Chris Comer Sues Texas Agency: 'Neutrality' is Endorsement of Religion

xpost from pharyngula

Religious discrimination!!!

I said many times at the beginning that Chris Comer was a victim of religious discrimination. Her constitutional rights were being violated by Death Cult fanatics. And that she should go to court on this basis.

Creationism and its camoflagued version ID, aren't even xian dogmas. They are narrow sectarian inventions of fundie cults mostly from the south central USA.

Worldwide, most xian denominations don't have a problem with evolution, mainline protestants, Catholics, Mormons. What is rarely said, some evangelical, fundie, and pentocostal sects don't either. Creationism is as much a loser position to defend as geocentrism and eventually all but the most hardcore cults move on. Pope Pius said it decades ago, "One Galileo in 2,000 years is enough."

I was wondering how long it would take for the other shoe to drop. Hopefully this will turn into another Dover for the ID-creationists.

The real victims of religious descrimination are the children who are forced to listen to creationist propaganda masquarading as science. This is likely to happen if the current religious zealots on the Texas state school board continue their jihad.

Well now, this clearly appears to be a case of religious discrimination. Wouldn't we expect the Dishonesty Institute to step in and defend Comer? Where is her right to freedom of speech they keep talking about and flouting?

Oh, yeah, good for her!

Based on our current understanding of chemistry and biology any mathematically-astute evolutionary biologist who knows what it takes to get from proteins to an ecosystem will admit that it's so statistically improbable as to be impossible. The kinetics of reaction simply don't allow it even given 14 billion years on a planet with all the right stuff.

With that in mind it's pure hypocrisy to reject the idea that the design of life existed before the world was. Especially since this rejection is always done as a matter of principle and not as a matter of logic. There is absolutely not logical reasoning nor proof to support the notion that the design of life did not exist before the world was created. Neither is there logic or proof that intelligence did not exist beforehand, or that it is any less probably than the spontaneous unimaginably unlikely conditions that would create an entire living ecosystems out of a pool of random proteins.

The challenge is with regard to probability (not entropy, which so many creationists think), and the scientific method demands that the most probable phenomena be given most weight, yet there is nothing to suggest that a unintelligent evolution is more likely than an intelligent design.

As such, the prejudice against intelligent design is head-on against everything the scientific method intrinsically specifies. I don't know how someone can call themselves a scientist while refusing to consider an the only proposed solution that satisfies the otherwise mathematically impossible phenomena called life.

It's almost as if they think that considering intelligent design as a remote possibility is the same as giving up on the challenge to solve the mathematics by some other way, which is not only ludicrous, but reveals a huge sense of insecurity on their behalf.

davea0511 said: Based on our current understanding of chemistry and biology any mathematically-astute evolutionary biologist who knows what it takes to get from proteins to an ecosystem will admit that it's so statistically improbable as to be impossible.

davea0511,

So then, religious discrimination is OK with you, as long as you feel that your religion is right. Got it.

As far as insecurity goes, who fired who? So, tell me again, who is acting insecure here?

davea0511 said: Based on our current understanding of chemistry and biology any mathematically-astute evolutionary biologist who knows what it takes to get from proteins to an ecosystem will admit that it's so statistically improbable as to be impossible.

davea0511 said: I don't know how someone can call themselves a scientist while refusing to consider an the only proposed solution that satisfies the otherwise mathematically impossible phenomena called life.

The kinetics of reaction simply don’t allow it even given 14 billion years on a planet with all the right stuff.

fnxtr said:

The kinetics of reaction simply don’t allow it even given 14 billion years on a planet with all the right stuff.

Prove it.

Side bet on the appearance of SLOT?

fnxtr said: Side bet on the appearance of SLOT?

davea0511 said: Based on our current understanding of chemistry and biology any mathematically-astute evolutionary biologist who knows what it takes to get from proteins to an ecosystem will admit that it's so statistically improbable as to be impossible. The kinetics of reaction simply don't allow it even given 14 billion years on a planet with all the right stuff.

Stuart Weinstein said: And please show all maths.

dave Making Stuff Up: davea0511 said: Based on our current understanding of chemistry and biology any mathematically-astute evolutionary biologist who knows what it takes to get from proteins to an ecosystem will admit that it’s so statistically improbable as to be impossible.

The kinetics of reaction simply don’t allow it even given 14 billion years on a planet with all the right stuff.

Yeah, it's unfortunately the case that the creo-net (the thousands of "Christian" sites that exist by copying one another's lies) is heavily populated with calculations based on false assumptions, incomplete data, and foregone conclusions.

fnxtr said: Side bet on the appearance of SLOT?

Mike Elzinga said: Oh please; no! I'm already nauseas and green from Googling "genetic entropy".

Being stupid I love this shit.
I've read PT for a while now; followed Dover through the archives and shit; followed the yammerings of Dembski and Co (and his unbelievable nerve at not turning up at Dover).
Not being American, not being in the States, but having great respect for the Constitution etc, I must ask a question:When-, heh heh heh he, sorry, I'll try again. When, hah hah ha ha he, shit sorry! When will Dembski (and mates) front?

Hey, folks - Don't Feed The Troll!

(Especially one who issued one fart about 5 hours ago and retreated into his noisome pit, giggling about the ease of derailing "Darwinists" from their chosen topic. The ones who stick around to brawl are more fun, anyway.)

Meanwhile, back at the thread: Is there anybody back there in Louisiana in a position to bait Gov. Jindal into make public comments about the Chris Comer case?

Not that I think Bobby J has anything useful to contribute, but it would be nice to have him hitch his caboose to the impending Texas trainwreck...

Pierce R. Butler said: The ones who stick around to brawl are more fun, anyway.

Not that I think Bobby J has anything useful to contribute, but it would be nice to have him hitch his caboose to the impending Texas trainwreck...

State records show that supervisors told Comer that she would be fired if she refused to resign because, by using her agency account to forward the e-mail, she implied that the agency agreed with Forrest's criticism. http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/04/0704comer.html

FL said:

State records show that supervisors told Comer that she would be fired if she refused to resign because, by using her agency account to forward the e-mail, she implied that the agency agreed with Forrest's criticism. http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/04/0704comer.html

Seems there'll be a bit of splainin' to do pretty soon, under oath of course. Meanwhile, you have yourself a happy 4th of July, Ms. Comer! FL :)

LeeH said:

FL said:

State records show that supervisors told Comer that she would be fired if she refused to resign because, by using her agency account to forward the e-mail, she implied that the agency agreed with Forrest's criticism. http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/04/0704comer.html

Seems there'll be a bit of splainin' to do pretty soon, under oath of course. Meanwhile, you have yourself a happy 4th of July, Ms. Comer! FL :)

Yes - as a resident and taxpayer in the State of Texas, I for one demand to know why the State Science Director had the audacity to send an e-mail about a lecture on an issue related to science education from her state e-mail account.

davea0511 said: Based on our current understanding of chemistry and biology any mathematically-astute evolutionary biologist who knows what it takes to get from proteins to an ecosystem will admit that it's so statistically improbable as to be impossible. The kinetics of reaction simply don't allow it even given 14 billion years on a planet with all the right stuff.

FL said: Seems there'll be a bit of splainin' to do pretty soon, under oath of course.

Beats me about all the legal wrangling, but something is rotten in the state of Denmark or Texas as the case may be. You just have to look up McLeroy to know that for a fact. That is apparent even if Comer isn't the best test case.

Neutrality is one of those concepts that sounds good, but this is the real world that we have to deal with. In this case, neutrality is stupid. McLeroy has to lie about what he is trying to get done. Being neutral gives the lies an advantage that they should not have.

It would be one thing if McLeroy and his followers had a legitimate case, but if they had one, why lie about it? Why can't they just present their case in the open air and see where it leads? Why don't they accept the findings of others that have had to confront the same issues? Why is it legitimate to obfuscate the issue and let dishonesty lead the way that you do things? I am sure that, at least, some of McLeroy's supporters have scratched their heads at some time and wondered just why they have to be so underhanded and deceptive in their approach to this problem.

If they have a legitimate case, why hasn't it been presented somewhere? Why are they heading towards teaching an obfuscation scam instead of teaching their alternative?

Surely, there have to be enough honest and competent people, that wonder why they have to try to sneak the junk in slithering under the door instead of letting it walk upright through the door, that can step forward and try to do the right thing. This is their religion that they have to lie about. That has to bring some of them up short.

It seems to me that there are two questions here:

1) Is the Texas Education Agency's "neutrality" policy constitutional?

2) Did Christina Comer violate that policy?

Only the first question is being pursued in this lawsuit, but the second question is interesting as well.

"Neutral" does not mean "mute". If Ms. Comer forwarded the announcement of a talk by Barbara Forrest, and if she would also forward the announcement of a talk by, say, Michael Behe, then she's being neutral. In neither case is she making an endorsement of the speaker or the speaker's position.

(I often recommend that my students attend talks that I suspect will be poorly reasoned, so that they'll learn to recognize poor reasoning. "Know the enemy.")

I find Ms. Comer's situation highly ironic, because she was attempting to "teach the controversy", and was fired for it.

davea0511 said: The kinetics of reaction simply don't allow it even given 14 billion years on a planet with all the right stuff.

It seems to me that there are two questions here: 1) Is the Texas Education Agency’s “neutrality” policy constitutional? 2) Did Christina Comer violate that policy?

Looks like another money grubber on the loose with some slim hope of a settlement. Hope she has better lawyers than Yoko Ono who with your fervent demonic prayers was going to kill expell and put Stein in proson...until the suit got shoved up her skinny ugly butt.

I'll take a small wager on this from any of your buttheads...ever hear of paypal?

The only thing this guy has going for him is 100% pure evidence...no polymers from biomers without enzymes, no enzymes, RNA, no DNA, no cell components, no abiogenesis, no first relicator....hell not even a protein of any kind under prelife conditions.

You people are BS artists of the first magnitude.

And here's your proof...we're here and my explantion is as good as yours 100% probable.

I find Ms. Comer’s situation highly ironic, because she was attempting to “teach the controversy”, and was fired for it.

— Dan

Why isn't Keith the Troll sent to the BW where he belongs? He has long ceased to be entertaining.

Keith and FL -

A measurement device which gives wrong answers, but in a predictable way, is potentially useful.

Correct measurements can be obtained by, in essence, calibrating the results with a correction.

You two nearly always declare the exact inverse of reality.

Therefore, I can conclude from your posts that Comer is almost certain to win a major victory.

"My name is Charlie Carraway and I’m a member of Sopchoppy Southern Baptist Church, Sopchoppy , Florida , but I also work for the Florida Department of Education as the Director of the Office of Instructional Materials. That means I oversee the adoption process in the state, and I work in close proximity to the folks in the Office of Mathematics and Science, who have been in charge of the revision of the science standards. I say all of this, obviously, to give this e-mail credibility, so that you’ll continue to read and pass on the information I’m sharing with you. A lot of people don’t understand “why all the fuss about the new science standards,” so I thought I would try to give more background information. The science standards that are in place now do not include the word Evolution anywhere. In fact, they are ambiguous enough that the districts and schools in Florida have been able to teach evolution as a theory along With other theories. In addition to that, if these new standards are adopted, the new instructional materials adopted and placed in our schools will be aligned to these standards, which means that our new materials will explicitly teach evolution – and not as a theory!!! edit for space ... Once these become adopted standards and benchmarks, FCAT assessment will be based on them. That means students will be held accountable to learn these benchmarks. Districts will not have a choice in teaching evolution as a theory, but will be expected to teach it as stated in these standards, big ideas, and benchmarks. Why? Why is this change necessary? Whose agenda is this and will the Christians in Florida care enough to do something about it?

Catching up on my reading I note that Swedish Engineers magazine features an article on US creationism. (They are interested in science and education, and why it can go bad - and of course anything that decreases other nations competitiveness.) The Chris Comer/Barbara Forrest case is described and it’s connection to Bush, Joshua Rosenau and NCSE get to tell the story on US and Texas education (and Florida and the brother Bush connection), and NAS third book on creationism Science, Evolution, and Creationism is mentioned. No creationist gets to tell “the controversy” and Josh gets final comment. Refreshing!

Do you have a link?

keith said: The only thing this guy has going for him is 100% pure evidence...no polymers from biomers without enzymes, no enzymes, RNA, no DNA, no cell components, no abiogenesis, no first relicator....hell not even a protein of any kind under prelife conditions.

Stacy S. said: @Wolfhound - OH! But keith is so amusing sometimes! :-)

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Besides the name mistake (the short form), Comer is doing the international media rounds, at least in some measure.

Richard Krehbiel said: Only it wasn't 14 billion years on A planet; It was 14 billion years on 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets. Probably more than that.

Dan said: Not only is the interpretation stupid, but also the facts are wrong. The Earth is now thought to be about 4.55 billion years old.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Wow, seems we agree within an order of magnitude, from my off-the-cuff estimate. How about that!

Stacy S. said: Do you have a link?

I don't know if she needs help pay for her legal expences but these things can drag on and I'd like to make a modest contribution.
I think she's a very brave lady for not going quietly into the night and I'll like to send more that just 'good vibes'.
Does anybody know if a legal fund is going to be set up for Christina Comer?

@Torbjörn Larsson - Yes it was. Sorry for not clarifying. LoL
Too bad about the magazine. :-(

Stacy

Regarding reinstatement for Chris:

How happy could that arrangement be? How successful, historically, are reinstatements mandated by the courts?

iml8 said: What's interesting is that if you at least entertain the idea that life originated underground, then any planet with reasonable geothermal activity could have life no matter how nasty the surface conditions. Though you might need a drill rig to find it. That would increase the number of options by an order of magnitude.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Seems we don't lack astronomical objects with the potential for life.

Re Torbjörn Larsson

We should also consider the possibility that Jupiter type planets may have moons that are earthlike and could possibly support life. Note the impending exploration of Europa.

keith said: Looks like another ...

The lawsuit will open up all agency email to see how Comer's superiors responded to Comer's original email. I have no doubt that it will unearth yet another trail of deception so commonly found when religious motivations foolishly undermine science and science education.

The timing could not have been better.

Are there any other people joining in on this case? Is she getting any help from NCSE or ACLU? Are there people planning to file "amicus" briefs, or are there some parents/taxpayers in Texas claiming that they also have an interest in this case?

PvM said: The lawsuit will open up all agency email to see how Comer's superiors responded to Comer's original email.

SLC said: We should also consider the possibility that Jupiter type planets may have moons that are earthlike and could possibly support life. Note the impending exploration of Europa.

TomS said: Are there any other people joining in on this case? Is she getting any help from NCSE or ACLU? Are there people planning to file "amicus" briefs, or are there some parents/taxpayers in Texas claiming that they also have an interest in this case?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM>...but compelling indications that the required chemistry is really easy.

iml8, SLC, good ideas. Albeit those will probably be of lower statistical importance. Not that our planetary system won't have its contingent peculiarities, but the processes we observe is likely common. For example, later capture of stray objects as evidenced by retrograde moons (and perhaps Enceladus).

We will know more at the latest after 2010, when Corot and later the Kepler mission starts to return solid observations from 5*10^5 stars or more each. (And since the latest laser comb techniques allow ground based observations with enough sensitivity to resolve Earth analogs, starting to be tested now, cheaper missions is ahead of us as well.)

As we should wish our anti-empirical "friends", may they live in interesting times.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: As we should wish our anti-empirical "friends", may they live in interesting times.

Chris will be getting help from different groups. One problem with the e-mails, TEA destroys them very quickly. For instance, the governor's office gets rid of his e-mails every week. It will be an interesting case. Of course they do have the e-mail from Lizette Reynolds, saying Chris should be fired because of the Barbara Forrest e-mail. Robert Scott will get to explain under oath, what he meant by the statement, "we can teach science without bashing religion." Let's hope this helps us out with the science standards revision process that will occur in Texas.

The downside, the other side will conduct a smear campaign against Chris, her family, and anyone else that they can.

Cedric - I will check and see if there is a need for funds to be donated.

WTF - does our troll Keith know Chris is a lady ? You have to wonder with the spelling and grammar errors, what level of intoxication he is in when he posts, coupled with the insults, or maybe it is just a case of baffled ignorance.

Dan,

Good point. Now if we could just find someone who works for the same department who sent an E-amil announcing a talk by a creationist. If that person were not fired for violatiing the "neutrality" policy, then these lying hypocrites would be exposed as the religious bigots that they really are. Surely anyone mounting a court case should be competent enough to think of this angle.

Of course it is absolutely impossible to be "neutral" on scientific issues, much less when you are trying to educate people. It is also decidedly unconstitutional to remain "neutral" about any religious teachings that contradict known facts of science. If these people really want to remain "neutral", then why do they descriminate against the FSM? (Praise be to his noodley appendage).

WTF - does our troll Keith know Chris is a lady ? You have to wonder with the spelling and grammar errors, what level of intoxication he is in when he posts, coupled with the insults, or maybe it is just a case of baffled ignorance.

JJ said:... does our troll Keith know Chris is a lady ?

Pierce R. Butler said: That was no lady - that was a Darwinist! /troll

Look, guys, whenever a scientific creationist starts posting about molecules spontaneously producing "our modern ecology", or similar drivel, all you have to do is point out that they're lying. No one has ever claimed that a modern organism, or ecology, whatever, assembled whole out of molecules. Yes, its obvious, but the disingenuous way that the question, accusation, whatever, is phrased can easily sway the general public to believe that this is indeed what evolution is about, especially when no one points out that the slime is purposely misrepresenting the scientific community.

Their made up probability numbers are meaningless. Don't cede the point and start writing about how something improbable will eventually happen. There's nothing unexpected about very small changes taking place within any normal sized breeding population, which is what evolution is about. The general public is too easily fooled into thinking that the scientific community is claiming that a monkey one day turned into a human, poof, or that a collection of molecules one day turned into a modern organism, poof. Everything they lie about is directed to confuse this aspect of cumulative change over a very long span. Don't let them get away with it when they make the ignorant claim that the scientific community is stating that everything takes place at once.

iml8 said: Oh the embarrassment. From what I get from Euro correspondents, there seems to be something of a stereotype that the USA is sort of a Christian version of Saudi Arabia.

JJ said: One problem with the e-mails, TEA destroys them very quickly. For instance, the governor's office gets rid of his e-mails every week.

Comer apparently either didn't bother to read the policy manual, listen to her superiors, or acted in direct opposition to stated poicy. That can get one fired. Ignorance or stupidity ...take your pick.

Of course, what you nimnels can't grasp is that Texas is and has been for 100 years an "employment at will" state. They don't need a reason to fire her period and they certainly have a case.

Did she have an employment contract that was violated. Nope! Zippo! Was there a malicious conspiracy to get her fired? No evidence for that.

This will go out under a little ruling called "summary judgement".

Inquirer: About a dozen highly respected scientists ( mostly dedicated evos and certainly not IDers) have published in various forums certain calculations that indicate the probability that abiogenesis is cosmically small as in impossibl; likewise for even an enzyme, amino acid sterospecificity, polymerization of RNA, DNA, even long chains of amino acids.

Evoturd: Probability doesn't apply to any of those calculations and anyway we're here, evolution is true so the probability becomes one, 100% likely.

Inquirer: Gosh, then any of these could be made in the lab by just setting up the proper condition, a little money, technical resources, a few labs working out the details and this entire subject can be put to rest.

Evoturd: No, it's too difficult, it's to unlikely to occur in one lifetime, the conditions and governing laws way back then were different and totally unknown.

Inquirer: But your argument is that probability has no role , it's certain, just a matter of conditions and such.

Evoturd: Go away! You're just not educated enough to understand this complex subject.

I'm working on an enzyme to stimulate brain development for evoturds to get them up to say, the ability to get into engineering school. Chris, Im, Wolfbreath, Stanton and JJ are the prime candidates.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

JJ said: One problem with the e-mails, TEA destroys them very quickly. For instance, the governor's office gets rid of his e-mails every week.

That's not supposed to happen, is it? Here all official correspondence in and out must be logged.

keith said: Comer apparently either didn't bother to read the policy manual, listen to her superiors, or acted in direct opposition to stated poicy. That can get one fired. Ignorance or stupidity ...take your pick. Of course, what you nimnels can't grasp is that Texas is and has been for 100 years an "employment at will" state. They don't need a reason to fire her period and they certainly have a case. Did she have an employment contract that was violated. Nope! Zippo! Was there a malicious conspiracy to get her fired? No evidence for that. This will go out under a little ruling called "summary judgement".

tiredofthesos said: I don't plan on bothering even reading people like Keith any longer,

keith said: Inquirer: About a dozen highly respected scientists ( mostly dedicated evos and certainly not IDers) have published in various forums certain calculations that indicate the probability that abiogenesis is cosmically small as in impossibl; likewise for even an enzyme, amino acid sterospecificity, polymerization of RNA, DNA, even long chains of amino acids. Evoturd: Probability doesn't apply to any of those calculations and anyway we're here, evolution is true so the probability becomes one, 100% likely.

Evoturd: Go away! You're just not educated enough to understand this complex subject.

When people stoop down to a level like keith’s it is a clear indicator something is seriously wrong there. (Misanthropism.) Better ignore the troll.

keith said: About a dozen highly respected scientists ( mostly dedicated evos and certainly not IDers) have published in various forums certain calculations that indicate the probability that abiogenesis is cosmically small as in impossibl; likewise for even an enzyme, amino acid sterospecificity, polymerization of RNA, DNA, even long chains of amino acids.

keith mewled: Was there a malicious conspiracy to get her fired? No evidence for that.

Traffic Demon said..."Now go masturbate to your “Livestock of the American Southwest” calendar you weak bearded, hairy knuckled, thumb sucking, Care Bear humping, mole lipping, skidmarked pathetic excuse for a primate."

Keith just got OWNED!
Livestock of the American Southwest?
I'm going to have to remember that one.

:)

tomh said:

tiredofthesos said: I don't plan on bothering even reading people like Keith any longer,

The only sensible approach, though I do respect those who not only have the patience to wade through the crap the blockhead spews, but actually respond with civility.

tiredofthesos said: Has a creationist - of any stripe (usually a yellow one, down the back) - correctly predicted a court case related to ToE?

Björn said: Please give the names of these scientists and citations where they published these calculations. Or admit that you simply lied.

Even Carl Sagan has been cited, from a book he edited, Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1973), a record of the proceedings of a conference on SETI. Sagan himself presented a paper at that conference, in which he reports (pp. 45-6) the odds against a specific human genome being assembled by chance as 1 in 10^2,000,000,000 (in other words, the genome of a specific person, and not just any human). As a build-up to this irrelevant statistic he states that a simple protein "might consist" of 100 amino acids (for each of which there are 20 "biological varieties") for a chance of random assembly, for one specific protein of this sort, of 1 in 10^130. He uses these statistics as a rhetorical foil for the fact that no human genome is assembled at random, nor did life have to start with only one possible protein of a particular, specific type, but that "the preferential replication, the preferential reproduction of organisms, through the natural selection of small mutations, acts as a kind of probability sieve, a probability selector," so that one must account for natural selection in estimating the odds of any alien species existing elsewhere in the universe, and not just calculate the odds of random assembly like the examples he just gave. Nevertheless, Sagan's words are used against him by Christians who grab at the numbers without paying attention to their context, or indeed to the fact that Sagan uses extremely simplified equations and assumptions.

keith said: Of course, what you nimnels can't grasp is that Texas is and has been for 100 years an "employment at will" state. They don't need a reason to fire her period and they certainly have a case.

Look, guys, whenever a scientific creationist starts posting about molecules spontaneously producing “our modern ecology”, or similar drivel, all you have to do is point out that they’re lying.

— Mike

Frank J said: I share your concern 100%, but as the PT regular who's quickest to offer the alternative possibility whenever someone says that a "creationist" "believes" this or "misunderstands" that, I still mostly avoid the L-word.

That said, I should add that I find the "don't ask, don't tell" IDers to be far more devious than the Bible-thumping YECs and OECs.

Frank J said: I share your concern 100%, but as the PT regular who's quickest to offer the alternative possibility whenever someone says that a "creationist" "believes" this or "misunderstands" that, I still mostly avoid the L-word.

That said, I should add that I find the "don't ask, don't tell" IDers to be far more devious than the Bible-thumping YECs and OECs.

keith said: Personally I don’t hate anyone …it’s not permitted…I love to raise the ire and anger of evos however just to see how irrational their hatred can become. … You talk about my little rhetorical games and in your warped little black and white world attribute a stark realism to them, rather than recognize provocation.

iml8:

I often write about Morton's Demon. I think it mostly affects the more well-read rank and file creationists. Many professional YECs and OECs might even still be affected - OEC's Demon "lets in" some or all of the chronology but "keeps out" common descent. But once they latch on to "don't ask, don't tell," and I specifically mean regarding "what happened when," not the designer's identity, it seems that they have broken free of the Demon, and chosen to deceive others if not themselves.

That you mention that "YECs are far more respectable," reminds me of a ~2004 article by Dembski in which he freely admits accepting "progressive OEC" (all mainstream chronology as opposed to old-earth-young-life variations) but expresses greater political sympathy to YECs. Which is understandable as a tactic, because, for whatever reason ("natural selection" of a meme?), ever since creationism pretended to be scientific (~1960s), the majority settled on a compromise between the "too hot" Flat-Earthism and Geocentrism and the "too cold" OEC. Other than that, there's nothing special about YEC.

The DI may not be very good as scammers, but given the public's aversion to science and attraction to comforting sound bites, they don't need to be. ~70% of adult Americans still think that it's fair to "teach the controversy" - the DI's way (IOW misrepresent evolution) and in public school science class, so there's a lot more work to do.

Keith,

THis is not a thread about abiogenesis. Go to the Gordy Slack Thread if you want to discuss that. All of your misconceptoions are dealt with there.

As for the Comer firing, do you think that it would be OK for someone to be fired for forwarding an E-mail about a creationist talk? You had better hope that no one finds out if the guy who fired Comer did that. Now that would be hypocritical.

Frank J said: But once they latch on to "don't ask, don't tell," and I specifically mean regarding "what happened when," not the designer's identity, it seems that they have broken free of the Demon, and chosen to deceive others if not themselves.

Hmm. In my comment of 7:33 I mention how IDers liberally borrow the titles of their critics' books and articles for their own use. I just read the Amazon review of Dembski's latest pseudoscience book, "Understanding Intelligent Design." One of the chapters is titled "At Home in the Universe," which is the exact title of a Stuart Kauffman book.

As some of you know, the DI tried to have it both ways with Kauffman; he was either a "Darwinist" or a "fellow dissenter," depending on which point they were trying to make. Kauffman has since made it clear that he rejects the ID strategy, but IDers never let a little inconsistency stop them.

The deception is not concerning scientific details – they’re in the same boat as YECs as far as that goes – but in trying to conceal the religious nature of the exercise, going over the edge into what Derbyshire called “shifty, low cunning”

— iml8

Try Hoyle, Shapiro, Yockey, Coppedge, Sagan, Morowitz, and of course, Spetner.

If your evoturds can't do your own basic search to read these materials I will lower you one more notch on the intellect ladder ...if that's possible.

I look into the cesspool posts that characterize you retched little inconsequential, meaningless, unaccomplished, pagan lives and simply pull the handle on the flushing mechanism and watch your feces filled rhetoric go into the sewer where you and it belongs.

We win, you lose.

keith spewed more vitriol and hate: Try Hoyle, Shapiro, Yockey, Coppedge, Sagan, Morowitz, and of course, Spetner. More half-answers and evasions from our resident hate-filled Christian. How convenient that you ignored the second half of the request for names "and citations where they published these calculations.". Typical, but you're a self-admitted troll anyway. I'm sure Jesus would be proud of you.

keith said: We win, you lose.

keith said: Try Hoyle, Shapiro, Yockey, Coppedge, Sagan, Morowitz, and of course, Spetner.

If your evoturds can't do your own basic search to read these materials I will lower you one more notch on the intellect ladder ...if that's possible.

I look into the cesspool posts that characterize you retched little inconsequential, meaningless, unaccomplished, pagan lives and simply pull the handle on the flushing mechanism and watch your feces filled rhetoric go into the sewer where you and it belongs. We win, you lose.

davea0511 said: Based on our current understanding of chemistry and biology any mathematically-astute evolutionary biologist who knows what it takes to get from proteins to an ecosystem will admit that it's so statistically improbable as to be impossible. The kinetics of reaction simply don't allow it even given 14 billion years on a planet with all the right stuff.

Björn said: Obviously Hoyle wasn't an "evo".

Each of these peoples wrote several thousands of pages. Do you really expect me to read through all of that to find an obscure point which vaguely remembers your assertions?

doooood peeple... stop feeding the troll.

Björn said:

keith said: Try Hoyle, Shapiro, Yockey, Coppedge, Sagan, Morowitz, and of course, Spetner.

You said "mostly evos". Obviously Hoyle wasn't an "evo".

Science Avenger,

Yeah! Spetner and the rest are idiots and you're a real intellect. Puke!!

So far your ability to string together six words that communicate a rational thought seems out of reach.

Now go back to your tent under the bridge, pick up your wine bottle and get some sleep...the library will be open again tomorrow and you can access the net from there.

Poor little inconsequential, nobody who gets his confidence for one more day from the little head pats on the net.

Cme on now, you people are just purposely pretending to be as stupid, ignorant, uninformed and pitiful as you appear, as a form of internet humor...tell me you're not supposed to be serious intellectuals.

keith said: Yeah! Spetner and the rest are idiots and you're a real intellect. Puke!!

I will admit that I find this all very amusing but PT is not
my personal carny shooting gallery, and my comments are not
really contributing anything useful (except I should hope a
small amount of amusement to the audience).

It is not unjust to politely ask hecklers in public meetings to leave. Asking is simply a formality of course before taking
the admittedly unpleasant measure of eviction.

The end result will of course be loud outraged denunciations,
but this is nothing new, and though the show will go on ...
we won't have to listen to it any more.

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

doooood peeple… stop feeding the troll.

— Inoculated Mind

iml8 said:

Björn said: Obviously Hoyle wasn't an "evo".

I was always personally fascinated by Hoyle's belief that the dinosaurs were actually exterminated by viruses falling in from space.

keith said: Try ... Morowitz ...

So basically Comer was using taxpayer funded resources owned by the Texas government to help the Austin Center for Inquiry advertise the event it was sponsoring. This raises the question of who exactly is the Austin Center for Inquiry and why should they be entitled to free advertising from the state of Texas?

keith said: Cme on now, you people are just purposely pretending to be as stupid, ignorant, uninformed and pitiful as you appear, as a form of internet humor...tell me you're not supposed to be serious intellectuals.

Dan said: I haven't read everything by Harold J. Morowitz, but I did read Energy Flow in Biology: Biological Organization as a Problem in Thermal Physics. The book contains a detailed explaination of why "keith" is wrong.

keith said: Try Hoyle, Shapiro, Yockey, Coppedge, Sagan, Morowitz, and of course, Spetner.

Keith has enumerated a few scientists which are extensively quote mined by ID proponents, when in fact there are at best one or two who hold to an ID perspective based on their flawed understanding of evolutionary theory.

Keith is in good company. Of course his anger and ad hominems serve as a useful reminder of the immense vacuity of his position.

Why Keith continues to ignore the vast amount of recent data and experiments on the issue of origins of life is beyond me. Of course, since most of it continues to undermine Keith's vacuous position, the answer may be trivial

Inoculated Mind said: doooood peeple... stop feeding the troll.

Boo said: Whenever you come to one of his posts, imagine the Benny Hill theme music playing in your head as you read him.

Frank J said: Hmm. In my comment of 7:33 I mention how IDers liberally borrow the titles of their critics' books and articles for their own use. I just read the Amazon review of Dembski's latest pseudoscience book, "Understanding Intelligent Design." One of the chapters is titled "At Home in the Universe," which is the exact title of a Stuart Kauffman book. As some of you know, the DI tried to have it both ways with Kauffman; he was either a "Darwinist" or a "fellow dissenter," depending on which point they were trying to make. Kauffman has since made it clear that he rejects the ID strategy, but IDers never let a little inconsistency stop them.

One of the things that characterize ID adherents is a rather impressive paucity of imagination.

Why? Keith’s great. I almost want to ask if he’s available to perform at weddings and bar mitvahs.

— Boo

Frank J said: Anyway, to bring it back on topic, I wonder if Dembski will weasel out of testifying for the pseudoscience side again.

Quote Mining: Telling other people what evos and IDers and scientists across several disciplines have said on the basis of their education, training, research, and experience in plain language that obviates in striking terms any possibility that abiogenesis has occurred over cosmic time anywhere in the universe under materialistic assumptions and all known physical laws.

So evoturds are reduced to alien visits, space life seeds, universe life forces, comet cells, and announcing that carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorous are real elements and thus life is inevitable....especially in a mix-master near a thermal vent, a clay gumby, a silicon barbie, and a lot of good weed.

Didn't your mom's tell you that eating the contents of your underwear is bad for your brain? Apparently not.

But to demonstrate my generosity give me the Comer Legal Fund address and I'll send in a nickle.

PvM said: Why Keith continues to ignore the vast amount of recent data and experiments on the issue of origins of life is beyond me...

Shebardigan said: Why the proprietors of this venue continue to ignore the TOS violations of someone whose sole and entire stated objective for participation here is to "raise the ire and anger of evos however just to see how irrational their hatred can become" is beyond me, not to put too fine a point on it.

keith trolled: Quote Mining: Telling other people what evos and IDers and scientists across several disciplines have said on the basis of their education, training, research, and experience in plain language that obviates in striking terms any possibility that abiogenesis has occurred over cosmic time anywhere in the universe under materialistic assumptions and all known physical laws. But to demonstrate my generosity give me the Comer Legal Fund address and I'll send in a nickle.

Keith was amusing in an ill-sort of way at first -- almost a comic caricature of a foam-at-the-mouth creationist troll. He has been occasionally useful as an illustration of a barbarically rude, insulting, childish, egomaniacal ass, in that his ranting, taunting, name calling, and foaming at the mouth makes creationists, fundamentalist christians, and (sadly) all christians look bad. But this is just silly. Asking questions, arguing and debating are one thing, but this guy is so far over the top that I am stunned at this point that he has not been banned. He long-ago crossed the threshold into simply boring, and reading this posts is becoming a chore because we have to slog through his drool. This has gone far enough.

Shebardigan said:

PvM said: Why Keith continues to ignore the vast amount of recent data and experiments on the issue of origins of life is beyond me...

Why the proprietors of this venue continue to ignore the TOS violations of someone whose sole and entire stated objective for participation here is to "raise the ire and anger of evos however just to see how irrational their hatred can become" is beyond me, not to put too fine a point on it.

iml8 said:

Björn said: Please give the names of these scientists and citations where they published these calculations. Or admit that you simply lied.

Hoyle and his pal Wickramsinghe for one (er, two) ... there's also a citation by Carl Sagan that Darwin-bashers are fond of recycling but it appears it's out of context: ... White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

midwifetoad said: Wickramsinghe Was called as a witness for creationism at the 1981 Arkansas trial. His testimony was something of a surprise to the folks who called him.

The Court is at a loss to understand why Dr. Wickramasinghe was called in behalf of the defendants. Perhaps it was because he was generally critical of the theory of evolution and the scientific community, a tactic consistent with the strategy of the defense. Unfortunately for the defense, he demonstrated that the simplistic approach of the two model analysis of the origins of life is false. Furthermore, he corroborated the plaintiffs' witnesses by concluding that "no rational scientist" would believe the earth's geology could be explained by reference to a worldwide flood or that the earth was less than one million years old.

Science Avenger said: Stop the madness. Ban all these fucking trolls before you have little else left here.

Shebardigan said: So desu ne.

iml8 said: "URUSAI YO!"

Frank J said:

Why? Keith’s great. I almost want to ask if he’s available to perform at weddings and bar mitvahs.

— Boo

That's what the Bathroom Wall is for. I don't mind a few back-and-forths on PT threads, but once too many of us take the bait - and I admit to occasionally overdoing it - the thread is hijacked. I don't advocate what Uncommon Descent does, which is to delete any comment that's inconvenient to its point, and ban posters who make more than a few inconveinent statements. But there's a lot of middle ground between PT's policy and UcD's. Anyway, to bring it back on topic, I wonder if Dembski will weasel out of testifying for the pseudoscience side again.

Just in case there are a few innocents on the post, it's good to remember that these evogoons believe that from a universe consisting of 75% hydrogen-1, 24+% helium-4, and a few trace elements in minuscule amounts (Li, etc.) by unknown processes, unknown laws, and say 11 billion years, the living cell arose as a first step to the human brain, the most complex conscious arrangement of matter in the existing universe.

Let's all keep that in mind as we listen to the fantasies promulgated here.

Yes-sir-ee, gas molecules to a human brain without a word of explanation (oh and all these materials still exist and are readily available for investigation into their properties of potential life,intellect, and chemical predestination), except there is not one scintilla of data, information, or even a theory as to how this occurred.

Such is the sad state of this pimple on the face of real science.

keith said: ...sad...

Vivendi international one of the world's most successful video, digital game, and cable entertainment companies aquired the distribution rights for the Expelled home entertainment release here and abroad.

WOnder why a braintrust of such success would want the Expelled rights...especially since it's such a loser.

Weep weenies..weep.

keith said: Just in case there are a few innocents on the post, it's good to remember that these evogoons believe that from a universe consisting of 75% hydrogen-1, 24+% helium-4, and a few trace elements in minuscule amounts (Li, etc.) by unknown processes, unknown laws, and say 11 billion years, the living cell arose...

keith said: Vivendi international one of the world's most successful video, digital game, and cable entertainment companies aquired the distribution rights for the Expelled home entertainment release here and abroad.

Of course we are all aware of all the observations of the the universe as it is, from cosmology to life as we observe it.

The debate is how to get from the beginning as outlined to where we are.

Listing a physical process and it's results prove nothing period.

Diamonds are carbon, but I'm not expecting them to burst forth with life.

When evos jump from commonality of atoms and molecules across the entire spectrum of matter and from such to life as though it's just obvious is a great logical fallacy.

Please describe the properties of hydrogen and helium that make life coming from them inevitable and when I can expect to see it in the lab; it's not improbable, after all..right?

Heck, throw in any atoms of those other elements as well.

Waiting. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

keith said: Just in case there are a few innocents on the post, it's good to remember that these evogoons believe that from a universe consisting of 75% hydrogen-1, 24+% helium-4, and a few trace elements in minuscule amounts (Li, etc.) by unknown processes, unknown laws, and say 11 billion years, the living cell arose as a first step to the human brain, the most complex conscious arrangement of matter in the existing universe. Let's all keep that in mind as we listen to the fantasies promulgated here.

Paul,

Is wah wah wah the new PT slogan?

PvM,

The universe is generally said to be 14 billion yrs old and life on earth about 3 billion years old, thus 14-3 = 11 billion from BB to life.

This is called aritmetic and it follows from the Peano postulates..can I help you further?

Would it be ok for me to start getting a fee for all my pedagogic work here?

Please describe the properties of hydrogen and helium that make life coming from them inevitable and when I can expect to see it in the lab; it’s not improbable, after all..right?

keith said: When evos jump from commonality of atoms and molecules across the entire spectrum of matter and from such to life as though it's just obvious is a great logical fallacy.

keith said: PvM, The universe is generally said to be 14 billion yrs old and life on earth about 3 billion years old, thus 14-3 = 11 billion from BB to life. This is called aritmetic and it follows from the Peano postulates..can I help you further? Would it be ok for me to start getting a fee for all my pedagogic work here?

Paul Burnett said:

keith said: When evos jump from commonality of atoms and molecules across the entire spectrum of matter and from such to life as though it's just obvious is a great logical fallacy.

Do you offer "Let there be light" as a logical alternative? Do you prefer miracles to science?

Astrophysics 101

Nucleosynthesis

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

or

Red Giants

* When a star exhausts the hydrogen in its core, it becomes a giant or supergiant.
* Giants & supergiants with M > 0.4 Msun become hot enough to fuse helium into carbon.
* Giants & supergiants with M > 4 Msun become hot enough to fuse carbon into heavier elements.

http://ftp.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_4/notes15.html

Those are the first few steps which were taken from an initial condition with Hydrogen and Helium

Are you with us so far? Were you unaware of these laws of physics?

Do you offer “Let there be light” as a logical alternative? Do you prefer miracles to science?

The next step is the origin of life, and an excellent source of information can be found here

Lot's of powerpoints, papers, and other links to exciting research addressing the various origin of life 'problems' and how science is slowly unraveling how these steps may have happened. Of course, compared to poof, such resources may be somewhat overwhelming to the uninitiated, nevertheless let it put to rest any foolish claims that science provides no answers in the area of origins of life.

What has ID done for OOL lately?

Nothing really..

Yes-sir-ee, gas molecules to a human brain without a word of explanation (oh and all these materials still exist and are readily available for investigation into their properties of potential life,intellect, and chemical predestination), except there is not one scintilla of data, information, or even a theory as to how this occurred.

keith the moron,

Just because you are consistently ignorant about abiogenesis and how it may have happened does not justify your attacking those who know better and are still looking for logical and empirical answers. Trying to fill in the gaps with "God did it and we may never know why, so let it be," didn't work with regards to lightning, which the ancient Greeks said was done by the god Zeus. Benjamin Franklin used science to prove it was entirely natural, not a product of any intelligence. So we may someday find with abiogenesis. Only a coward whose faith is already weak and therefore of no value would feel threatened by such progress in science.

In short, Darwin made atheism plausible, but people like YOU make it truly respectable.

PvM said: Davescot, not known for his terribly consistent logic further asserts

So basically Comer was using taxpayer funded resources owned by the Texas government to help the Austin Center for Inquiry advertise the event it was sponsoring. This raises the question of who exactly is the Austin Center for Inquiry and why should they be entitled to free advertising from the state of Texas?

Given Davescot's ability to predict the opposite of the future (remember Dover?) finding him on opposite sides of the issue only serves to strengthen the case's potentials. {grin}

Ah, I just found a damning statement by this DaveScot character:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jerry-pournelle-weighs-in-on-intelligent-design/

19

DaveScot

07/05/2008

11:17 am

ID does not say that life must have an intelligent cause. ID says that an intelligent cause is the best explanation. It’s plainly stated in the side bar under “Definition of Intelligent Design”

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

ID is not a science stopper. It states that intellengent causation is the best explanation for the origin of life. This is something that may be falsified or at least rendered unneccessary which amounts to the same thing as falsification. It can be falsified by positively demonstrating a means of unintelligent causation in the origin of life. Falsifying the ID hypothesis is a science starter not a science stopper. I would say further that the presumption that life began through an unintelligent dance of atoms is the science stopper. When something becomes accepted as established fact there’s no impetus to find additional evidence in support of it.

On the other hand, the hoopla over the trivial observation Lenski made of E.coli acquiring the ability to metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen actually reveals how little real evidence there is for chance & necessity as the creative force behind all of evolution. Time and chance pundits are clutching at straws to bolster the asserted efficacy of time and chance in evolution writ large. This pretty much proves that ID is a science starter not a science stopper. The “evolution” Lenski observed was indeed trivial. E.coli already has everything it needs to metabolize citrate in the absence of oxygen. The protein (citrate permease) that transports citrate across the cell membrane, for some unknown reason, isn’t expressed in the presence of oxygen. There are at least two simple random changes that can account for the acquistion aerobic citrate metabolism:

1) Another transport protein could have lost some specificity and now transports citrate. With the loss of specificity that protein might also be transporting molecules that would kill the organism in vivo which is why I wrote that Lenski should see what happens if the organism is placed back into a natural environment.

2) The regulatory region inhibiting the expression of citrate permease changed such that it is now expressed in the presence of oxygen. Again, an in vivo experiment should be conducted to see if the expression is harmful when not under glass.

In any case, all the complex stuff that E. coli needs for citrate metabolism was already present in the original cultures. Making a big deal of something new and trivial is proof positive that the so-called “overwhelming evidence” of time & chance being sufficient to explain all of evolution is actually underwhelming in the extreme. The overwhelming evidence is for descent with modification not the underlying cause of the modifications.

Idiotic, dishonest, and downright embarrassing! Somebody give me a barf bag!

keith said: Paul, Is wah wah wah the new PT slogan?

keith said: Vivendi international one of the world's most successful video, digital game, and cable entertainment companies aquired the distribution rights for the Expelled home entertainment release here and abroad. WOnder why a braintrust of such success would want the Expelled rights...especially since it's such a loser. Weep weenies..weep.

Not till after he pockets the loot.

— Stuart Weinstein

Frank J said: But I think that they're not so much liars as "parents" telling fairy tales to their "children."

Frank J said: ever since creationism pretended to be scientific (~1960s), the majority settled on a compromise between the "too hot" Flat-Earthism and Geocentrism and the "too cold" OEC. Other than that, there's nothing special about YEC.

keith said: Please describe the properties of hydrogen and helium that make life coming from them inevitable and when I can expect to see it in the lab; it’s not improbable, after all..right? Heck, throw in any atoms of those other elements as well. Waiting. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Dale Husband emphasized: Ah, I just found a damning statement by this DaveScot character:

Frank J said: Why in God's name are we keeping it secret that these scam artists will abandon the rubes who place their trust in them after they get their publicity, and the opportunity to write more books and articles with their spin of the situation?

iml8 said: Then again, life may be common. Do we have any real way of calculating the odds? Nope.

Shebardigan said: An appropriate slogan, when pointed in proper directions.

I'm actually worried about keith. His posts have devolved into more and more lunacy and idiocy. I think he's losing what little mind he had. Poor guy.

Back on topic, as a science teacher in Texas I'm hoping for a Dover-esque outcome to all of this. McLeroy scares the hell out of me.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: The bottom line is that we can calculate odds.

Here's a link to the transcript project for McLean v. Arkansas, the 1981 Arkansas creationism trial. Unfortunately, much of the transcript is lost.

The conduct of and outcome of this trial explains much of what happened at Dover (why Dembski didn't testify, for example).

Whatever the probability is for life arising through natural means (assuming, of course, that it is meaningful to assign a probability to this), it is far less probable that life would arise through beyond-the-natural means.

A probability for something is a ratio. It is the number of "favorable" outcomes divided by the number of "possible" outcomes. In this case, it is the number of different states of affairs in which life exists divided by the number of different natural states of affairs:

(1) P(life by natural means) = N(life exists) / N(natural states)

And the probability of beyond-the-natural means resulting in life is:

(2) P(life by beyond-the-natural means) = N(life exists) / N(beyond-the-natural states)

We don't know much about what beyond-the-natural states might be, but one thing that is necessary about them, is that they allow more possibilities than merely natural states. (After all, the whole point of "intelligent designers" is that they can do more things than natural causes can do.)

(3) N(beyond-the-natural states) > N(natural states)

Therefore, from equations (1) and (2) and inequality (3), we get inequality (4):

(4) P(natural means) > P(beyond-the-natural means)

No matter how small the probability of life by natural means, it is even less probable that it would occur by beyond-the-natural means. (Again, assuming that it is meaningful to calculate the probability.)

I think there are some serious logical fallacies to this post. Since those darn trolls get so few opportunities to be right I will leave them this one for now, but I want to know if you meant this to be tongue in cheek, or did you intend it to be somewhat serious?

Hint to creationists: it involves an unstated assumption of the equality of two numbers.

PVM said, in regard to Keith:

"Ignorance is bliss it seems. And yet, ignorance should not lead to such a foul mood and insults. Somehow, something disturbed Keith's 'happiness'. Such is the power of knowledge, whether one like it or not, it pierces the thin veils of ignorance. When one has come to rely on ignorance and miracles, such developments are easily met with anger and denial. Fortunately anger and denial are also the first steps towards recovery."

Based on what he has posted in the past, Keith misses his wife, who died. He once stated something to the effect that all the effort/money put into evolution research should instead go into breast cancer research. Draw your own conclusions. If my conclusion is anywhere near the truth (and of course it may not be, since Keith is neither consistent nor truthful in what he posts) it is sad that Keith has chosen to degrade his wife's memory by his current behavior. I suppose he is angry that "science" didn't save her. Perhaps he is also angry that no miracle came forth to save her either. No wonder he is such a mess--there is no answer or comfort anywhere for him. He probably really does need some help. Reality can be harsh, and Keith's religion apparently provides him no comfort. Perhaps someday he will realize that all his anger is not very helpful, either.

TomS said: Whatever the probability is for life arising through natural means (assuming, of course, that it is meaningful to assign a probability to this), it is far less probable that life would arise through beyond-the-natural means.

While we're on the topic of abiogenesis, here's the latest from Youtuber cdk007 on this very subject:

http://youtube.com/user/cdk007

Marilyn said: Based on what he has posted in the past, Keith misses his wife, who died. He once stated something to the effect that all the effort/money put into evolution research should instead go into breast cancer research. Draw your own conclusions.

iml8 said:

OK ... what is the known history of the rate of proven supernatural interventions. Well ... ZERO. Do we need to take the calculation further? White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Greg writes...
OK … what is the known history of the rate of proven supernatural interventions. Well … ZERO. Do we need to take the calculation further?

Don't forget that thanks to Blount, Borland, and Lenski we now we also known history for the proven rate of mutation for one completely de novo gene - 44,000 generations or 18 years in a very small population of e-coli.

Considering that the vast majority of our genome is grandfathered from the work of our single-celled ancestors, who had significantly more time and space than BB&L's petri dishes, the odds don't seem all that daunting anymore.

Marilyn said: Based on what he has posted in the past, Keith misses his wife, who died. He once stated something to the effect that all the effort/money put into evolution research should instead go into breast cancer research. Draw your own conclusions.

TomS said: (1) P(life by natural means) = N(life exists) / N(natural states) (2) P(life by beyond-the-natural means) = N(life exists) / N(beyond-the-natural states)

We don’t know much about what beyond-the-natural states might be, but one thing that is necessary about them, is that they allow more possibilities than merely natural states. (After all, the whole point of “intelligent designers” is that they can do more things than natural causes can do.)

Of course, there are lots of questionable assumptions.

But are there any assumptions beyond those which the advocates of "design" have to make, in order to argue that life is too improbable to happen by natural means?

As far as I can tell, all that I add to their "proof" is to point out that more things can happen with designers-not-bound-by-natural-law than can happen without such designers. That is, everything that can happen by natural law alone can also happen with designers - and then some.

I can't imagine that anyone would claim that when designers are active, certain things cannot happen, things that could happen by natural law alone.

Whether or not I'm serious about this seems to me to be of no importance. What is important is how serious the advocates of "design" are. I think that this argument of mine deserves to be treated as seriously as the "improbability of life" argument.

TomS said: Of course, there are lots of questionable assumptions.

(1) P(life by natural means) does not equal N(life exists) / N(natural states)

(2) P(life by beyond-the-natural means) does not equal N(life exists) / N(beyond-the-natural states)

You should have said:

(1) P(life by natural means) = N(life arose by natural means) / N(natural states)

(2) P(life by beyond-the-natural means) = N(life arose by beyond-the-natural means) / N(beyond-the-natural states)

This invalidates the rest of your proof.

I'm looking forward to hearing Texas' argument about neutrality.

Anyone know when the lawsuit is scheduled to be heard? Also if NCSE or any other organization is planning to put the documents on-line?

To clarify: Let us consider two universes, one where life arises once by natural means, the natural universe, and one where life arises 20 times by supernatural means, the super-natural universe. we will say there are 10 states for the natural universe, and 20 for the super-natural universe.

By your numbers, P(1,natural)=1/10 and P(2, super-natural)=1/20; Check, that seems right.
but P(1, natural)=2. WAIT! We have calculated a probability greater than one! That ain't right.

More generally: in theory, we should let P(1) or P(2) equal any number between 0 and 1, thought the values of P(1) or P(2) maybe restricted by our choice of values for the other. We should be able to set the numerator of P(2) equal to the number of states of a super natural system. Since the numerators of your equations are equal, and the denominator of P(2)>P(1), this means P(1)>1 if P(2)=1. This is clearly not right. The problem arises because the numerator is not a subset of the denominator and, as such, does not represent a probability.

Larry Boy said: By your numbers, P(1,natural)=1/10 and P(2, natural)=1/20; Check, that seems right. but P(1, super-natural)=2.

Arguments about the origins of life remind me a little of what happens on election night. The hour before the polls close the pundits sit around and have heated arguments about who will win the election, despite the fact that everybody will shortly know for sure. Of course there is no guarantee that continuing research is going to figure out abiogenesis at a time certain, but advances are taking place.

Larry Boy said: By your numbers, P(1,natural)=1/10 and P(2, super-natural)=1/20; Check, that seems right. but P(1, natural)=2.

OK:

There are three variables in our equations: N(life exists), N(natural states) and N(beyond-the-natural states).

Now, lets set N(natural state)=10 and N(beyond-the-natural states)=20;

Let P(1,universe)=N(life exist in universe)/N(natural states).
and P(2,universe)=N(life exist in universe)/N(beyond-the-natural state).

(we should already see a problem here).

Then, let us consider two different universes.

In universe 1, N(life exist)=1.

In universe 2, life arise in each and every beyond-the-natural state. (God always choices to create life no mater what the super-natural state is, whatever. Who knows what a beyond-the-natural state represents, and who cares?), so N(life exist)=20.

So, calculating P(1,1) we get 1/10. P(2,1)=1/20, P(1,2)=20/10, and P(2,2)=20/20;

We can correct this problem by making sure that our numerator (N(life exist in universe) is a subset of our denominator. So, either make the numerator N(life exist in universe in a natural/beyond the natural state), or redefine the denominator as the union of all possible natural and beyond the natural states.

Let's consider the first approach.

Now we define:
We must subdivide N(life exist in universe) into two mutually exclusive (and exhaustive) sets. If (life exists) is a natural state, then we place it in the set (life exist by a natural state), and if (life exists) is a (beyond-the-natural state) we place it in the (life exist by beyond-the-natural state) set. We must define there additional variables for universe 1 and 2. Clearly if (life exist by a natural state), then there is at least one natural state for every case of (life exist by a natural state).

Universe 1: 1 life exist by natural state, 0 life exist by beyond-the-natural state.
Universe 2: 0 life exist by natural state, 20 life exist by beyond-the-natural state.

Now we have P(1,1)=1/10, P(2,1)=0, P(2,1)=0, P(2,2)=1, which looks fine and dandy to me.

Considering the second approach we will see that P(1,1)=P(2,1), and P(1,2)=P(2,2), and again your argument brakes down.

Your numerator is already a constant in any universe, but if we make the denominators of both equations the union of supernatural and natural states, then this two becomes a constant in any universe, and we see that your equations (1) and (2) become equal by identity.

As previously stated, the problem with your calculation is that you consider life resulting from supernatural forces in your P(life by natural means) calculation, since you do not make separate categories for how life arose, since you have only the variable, N(life exists)

Does that seem right to you?

Marilyn said: Based on what he has posted in the past, Keith misses his wife, who died. He once stated something to the effect that all the effort/money put into evolution research should instead go into breast cancer research. Draw your own conclusions. If my conclusion is anywhere near the truth (and of course it may not be, since Keith is neither consistent nor truthful in what he posts) it is sad that Keith has chosen to degrade his wife's memory by his current behavior. I suppose he is angry that "science" didn't save her. Perhaps he is also angry that no miracle came forth to save her either. No wonder he is such a mess--there is no answer or comfort anywhere for him. He probably really does need some help. Reality can be harsh, and Keith's religion apparently provides him no comfort. Perhaps someday he will realize that all his anger is not very helpful, either.

Vivendi international one of the world’s most successful video, digital game, and cable entertainment companies aquired the distribution rights for the Expelled home entertainment release here and abroad.

Wow! That means "Expelled" is just as serious and scientific as the "Bourne Conspiracy." Who knew?

Peter Henderson said: While we're on the topic of abiogenesis, here's the latest from Youtuber cdk007 on this very subject: http://youtube.com/user/cdk007

fnxtr said: Holy cow. That was cool.

Perhaps someday he will realize that all his anger is not very helpful, either.

Keith was saying that money should be spent on cancer research instead of trying to prove Darwinism. He did not say we should not study the genetics and microevolutionary concepts that might help save lives from cancer.

And the posters here have really hit a new low: to in any way denigrate a man's grief over the loss of his wife to cancer. Well I really cannot imaging a cheaper shot.

Something about this exchange reminds me of a line from the Incredible Hulk TV show...

HamStrung said: Keith was saying that money should be spent on cancer research instead of trying to prove Darwinism. He did not say we should not study the genetics and microevolutionary concepts that might help save lives from cancer. And the posters here have really hit a new low: to in any way denigrate a man's grief over the loss of his wife to cancer. Well I really cannot imaging a cheaper shot.

HamStrung said: Keith was saying that money should be spent on cancer research instead of trying to prove Darwinism. He did not say we should not study the genetics and microevolutionary concepts that might help save lives from cancer. And the posters here have really hit a new low: to in any way denigrate a man's grief over the loss of his wife to cancer. Well I really cannot imaging a cheaper shot.

HamStrung said: Keith was saying that money should be spent on cancer research instead of trying to prove Darwinism. He did not say we should not study the genetics and microevolutionary concepts that might help save lives from cancer. And the posters here have really hit a new low: to in any way denigrate a man's grief over the loss of his wife to cancer. Well I really cannot imaging a cheaper shot.

Rin Tin Tins Grand Daughter,

Then why don't you offer a coherent sentence instead of language resembling someone coming off a drug high...oops..that's it.

PvM: I have no problem with an occasional , very rare miracle occasioned by God in His providence.

I certainly don't consider waiting on miracles as a substitute for science and hard work to be IDs approach...that's just a dishonest strawman and red herring fallacy.

I submit the following paragraph is a complete lie and challenge you to submit any proof statements complete with references.

"Followed by the formation of simple ‘cells’ which self assemble from a mix of amphiphiles and water and the resolution of left handed chirality for amino acids and so on."

ampliphiles...big word... for a surfactant research chemical...better soap... no cells of any kind remotely considered as a true cell...maybe you should use some to wash your mouth out for lying. As Dr. Wilder-Smith famously said, "procell budding is no more biologically interesting that my shaving soap"

I suppose you reject the miracles of Christ ( there are several explicitly documented) as ...well who knows... in your case. Does your social security number end with 666 perchance?

Dale Huband... your a dumbutt and a turdhead so take your insipid stupidity back to the trailerhouse. I don't mind my taxes helping some people but welfare checks to goons like you is a little much.

Evodummies in 3-d.

Hydrogen to braincells by wishing on a star. Your science is beautiful. Puke and Barf and Grunt.

Mike Elzinga said: Your observations also crossed my mind enough to make me pull back from confronting him too much.

HamStrung said: Keith was saying that money should be spent on cancer research instead of trying to prove Darwinism. He did not say we should not study the genetics and microevolutionary concepts that might help save lives from cancer.

Robin said: I can't seem find even one post where anyone denigrates the loss of Keith's wife (assuming such has occurred). Could you give an example?

keith said: I suppose you reject the miracles of Christ ( there are several explicitly documented) as ...well who knows... in your case. Does your social security number end with 666 perchance?

Actually, amusingly enough, mine does. ;)

I am not in grief as my loss was noine years ago. I have no anger except toward people who are determined to change western culture into a technocracy, remove by all means necessary religious faith, destroy all adherents to N.T. Christianity, attack anyone who disagrees with their scientific understanding without any merit, logic, or demonstration of fact.

The UTUBE video was a clown act having zero to do with anything remotely resembling life as commonly understood.

This moron starts off diffentiating evolution from abiogenesis and ends with using evolution several times, natural selection, etc. in the imaginary model of pseudo-life he constructs. This guy must stay on meth about 90% of the time.

I laugh at your analysis of my retirement.

Typical Day:

3-hrs with three grandkids this morning babysitting.
2-hr workout at my club.

Working on M.S. Degree survey class notes from the fourth book in required reading "How we bcame post-human" essentially a history of cybernetics and the implications for both biological sciences and non-biological sciences, philosophy, ethics, etc.

Spending the required 1/2 hour to refute all the butthead anal arguments of the evoturd crowd.

The latter is a source of entertainment and it boosts my ego.

keith said: I am not in grief as my loss was noine years ago. I have no anger except toward people who are determined to change western culture into a technocracy, remove by all means necessary religious faith, destroy all adherents to N.T. Christianity, attack anyone who disagrees with their scientific understanding without any merit, logic, or demonstration of fact. The UTUBE video was a clown act having zero to do with anything remotely resembling life as commonly understood. This moron starts off diffentiating evolution from abiogenesis and ends with using evolution several times, natural selection, etc. in the imaginary model of pseudo-life he constructs. This guy must stay on meth about 90% of the time. I laugh at your analysis of my retirement. Typical Day: 3-hrs with three grandkids this morning babysitting. 2-hr workout at my club. Working on M.S. Degree survey class notes from the fourth book in required reading "How we bcame post-human" essentially a history of cybernetics and the implications for both biological sciences and non-biological sciences, philosophy, ethics, etc. Spending the required 1/2 hour to refute all the butthead anal arguments of the evoturd crowd. The latter is a source of entertainment and it boosts my ego.

keith said: I submit the following paragraph is a complete lie and challenge you to submit any proof statements complete with references. "Followed by the formation of simple ‘cells’ which self assemble from a mix of amphiphiles and water and the resolution of left handed chirality for amino acids and so on." ampliphiles...big word... for a surfactant research chemical...better soap... no cells of any kind remotely considered as a true cell...maybe you should use some to wash your mouth out for lying. As Dr. Wilder-Smith famously said, "procell budding is no more biologically interesting that my shaving soap"

Sure and discovering all the elements exist are scattered throughout the universe, travel on comets, and exist on earth proves that ingredients guarantee abiogenesis and any just so story ( there must a a hundred proposals) are pictures of fact.

I am sure all the ingredients for an exquisite 8-course meal from 21 reside in my city but it takes an intellect to get the results.

Evos examine some hypothetical pathway, observe similar disparate steps , common ingredients, unrelated processes and presto abiogenesis solved.

I repeat there are no cells from your example, no DNA, no RNA, no complex bi-lipid membrane with controlled ports, no real enzymes, no real proteins, these are soap bubbles with water attraction and repulsions...not one thing more.

keith said: Sure and discovering all the elements exist are scattered throughout the universe, travel on comets, and exist on earth proves that ingredients guarantee abiogenesis and any just so story ( there must a a hundred proposals) are pictures of fact. I am sure all the ingredients for an exquisite 8-course meal from 21 reside in my city but it takes an intellect to get the results.

Evos examine some hypothetical pathway, observe similar disparate steps , common ingredients, unrelated processes and presto abiogenesis solved.

In order to go from non-life to life, science has to show that the necessary ingredients existed or science would not have much of an argument. That many of the ingredients found in life, are indeed found in nature shows that science has a foundation on which to proceed. Miller Urey and the many followup experiments have shown that many of the likely components were quite trivial to obtain and that many such processes can be repeated in laboratories. Of course, science realizes that a single swoop formation of a cell with all the required complexities specified by Keith is an unlikely scenario so rather than jump ahead by invoking a 'poof' science focuses on resolving the more fundamental issues which were seen as problematic to abiogenesis such as chirality, the formation of the vesicle, the initial amino acids etc.
However, remember that Keith's 'argument' was that no evidence to support abiogenesis exists. As I have shown this is trivially shown false. Now Keith may not believe that the evidence is worth anything or that it is not sufficient and yet, not only does such evidence exist, it greatly outweighs any ID explanations which has exactly 'zero' to offer to the equation.
Time for Keith to start shouting some more insults now that his bubble has once again been burst.

Hey, Larry Boy, my faculty id ends in 666. On top of that, my parents' phone exchange is 666 (Hillsdale, NJ). Too bad, though, that the best and earliest MSS of Revelation have 616 as "the number of the beast."

PvM,

You have a "form" of Christianity that Paul refers to explicitly, but certainly not one the N.T. has any relationship with.

Was Christ resurrected?

How about the widow of Nane's son?

Maybe Lazarus?

What about the demons removed?

The blind , the lame , the withered?

See.. if all of these are factual then they represent the greatest "scientific" exercise since creation...if not Christianity is a sham.

Let's hear your position on this "science".

I commend to you the late Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith and his book "The Creation of Life" and his several online RP videos at Firefighter's for Christ and particularly those dealing with abiogenesis, also THFT.

You may want to correspond by email on this as I realize you don't want all the "kindred spirits" here attacking you and calling you every thing under the sun.

Isn't it funny how one picks their heroes..me WilderSmith and you Dawkins, PZ Myers and such trash.

Since A.E.W. was a prominent scientist by any measure, three PhD's as I recall, many publications, head of research for a Swiss company, and taught all over the world in various grad schools, maybe he has your respect. At any rate he has passed, so the evo hordes can't really accomplish much by attacking him personally.

Or just read Lee Spetner's "Not by Chance" ...you might actually learn something.

keith said: Sure and discovering all the elements exist are scattered throughout the universe, travel on comets, and exist on earth proves that ingredients guarantee abiogenesis and any just so story ( there must a a hundred proposals) are pictures of fact.

I am sure all the ingredients for an exquisite 8-course meal from 21 reside in my city but it takes an intellect to get the results.

Evos examine some hypothetical pathway, observe similar disparate steps , common ingredients, unrelated processes and presto abiogenesis solved.

I repeat there are no cells from your example, no DNA, no RNA, no complex bi-lipid membrane with controlled ports, no real enzymes, no real proteins, these are soap bubbles with water attraction and repulsions...not one thing more.

keith said: PvM, You have a "form" of Christianity that Paul refers to explicitly, but certainly not one the N.T. has any relationship with. Was Christ resurrected? How about the widow of Nane's son? Maybe Lazarus? What about the demons removed? The blind , the lame , the withered? See.. if all of these are factual then they represent the greatest "scientific" exercise since creation...if not Christianity is a sham. Let's hear your position on this "science". I commend to you the late Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith and his book "The Creation of Life" and his several online RP videos at Firefighter's for Christ and particularly those dealing with abiogenesis, also THFT. You may want to correspond by email on this as I realize you don't want all the "kindred spirits" here attacking you and calling you every thing under the sun. Isn't it funny how one picks their heroes..me WilderSmith and you Dawkins, PZ Myers and such trash. Since A.E.W. was a prominent scientist by any measure, three PhD's as I recall, many publications, head of research for a Swiss company, and taught all over the world in various grad schools, maybe he has your respect. At any rate he has passed, so the evo hordes can't really accomplish much by attacking him personally. Or just read Lee Spetner's "Not by Chance" ...you might actually learn something.

And I wonder why Keith feels better equipped in judging my commitments to Christianity although on a relative scale, I have no doubts that he has a better foundation in that aspect than in the context of science. And yet, I find claims by fellow Christians that their form of Christianity is somehow better, purer etc to be highly foolish and counterproductive. And of course as theologically risky as ID itself.

Keith, you write "if all of these are factual." Well, in the words of the Bard, "aye, there's the rub." These events are referenced only in New Testament narratives about Yeshua and in texts derived from these narratives (and the accounts of these events were not, by the way, set down in writing by eyewitnesses). Now, when I read accounts of supernatural events recorded in the sacred texts of religions other than the Christian one, I do not find them credible (and I suspect you do not, either). I see no reason to extend a credulity to Christian narratives that I would not extend to other religious narratives.

HamStrung said: Keith was saying that money should be spent on cancer research instead of trying to prove Darwinism. He did not say we should not study the genetics and microevolutionary concepts that might help save lives from cancer. And the posters here have really hit a new low: to in any way denigrate a man's grief over the loss of his wife to cancer. Well I really cannot imaging a cheaper shot.

PvM said: Seems that in spite of your assurances you are still recovering from some traumatic experience. The alternative explanation is that you enjoy making Christianity look foolish through scientific ignorance on your part. Either way, my condoleances.

keith said: I am not in grief as my loss was noine years ago. I have no anger except toward people who are determined to change western culture into a technocracy, remove by all means necessary religious faith, destroy all adherents to N.T. Christianity, attack anyone who disagrees with their scientific understanding without any merit, logic, or demonstration of fact. The UTUBE video was a clown act having zero to do with anything remotely resembling life as commonly understood. This moron starts off diffentiating evolution from abiogenesis and ends with using evolution several times, natural selection, etc. in the imaginary model of pseudo-life he constructs. This guy must stay on meth about 90% of the time. I laugh at your analysis of my retirement. Typical Day: 3-hrs with three grandkids this morning babysitting. 2-hr workout at my club. Working on M.S. Degree survey class notes from the fourth book in required reading "How we bcame post-human" essentially a history of cybernetics and the implications for both biological sciences and non-biological sciences, philosophy, ethics, etc. Spending the required 1/2 hour to refute all the butthead anal arguments of the evoturd crowd. The latter is a source of entertainment and it boosts my ego.

hamstrung said: I thought it was the cheapest of cheap shots to denigrate your grief for your wife. But this is an entertainment emporium. It is so funny when finally you have them trapped logically and they start screaming ' troll, ignorant, a**hole, s***head ' I just visualize them with their viens popping out of their foreheads and mouths foaming. Just follow the threads: as soon as they have been logically trapped the go postal. Too funny!

hamstrung said:

PvM said: Seems that in spite of your assurances you are still recovering from some traumatic experience. The alternative explanation is that you enjoy making Christianity look foolish through scientific ignorance on your part. Either way, my condoleances.

keith said: I am not in grief as my loss was noine years ago. I have no anger except toward people who are determined to change western culture into a technocracy, remove by all means necessary religious faith, destroy all adherents to N.T. Christianity, attack anyone who disagrees with their scientific understanding without any merit, logic, or demonstration of fact. The UTUBE video was a clown act having zero to do with anything remotely resembling life as commonly understood. This moron starts off diffentiating evolution from abiogenesis and ends with using evolution several times, natural selection, etc. in the imaginary model of pseudo-life he constructs. This guy must stay on meth about 90% of the time. I laugh at your analysis of my retirement. Typical Day: 3-hrs with three grandkids this morning babysitting. 2-hr workout at my club. Working on M.S. Degree survey class notes from the fourth book in required reading "How we bcame post-human" essentially a history of cybernetics and the implications for both biological sciences and non-biological sciences, philosophy, ethics, etc. Spending the required 1/2 hour to refute all the butthead anal arguments of the evoturd crowd. The latter is a source of entertainment and it boosts my ego.

I thought it was the cheapest of cheap shots to denigrate your grief for your wife. But this is an entertainment emporium. It is so funny when finally you have them trapped logically and they start screaming ' troll, ignorant, a**hole, s***head ' I just visualize them with their viens popping out of their foreheads and mouths foaming. Just follow the threads: as soon as they have been logically trapped the go postal. Too funny!

hamstrung said: It is so funny when finally you have them trapped logically ...

keith said: Was Christ resurrected?

keith said:

Was Christ resurrected?

Well Keith, you don't know because you weren't there.

Hey, when are you going to make good on your promise to bring dembski back to Norman, make sure it is in the same church as last time, when we humiliated him. Don't act like you don't know. A full page ad was taken out in The Daily Oklahoman, regarding his talk. And he thought that church would be a safe venue.

JJ,
You couldn't humiliate a braindead collie dog, let alone Dembski.

Of course, only evobutts like you could mistake the theatre in the Student Union for a church you moranic little twobit nobody.

The people who were quite pleased to introduce Dembski were from my circle of friends a PhD. Chemical Engineer and Organic chemist who is tenured faculty and in the audience also a PhD Physics prof of worldwide reputation and a signator to the DI document, I believe.

The only turdheads I saw at the presentation were your obnoxious, rude, arrogant, undisciplined peers including Phillip Kleppka and his aboriginal loud mouth wife.

Dembski has no reason to fear combat with intellectual midgets like you and yours, so prominent then and now.

keith said: PvM, You have a "form" of Christianity that Paul refers to explicitly, but certainly not one the N.T. has any relationship with. Was Christ resurrected? How about the widow of Nane's son? Maybe Lazarus? What about the demons removed? The blind , the lame , the withered? See.. if all of these are factual then they represent the greatest "scientific" exercise since creation...if not Christianity is a sham. Let's hear your position on this "science". I commend to you the late Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith and his book "The Creation of Life" and his several online RP videos at Firefighter's for Christ and particularly those dealing with abiogenesis, also THFT. You may want to correspond by email on this as I realize you don't want all the "kindred spirits" here attacking you and calling you every thing under the sun. Isn't it funny how one picks their heroes..me WilderSmith and you Dawkins, PZ Myers and such trash. Since A.E.W. was a prominent scientist by any measure, three PhD's as I recall, many publications, head of research for a Swiss company, and taught all over the world in various grad schools, maybe he has your respect. At any rate he has passed, so the evo hordes can't really accomplish much by attacking him personally. Or just read Lee Spetner's "Not by Chance" ...you might actually learn something.

And keith? We don't pick on PvM because PvM is both courteous and understands science.

You are a rude asshat and don't know the first thing about science. Hold your discussion here; I can contribute since I know a damn sight more about Christianity and true Christian behavior than you do.

Deltoid was a great site, till the trolls took over, now 90% of comments are from trolls, I stopped visiting Deltoid, too much trouble scrolling past the trolls

don't let that happen here, ban keith the troll, he brings nothing here except take up space. he will never read comments made to enlighten him. Bathroom wall time, Please!

Oh, and keith? Lee Spetner is a liar and a fraud. Try again.

keith said: JJ, You couldn't humiliate a braindead collie dog, let alone Dembski. Of course, only evobutts like you could mistake the theatre in the Student Union for a church you moranic little twobit nobody. The people who were quite pleased to introduce Dembski were from my circle of friends a PhD. Chemical Engineer and Organic chemist who is tenured faculty and in the audience also a PhD Physics prof of worldwide reputation and a signator to the DI document, I believe. The only turdheads I saw at the presentation were your obnoxious, rude, arrogant, undisciplined peers including Phillip Kleppka and his aboriginal loud mouth wife. Dembski has no reason to fear combat with intellectual midgets like you and yours, so prominent then and now.

Dan said: The title of this thread is "Chris Comer Sues Texas Agency: ‘Neutrality’ is Endorsement of Religion." I really don't see the relevance.

keith said: Or just read Lee Spetner's "Not by Chance" ...you might actually learn something.

keith said: Dembski has no reason to fear combat with intellectual midgets like you and yours, so prominent then and now.

THIS THREAD IS CLOSED.

Please continue the discussion - about Chris Comer's lawsuit against the TEA, and NOT about arcane topics like the Resurrection and OOL, at the new post,
Comer Update - Suit Published.

Dave