “credulous idiots” who don't comprehend that the “dominant source of their credulity in our culture” is indeed “dangerous and a lie,” and that their belief in a god qualifies as a delusion, or is wishy-washy at best, neither Meyers nor the Darwinian xians care since any semblance of intellectual honesty, rigor, and/or consistency are unimportant here as long as one has an unquestioning faith and devotion in the Darwinian view being currently espoused here. . . . yeah Eric, I’d say you’ve pretty much nailed it.

HamStrung said: ... no that is not true. but anyhow why not use the original study instead of an opinion on a blog.

HamStrung said:

Nigel D said: Show me an Ordiovician parrot and we'll talk about falsification. MET has been validated by many millions of observations. In what way are observations of the real world different from experiments conducted in a laboratory?

stop your 'lying'. that would not be an adequate falsification. please read Popper.

Nigel D said: How about you address the actual points I raise?

Nigel D said: Multiple mechanisms can operate in the same population at the same time. In the same way that Newtonian gravitational theory is a good approximation of reality, NS is at least a good approximation of what occurs.

Nigel D said:

HamStrung said:

Nigel D said: Show me an Ordiovician parrot and we'll talk about falsification. MET has been validated by many millions of observations. In what way are observations of the real world different from experiments conducted in a laboratory?

stop your 'lying'. that would not be an adequate falsification. please read Popper.

And you wonder why some commenters get sufficiently exasperated with you to resort to "fowl" (sic) language. How about you address the actual points I raise? You claimed that MET is not falsifiable. This is a blatant lie. Out-of-place fossils, if any were ever discovered, would present a significant challenge to MET. An example would be a modern parrot fossilised in Ordovician strata. You are right that this alone would not be adequate falsification, but not for any trivial rhetorical reason. It would be inadequate because of the sheer weight of data that support MET.

"" Well, when I read the entire Talk Origins archive about 2 or so years ago, the bulk of the essays referenced the literature extensively. ""

OK give me the URL to the Talk Origins article that shows a test for NS causing reptiles to evolve into mammals AND the resourse it uses. Sorry TO is not the well source. Well go ahead prove me wrong!

Nigel D said: You are right that this alone would not be adequate falsification, but not for any trivial rhetorical reason. It would be inadequate because of the sheer weight of data that support MET.

Another lie by Nigel:

'You claimed that MET is not falsifiable.'

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Nigel D said: You are right that this alone would not be adequate falsification, but not for any trivial rhetorical reason. It would be inadequate because of the sheer weight of data that support MET.

I haven't read Popper, but my impression isn't that he was arguing naive falsification and that he didn't reject it either. The problem according to Mayo is that he was entirely too soft on analyzing and rejecting conjectures. Perhaps he didn't think of phylogenies. AFAIU it wasn't a much used tools in those days. (IIRC noted to the effect that if there was tens of species in a rare phylogeny then, it is routinely hundreds of species today.) One can follow Mayo and note that heredity and phylogenies combined is a severe test for evolution and its mechanisms, as for example lamarckian evolution is rejected. For comparison, general relativity hasn't been severely tested until recently, and it still has predictions to be tested. (Such as frame dragging, currently under test.) AFAIU Poppers final position was that evolution was a science (duh!) by his own measure. And what matters, biologists themselves - they continue to succeed finding phylogenies every day, making ever better tests.

HamStrung/bobby/bernard/jacob/balanced said: "" Well, when I read the entire Talk Origins archive about 2 or so years ago, the bulk of the essays referenced the literature extensively. "" OK give me the URL to the Talk Origins article that shows a test for NS causing reptiles to evolve into mammals AND the resourse it uses. Sorry TO is not the well source. Well go ahead prove me wrong!

Stanton said: I see that Hamstrung/bobby/bernard/jacob/balanced refuses to realize that everyone sees through his moronic little game of making impossible demands that he has no intention of recognizing when they are met.

HamStrung/bobby/bernard/jacob/balanced said: "" Well, when I read the entire Talk Origins archive about 2 or so years ago, the bulk of the essays referenced the literature extensively. "" OK give me the URL to the Talk Origins article that shows a test for NS causing reptiles to evolve into mammals AND the resourse it uses. Sorry TO is not the well source. Well go ahead prove me wrong!

I have reported this site as a porn site…

Mike Elzinga said: Why does he keep using his passive-aggressive behavior to elicit responses he calls porn?

hamstrung/bobby/bernard/jacob/balanced said: I told you I am not going to feed you. Why do you keep coming back asking for some nourisment. You have to go elsewhere for your treats.

Mayo’s key notion is that of a severe test of a hypothesis, one with “an overwhelmingly good chance of revealing the presence of a specific error, if it exists — but not otherwise” Exactly and that is one reason why rabbits in the cambrian is not a ‘severe test’.

PvM said:

Mayo’s key notion is that of a severe test of a hypothesis, one with “an overwhelmingly good chance of revealing the presence of a specific error, if it exists — but not otherwise” Exactly and that is one reason why rabbits in the cambrian is not a ‘severe test’.

Why not?

Mike Elzinga said:

I have reported this site as a porn site…

Hamstrung/bobby, or what ever it is, has changed his name repeatedly in order to keep from being kicked over to the bathroom wall. So why is he so insistent on hanging around on a “porn site”? Why does he keep using his passive-aggressive behavior to elicit responses he calls porn? Is he admitting that he is a porn addict and enjoys eliciting pornographic behaviors and responses from others? Why would this not be surprising?

hamstrung said: No I just do not want children coming here and being exposed to the vulgar language. Only adults should be allowed here because of the bad manners.

Science Avenger said:

hamstrung said: No I just do not want children coming here and being exposed to the vulgar language. Only adults should be allowed here because of the bad manners.

Fuck you. Better?

hamstrung said: It is in the article. Did you read the article?

hamstrung said: QED

hamstrung said: No I just do not want children coming here and being exposed to the vulgar language. Only adults should be allowed here because of the bad manners.

hamstrung said: I told you I am not going to feed you. Why do you keep coming back asking for some nourisment. You have to go elsewhere for your treats.

Science Avenger said:

hamstrung said: No I just do not want children coming here and being exposed to the vulgar language. Only adults should be allowed here because of the bad manners.

If children weren't allowed here, you would have been booted long ago.

hamstrung said: You can have the last word which you so desperately need.

HamStrung said: OK give me the URL to the Talk Origins article that shows a test for NS causing reptiles to evolve into mammals AND the resourse it uses.

Actually, you are wrong about Talk Origins. The articles there all heavily reference the scientific literature. This means that they are a reliable source, because their authors provide the audience with the means to check the facts for themselves.

— Hamstrung

… no that is not true. but anyhow why not use the original study instead of an opinion on a blog.

Well, when I read the entire Talk Origins archive about 2 or so years ago, the bulk of the essays referenced the literature extensively.

— Nigel D

Well go ahead prove me wrong!

HamStrung said: OK give me the URL to the Talk Origins article that shows a test for NS causing reptiles to evolve into mammals AND the resourse it uses.

Actually, you are wrong about Talk Origins. The articles there all heavily reference the scientific literature. This means that they are a reliable source, because their authors provide the audience with the means to check the facts for themselves.

— Hamstrung

… no that is not true. but anyhow why not use the original study instead of an opinion on a blog.

Well, when I read the entire Talk Origins archive about 2 or so years ago, the bulk of the essays referenced the literature extensively.

— Nigel D

Well go ahead prove me wrong!

— Hamstrung

Hamstrung said: Another lie by Nigel: 'You claimed that MET is not falsifiable.'

No doubt MET is a plausible explanation just as ether was. And light wave and particle theories. And they worked as models in many ways. But the theory does not lend itself to easy falsification just as Popper stated. To say MET is as solid as heliocentrism is simply wrong. Heliocentrism can be experimentally validated but MET cannot.

— Hamstrung

hamstrung said:

Stanton said: I see that Hamstrung/bobby/bernard/jacob/balanced refuses to realize that everyone sees through his moronic little game of making impossible demands that he has no intention of recognizing when they are met.

I told you I am not going to feed you. Why do you keep coming back asking for some nourisment. You have to go elsewhere for your treats.

hamstrung said:

PvM said:

Mayo’s key notion is that of a severe test of a hypothesis, one with “an overwhelmingly good chance of revealing the presence of a specific error, if it exists — but not otherwise” Exactly and that is one reason why rabbits in the cambrian is not a ‘severe test’.

Why not?

It is in the article. Did you read the article?

Nigel D said:

hamstrung said:

PvM said:

Mayo’s key notion is that of a severe test of a hypothesis, one with “an overwhelmingly good chance of revealing the presence of a specific error, if it exists — but not otherwise” Exactly and that is one reason why rabbits in the cambrian is not a ‘severe test’.

Why not?

It is in the article. Did you read the article?

Obviously Hamstrung did not understand the article sufficiently to be able to articulate its contents in his own words.

Nigel D said:

Hamstrung said: Another lie by Nigel: 'You claimed that MET is not falsifiable.'

Chapter and verse, dear fellow, chapter and verse...

No doubt MET is a plausible explanation just as ether was. And light wave and particle theories. And they worked as models in many ways. But the theory does not lend itself to easy falsification just as Popper stated. To say MET is as solid as heliocentrism is simply wrong. Heliocentrism can be experimentally validated but MET cannot.

— Hamstrung

Now, if you are not claiming that MET is not falsifiable here, you are using a language other than English. You calling me a liar is hypocritical, as well as being untrue. If I had any reason to expect you to answer truthfully (which I do not), I would ask you to supply your name and address so that my lawyers can serve you notice, because you are comitting slander.

Your attitude toward Ken Ham clearly proves your bias. Don't think we will be able to find much objectively scientific thinking here. Perhaps you should stick to the issues to be a little more believable.

Funny, I don't recall saying anything about Ken Ham.

I love the notion that having a negative attitude towards Ham proves a bias. Someone needs to explain to these people that "biased" doesn't mean "disagrees with me".

Yep. Funny how I thought "bias" meant forming an opinion from irrelevant attributes, without regard to information that is relevant (and perhaps without having obtained it). But plenty of info about Ken Ham is available out there, if I'm not mistaken.

Henry

Ah! The first of many children of Expelled has been signed into law in LA.

I note the rash of BS articles on subjects claiming to be big events in evoland altogether on subjects waddled around for years without an ounce of empirical support.

See as the entire world turns an educated critical and quite jaundiced eye toward the evolutionary paradigm, those in the Titanic of science are bailing faster, frantically in fact; but a 300 foot rip in the hull by the ID berg is proving quite formidable.

Even the also ran turds of maximum inconsequence in all things scientific and life in general who post here so frequently are wet with spittle and lather.

Remember to let the kids on the lifeboats first, LA and soon others are showing the way.

A bunch of inbred coonasses defy science and common sense and to poor Keith this amounts to "the entire world". The world, the modern educated part anyway, continues to laugh at them, and you too Keith, and always will.

That aside, the real test is the court case, not the legislature. We've seen IDer/creationists sneak in stupid legislation before, it only lasts until the they are forced to make their case in an arena where lying carries severe consequences, and in both science and law their record is dismal. They just can't resist saying it is all about science and praise Jesus! If any teacher is foolish enough to inject his classroom with the religious pseudoscience that is ID, and gets called into court over it, it will be Dover all over again. And then we'll get to hear people like Keith scream about how unfair and biased the judge was...again.

There is a recall petition now for Jindal and a couple of other legislators.

and gets called into court over it, it will be Dover all over again.

Avenger,

Racial slur noted from the pig demon from hell.

For someone who regularly engages in animalism and necophilia in the dark of his lab you have some nerve insulting racoons.

This bill explicitly calls out exclusionary language on any religious materials or presentations..period.

I have been applying a special ID filter to all of the turd head evo posts for some time and they have all been rejected as due to random chaos and mutated brain activity.

There will be a dozen of these bills in play within a year.

If I had set my world view on evolution writ large I would be scared of letting in the light of ID as well...must be really scarey.

When will you and the NCSE get your red hooded robes to wear as inquisitors?