Kirk Cameron on the spot

Could Cameron be any more transparent here? What a slimeball.

The funny part is that he got owned in biology by a college freshman.

My favorite quote:

Kirk: "I love science."

Right Kirk.

That chick totally rocks.

Is there a transcript? I can't make out most of the words.

Yes, a transcript is needed, especially for us old farts.

It is hard to hear with the Dvorak-playing trumpeter in the background. It gets better towards the end. The conversation isn't Ken Miller level or anything, it's just funny just how little Kirk Cameron knows.

Commenter Dorkman on pharyngula made a transcript.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/kirk_cameron_embarrasses_himse.php#comment-2099557

(May or may not be 100% accurate.)

That young woman restores my faith in life, the universe and everything.

It is interesting just how immature the arguments of Cameron are. When I hear these arguments repeated I sometimes think that these creationists simply never learn anything. They just keep hammering on the same arguments, no matter how many times they are refuted or shown to be stupid.

Maybe it is effectively an IQ screening test. Any rubes passing by who are in awe of such arguments are the kinds of followers they are attempting to recruit. Anything brighter would be a threat to the leaders of these “armies of the night.”

What a wonderful example of reason and logic versus personal agenda. Cameron seemed foolish and unequipped to counter any logical argument. Did he think he was on his way to Costa Mesa Community College instead of UCLA.

I think as a manner of appreciation to the woman's clear dedication to education we should increase her tuition by 32%. Just Cali saying thanks.

The young lady was awesome. But, you can't knock Cameron too badly - he was at the very least respectful of her and let her finish her thoughts. So he gets some kudos for that. But wow, she was great, I second Raul's comment.

I looked at the title and then at the vidcap image, and was all ready to hear Cameron belt out his extemporaneous take on the G-spot. "You can see it all in those videos my friend Carrie made! Honest!" Alas, it was just a creationist arguing with some college students.

Kirk Cameron says: Kirk: Okay, have you heard... Okay. Here's, here's, here's the other important...um...(lengthy pause) I believe that Darwin was absolutely...that the end game was to make God...was to remove God from...the, the worldview of... I think that that was his end game. Um.

Dan said: What if we applied Cameron's line of "reasoning" to other facets of life? I wish that I were a millionaire. Using Cameron's line, this wish overrides the lack of evidence that I'm a millionaire.

We should just refere to Kirk as "banana boy" from now on. That video he made with Ray is hilarious.

I do agree with Norm, he was at least polite. But then again, he was arguing with a young female, in front of other young people and with a camera on him. Too bad he could not have been as articulate as he was polite. But than again, too bad he could not have been logical or presented any evidence either. Polite ain't an argument.

Of course, it matters not what the motivation was for Darwin to write the Origin. All that matters is that he was right. Kirk somehow seems to have missed that point.

Okay, bonobos are essentially chimpanzees, except they're smaller, and they're more, uh, friendly with each other

Stanton said:

Dan said: What if we applied Cameron's line of "reasoning" to other facets of life? I wish that I were a millionaire. Using Cameron's line, this wish overrides the lack of evidence that I'm a millionaire.

The IRS would be very, very interested in this idea, then.

Darnit! Why'd he go to UCLA and not USC! I would have LOVED to "debate" him - though I must admit this bruin does a pretty good job.

Raul said: That young woman restores my faith in life, the universe and everything.

From a "Simpsins" episode and other sources i understand women do go into or do well in sciences.
Way to rock the casbah Cameron. Canada saluts your energy, courage, and time on behalf of truth.
This guy is doing jus what creationism needs. Bringing attention. Others can do the studied issues in everything we take on.
If Kirk is no threat then theres no problem. Stoping him in the street with the best criticisms is not stopping but adding to the creationist story of addressing greater audiences.

STOP THE EFFECTS OF BURNS, NOW.
Call immediately 1-818-332-6445 on your way to the hospital.
Call within the first hour to receive immediate remote intervention.

NO PAIN, NO GRAFTING, NO SCARRING... and NO RISK.
Google "fireburndoctor.com" or 1-818-332-6445 and SAVE this number.
free processing is in addition to standard medical treatment

This email is a public service announcement containing vital information on the Burn Intervention Project that saves lives and stops the terrible pain, suffering and disfigurement from burns, using a state-of-the-art process that heals burns at a phenomenal rate, for free, from a distance, with no risk, drastically reducing the need for expensive medical procedures. Please pass it on. Watch Instant Burn Recovery PSA video.


MOTHERS !

If you, your child, or someone you love is burned
by fire, laser, explosion, or scalding water

CALL IMMEDIATELY

ON YOUR WAY TO THE HOSPITAL
within the first hour of exposure

Call, text or email to medical doctor Joseph
the precise TIME of the burn and the victim's:

1. NAME at birth
2. DATE of birth
3. PLACE of birth, and
4. if possible, ANY PHOTOGRAPH, to fireburndoctor@aol.com


STICK THIS NUMBER EVERYWHERE!!!

1-818-332-6445

on the Refrigerator Door, Car, Wallet, Cell phone, iPod, Websites, Kids' Backpacks,
Binders, Bulletin Boards, Emails, Blogs and your own back pocket...

TELL ALL THE PEOPLE TO DO THE SAME


Watch the new "Instant Burn Recovery PSA" video with Fire Chief Joe Lowe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA5Ji1IAoIo


www.fireburndoctor.com http://twitter.com/fireburndoctor

Doesn't "Burns Cure" spam belong on one of the Freshwater threads?

Robert Byers said: From a "Simpsins" episode and other sources i understand women do go into or do well in sciences. Way to rock the casbah Cameron. Canada saluts your energy, courage, and time on behalf of truth. This guy is doing jus what creationism needs. Bringing attention. Others can do the studied issues in everything we take on. If Kirk is no threat then theres no problem. Stoping him in the street with the best criticisms is not stopping but adding to the creationist story of addressing greater audiences.

In the interests of full disclosure, I wish to make it clear that I was not in High School with John Kwok. Other posters to PT are, of course, presumed to have been in HIgh School with John Kwok unless they explicitly state that they were not in High School with John Kwok.

Thank you for your attention. Please resume what you were doing.

@ Amadan -

Thanks for the reminder, but for your information, I was trying to "pull rank" with that delusional Canadian IDiot, Mr. Byers. Anyway, I hope you agree with me that Kirk Cameron's next acting gig should be as an ill-fated member of a USS Enterprise landing party confronting hostile Klingons in the next "Star Trek" film.

I was not in high school with John Kwok, but I did sit next to a future major league pitcher in senior year English class. Did I mention it was an advanced writing class? And I once sold a Snapple to Joe Montana.

.....Frank McCourt!

Re: Mr. Byers claim that woman do not to well in science...

Marie Curie

W. H. Heydt said: Re: Mr. Byers claim that woman do not to well in science... Marie Curie

ben said: I was not in high school with John Kwok, but I did sit next to a future major league pitcher in senior year English class. Did I mention it was an advanced writing class? And I once sold a Snapple to Joe Montana. .....Frank McCourt!

Stanton said:

W. H. Heydt said: Re: Mr. Byers claim that woman do not to well in science... Marie Curie

Robert Byers strives to be a lying idiot in everything, for example, take his inane claims that the founding fathers of America wanted to establish a "Christian" nation where Genesis would be taught instead of science as "an origin"

W. H. Heydt said: Re: Mr. Byers claim that woman do not to well in science... Marie Curie

John Kwok said: Stanton, I suppose we have to remind the delusional Canadian (And if you are a Canadian other than Denyse O'Leary reading this, I do not mean to insult Canadians, since I have ample respect and appreciation for them and their beautiful country.) Mr. Byers that, in our very first treaty with another country, the United States stated that it is not nor was it ever, a nation founded under Christian principles (I suppose Byers probably hears the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and they've probably indoctrinated him into thinking that ours is a "Christian" nation.):

Stanton said:

W. H. Heydt said: Re: Mr. Byers claim that woman do not to well in science... Marie Curie

Robert Byers strives to be a lying idiot in everything, for example, take his inane claims that the founding fathers of America wanted to establish a "Christian" nation where Genesis would be taught instead of science as "an origin"

henry said:

John Kwok said: Stanton, I suppose we have to remind the delusional Canadian (And if you are a Canadian other than Denyse O'Leary reading this, I do not mean to insult Canadians, since I have ample respect and appreciation for them and their beautiful country.) Mr. Byers that, in our very first treaty with another country, the United States stated that it is not nor was it ever, a nation founded under Christian principles (I suppose Byers probably hears the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and they've probably indoctrinated him into thinking that ours is a "Christian" nation.):

Stanton said:

W. H. Heydt said: Re: Mr. Byers claim that woman do not to well in science... Marie Curie

Robert Byers strives to be a lying idiot in everything, for example, take his inane claims that the founding fathers of America wanted to establish a "Christian" nation where Genesis would be taught instead of science as "an origin"

Have you heard of the Holy Trinity Church decision of 1892? Here are some final comments from that case. ... that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.' ... ...These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation ...

@ henry -

In 1796 the United States Senate ratified a treaty negotiated with the Dey (ruler) of the Barbary State of Tripoli (Or was it Tunis?) in which we, the United States, affirmed that we were not - nor were we ever - a nation founded under Christian principles. This was the first treaty ever negotiated with another country. Parts of this treaty have been published recently in several books, most notably Richad Dawkins's "The God Delusion" (I would also refer you to the writings of eminent Brown University historian Gordon Wood, widely acclaimed as the foremost living American historian on the American Revolution and the drafting of the United States Constitution; Ken Miller refers to Wood's work in his book "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul". I also have some firsthand experience regarding Wood's scholarly excellence, since he was one of my college professors.).

Henry whines... Have you heard of the Holy Trinity Church decision of 1892?

We find, therefore, that the title of the act, the evil which was intended to be remedied, the circumstances surrounding the appeal to congress, the reports of the committee of each house, all concur in affirming that the intent of congress was simply to stay the influx of this cheap, unskilled labor. But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.

"Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama" and "shall it be believed that a congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?" Suppose .... some member had offered a bill which in terms declared that ... if any Jewish synagogue (should contract) with some eminent rabbi, such contract should be adjudged unlawful and void, Can it be believed that it would have received a minute of approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was, in effect, the meaning of this statute.

The judgment will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

"no religious Test shall ever be required ..."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

My 2c on the "Christian Nation":

It's a word game played by the fundamentalist far-right, and that includes Orthodox Jews who are anything but Christian. A case can be made that the US was founded based on Judeo-Christian values, and some of the Founding Fathers were Christians of course. But most or all of them would be appalled at the antics of today's anti-evolution activists, whether or not the latter are trying to turn the US into some theocracy. Those who whine that this is a "Christian Nation," and aren't completely clueless of US history, will concede that the Founding Fathers did not want to establish Christianity as the "official" religion, and indeed wanted to prevent that. But that never stopped them from playing word games to feed the fantasy of those who want to believe otherwise. As with "ID (is/is not) creationism," if one merely disagrees without showing how they are playing word games, one is letting them control the terms of the debate.

Frank J said: My 2c on the "Christian Nation": It's a word game played by the fundamentalist far-right, and that includes Orthodox Jews who are anything but Christian. A case can be made that the US was founded based on Judeo-Christian values, and some of the Founding Fathers were Christians of course. But most or all of them would be appalled at the antics of today's anti-evolution activists, whether or not the latter are trying to turn the US into some theocracy. Those who whine that this is a "Christian Nation," and aren't completely clueless of US history, will concede that the Founding Fathers did not want to establish Christianity as the "official" religion, and indeed wanted to prevent that. But that never stopped them from playing word games to feed the fantasy of those who want to believe otherwise. As with "ID (is/is not) creationism," if one merely disagrees without showing how they are playing word games, one is letting them control the terms of the debate.

John Kwok writes... ...especially given the elegant language in both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution (including the Bill of Rights)

stevaroni said:

John Kwok writes... ...especially given the elegant language in both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution (including the Bill of Rights)

Or as evidenced by the lack thereof. It's a little know fact that the words "God" and "Christ" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution, and whenever terms like "religion" are used it's always in an enumeration about how the government needs to stay away from it. Even the famous preamble to the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident...", though it does mention a "Creator", is clearly far, far more about civil rights than it is about any reference to religion.

phantomreader42 said: Have you heard of THE FUCKING FIRST AMENDMENT, henry? No, of course you haven't. If you actually had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you wouldn't be spewing such nonsense.

henry said:

John Kwok said: Stanton, I suppose we have to remind the delusional Canadian (And if you are a Canadian other than Denyse O'Leary reading this, I do not mean to insult Canadians, since I have ample respect and appreciation for them and their beautiful country.) Mr. Byers that, in our very first treaty with another country, the United States stated that it is not nor was it ever, a nation founded under Christian principles (I suppose Byers probably hears the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and they've probably indoctrinated him into thinking that ours is a "Christian" nation.):

Stanton said:

W. H. Heydt said: Re: Mr. Byers claim that woman do not to well in science... Marie Curie

Robert Byers strives to be a lying idiot in everything, for example, take his inane claims that the founding fathers of America wanted to establish a "Christian" nation where Genesis would be taught instead of science as "an origin"

Have you heard of the Holy Trinity Church decision of 1892? Here are some final comments from that case. ... that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.' ... ...These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation ...

stevaroni said:

Henry whines... Have you heard of the Holy Trinity Church decision of 1892?

Yawn. Yes, Henry, I have heard of the Holy trinity church decision. For the sake of the lurkers, it was a Supreme Court case from the 1880's dealing with immigration law, and the question at hand was pointedly not "Is America a Christian Nation?". The question decided in Trinity was whether priests imported to the USA from Europe could be reimbursed for their travel and immigration expenses. It was basically the H1-B visa case of it's time. The Congress had outlawed the practice of reimbursing immigration expenses, believing the practice was costing Americans jobs as the various barons of industry found that they could import cheap European labor instead of paying the prevailing American wage. The laws were eventually challenged by Trinity Church, which had tried to import a priest, and felt that, as a church, it should be exempt from labor laws. The justice who wrote the decision went on at length about how it should have been obvious that the Legislature of Massachusetts could not possibly have meant a broad labor law to apply to a man of the cloth in such a Christian nation as America. Ironically, in large part he argued that the stature did not apply to Trinity church because of the First Amendments separation of church and state.

We find, therefore, that the title of the act, the evil which was intended to be remedied, the circumstances surrounding the appeal to congress, the reports of the committee of each house, all concur in affirming that the intent of congress was simply to stay the influx of this cheap, unskilled labor. But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.

As always, it's a creationist quotemine working full time. Oddly, what you don't hear quoted is Beyers adamant insistence that the legislation does not apply to priests because the legislators must adhere to the First Amendment and keep their paws off all religions....

"Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama" and "shall it be believed that a congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?" Suppose .... some member had offered a bill which in terms declared that ... if any Jewish synagogue (should contract) with some eminent rabbi, such contract should be adjudged unlawful and void, Can it be believed that it would have received a minute of approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such was, in effect, the meaning of this statute.

Regardless, the quotemined rhetorical stirrings of Justice Breyer have no force of law. The actual judgment, the 17 words forming the working core of the decision makes no mention whatsoever of determining America to be a Christian nation, unless you can find that in here...

The judgment will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Just for reference, let's see what the law does say on the subject... Article 6 of the constitution...

"no religious Test shall ever be required ..."

First Ammendment...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The Treaty of Tripoli

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

(Signed by the President and ratified by the Senate, BTW, now there's an unambiguous statement of intent) And at the Supreme court... Reynolds v. U.S. (1879) Yes, the First Amendment really does mean "separation of church and state". (Just 3 years before Trinity, BTW) Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947) Yes, this includes funding religious schools. Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962) Yes, that also includes prayer in schools. Established law does however, say that you don't have to get rabid about it and merely acknowledging that America has a religious leaning is not a constitutional issue, in California v Newsome and ACLU v. Mercer County the courts held that acknowledging this fact in a secular way does not actually make America a "Christian Nation".

The evidence of Kirk Camerons effectiveness is the drift of this thread. From Kirk to women to the fathers.

First evolution thumpers always bring up about how many creationists are in this or that science/origin field. so if this woman is and is by you supported as a great science advocate then its my right to question women's achievements in science pound for pound with men.
I understand from much commentary and cartoon shows that women come up very short in results or getting into schools where results in knowledge etc matter.
mentioning Women who accomplished things doesn't change the equation here.
I believe all people, save for retardation, are created and born equal in the mental capabilities. Differences have logical reasons but there is a present and past difference.
Modern science professions are not a cross section of America.

A nation is not the same thing as a people and thier heart. i live in a different nation from America yet we are the same people as Americans and later immigrant peoples. (save the French).
America is not a Christian nation. In those days anyways they would of said they are a protestant nation if this was to be a identity.
Yet America is a Christian people. First a Puritan and regular Protestant people. Now a christian people in all presumptions where religion affects man and thats a great deal since the end of the Roman empire and more since the protestant reformation.

It does matter what the people thought about things that touched on religion in the 1770's. Yet it was not a part of the national identity to have religious establishments. On purpose. It was on their mind to have no religion in the government or as a part of national identity.
The problem today is that hostiles use this concept to attack the Christian identity etc of the people . So censorship of creationism or Christmas by anything the state has a buck in has become a crusade. So a slow but growing defence.
Here I am.

America worked fine for hundreds of years without religious problems. Problems only came when faith was attacked in public institutions or the cultureal institutions.
Who fired first on fort Sumpter here?

Robert Byers said: The evidence of Kirk Camerons effectiveness is the drift of this thread. From Kirk to women to the fathers. First evolution thumpers always bring up about how many creationists are in this or that science/origin field. so if this woman is and is by you supported as a great science advocate then its my right to question women's achievements in science pound for pound with men. I understand from much commentary and cartoon shows that women come up very short in results or getting into schools where results in knowledge etc matter. mentioning Women who accomplished things doesn't change the equation here. I believe all people, save for retardation, are created and born equal in the mental capabilities. Differences have logical reasons but there is a present and past difference. Modern science professions are not a cross section of America. A nation is not the same thing as a people and thier heart. i live in a different nation from America yet we are the same people as Americans and later immigrant peoples. (save the French). America is not a Christian nation. In those days anyways they would of said they are a protestant nation if this was to be a identity. Yet America is a Christian people. First a Puritan and regular Protestant people. Now a christian people in all presumptions where religion affects man and thats a great deal since the end of the Roman empire and more since the protestant reformation. It does matter what the people thought about things that touched on religion in the 1770's. Yet it was not a part of the national identity to have religious establishments. On purpose. It was on their mind to have no religion in the government or as a part of national identity. The problem today is that hostiles use this concept to attack the Christian identity etc of the people . So censorship of creationism or Christmas by anything the state has a buck in has become a crusade. So a slow but growing defence. Here I am. America worked fine for hundreds of years without religious problems. Problems only came when faith was attacked in public institutions or the cultureal institutions. Who fired first on fort Sumpter here?

henry,

You may be especially good at quote mining, but do you understand what stevaroni - and others here, myself included - are trying to tell you regarding the separation between church and state as it is noted in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights? I don't think so. Suggest you read both documents and read one of Gordon Wood's excellent histories, before you post again here, my dear delusional twit.

Henry says... Here is the entire paragraph of your quote of no religious test. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned....

(Article 6, paragraph 2) "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..."

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

to me you could not understand it enough to really know what was said. But it did look to me Cameron was trying to steer clear of a debate. Any thoughts?

John Kwok said: henry, You may be especially good at quote mining, but do you understand what stevaroni - and others here, myself included - are trying to tell you regarding the separation between church and state as it is noted in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights? I don't think so. Suggest you read both documents and read one of Gordon Wood's excellent histories, before you post again here, my dear delusional twit.

John Kwok said: I know of several preeminent women scientists such as Brown University vertebrate paleobiologist Christine Janis and Harvard University physicist Lisa Randall (In the interest of full disclosure, her high school classmate was another future distinguished physicist, Brian Greene; both of whom I had overlapped with at our high school alma mater.). One of my undergraduate geology professors was - and still is - a noted structural geologist, and I have studied with several other prominent women scientists while in college and graduate school. Apparently Byers, you are not only ignorant with respect to what is real, genuine science - since creationism is just religiously-derived mendacious intellectual pornography - but, most likely, a Canadian male chauvinist pig too (Wonder how Denyse O'Leary would tolerate having someone like you as a fellow Canadian IDiot.):

Robert Byers said: From a "Simpsins" episode and other sources i understand women do go into or do well in sciences. Way to rock the casbah Cameron. Canada saluts your energy, courage, and time on behalf of truth. This guy is doing jus what creationism needs. Bringing attention. Others can do the studied issues in everything we take on. If Kirk is no threat then theres no problem. Stoping him in the street with the best criticisms is not stopping but adding to the creationist story of addressing greater audiences.

As for Kirk Cameron, I'd love to see him in "Star Trek XII" as an ill-fated USS Enterprise crew member who is vaporized by a Klingon armed with a Klingon sonic disruptor (Of course Cameron would play a red-shirted security officer who beams down with Chris Pine's Captain James T. Kirk and Zachary Quinto's Mr. Spock.

John said: to me you could not understand it enough to really know what was said. But it did look to me Cameron was trying to steer clear of a debate. Any thoughts?

henry sez... Here is the first amendment again. No mention of separation of church and state. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

henry said:

John Kwok said: henry, You may be especially good at quote mining, but do you understand what stevaroni - and others here, myself included - are trying to tell you regarding the separation between church and state as it is noted in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights? I don't think so. Suggest you read both documents and read one of Gordon Wood's excellent histories, before you post again here, my dear delusional twit.

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. John Quincy Adams Here is the first amendment again. No mention of separation of church and state. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

stevaroni said:

henry sez... Here is the first amendment again. No mention of separation of church and state. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Henry, only you could possibly go so far as to actually quote the first amendment while trying to argue that is somehow does not imply that the intention was to keep church and state separate.

henry,

I meant Gordon Wood's excellent histories.

As for Kirk Cameron, he should sacrifice himself to save Chris Pine's James T. Kirk by taking a lethal Klingon sonic disruptor blast in his chest.

Stanton said:

stevaroni said:

henry sez... Here is the first amendment again. No mention of separation of church and state. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Henry, only you could possibly go so far as to actually quote the first amendment while trying to argue that is somehow does not imply that the intention was to keep church and state separate.

And as such, the 64,000 dollar question is "Who's the bigger Lying Idiot for Jesus: henry or Robert Byers?"

stevaroni said:

henry sez... Here is the first amendment again. No mention of separation of church and state. ...

Henry, only you could possibly go so far as to actually quote the first amendment while trying to argue that is somehow does not imply that the intention was to keep church and state separate.

John Kwok said: Amazing, Byers, there may be some hope for you after all. But I have news for you. Evolution is a valid scientific fact. DEAL WITH IT. Eminent women scientists such as Barbara McClintock have made important contributions to our understanding as to how evolution works. For me, as both a Deist and a Conservative with very, very strong Libertarian tendencies, I don't "believe" in evolution. I accept it since that is what the overwhelming scientific data points to in every branch of the biological sciences (Incidentally I am a former invertebrate paleobiologist too.). Unlike some of the others posting here, I am not hostile to religion. But I am hostile to those like Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort who use their grossly distorted, quite twisted, versions of "Christianity" in order to proclaim that theirs is the only way to SALVATION and the TRUTH and to use their misguided religious views as a means of injecting their religious values into every aspect of American cultural, intellectual and political life, including the teaching of what should be valid science within science classrooms in primary, middle, secondary schools and at colleges and universities throughout North America (BTW, I am surprised that you, as a Canadian, would consider yourself part of the same "people" as we Americans. Have met far too many Canadians who have reminded me that yours is a distinct people, even if we share many cultural, intellectual and political beliefs and values.):

Robert Byers said: The evidence of Kirk Camerons effectiveness is the drift of this thread. From Kirk to women to the fathers. First evolution thumpers always bring up about how many creationists are in this or that science/origin field. so if this woman is and is by you supported as a great science advocate then its my right to question women's achievements in science pound for pound with men. I understand from much commentary and cartoon shows that women come up very short in results or getting into schools where results in knowledge etc matter. mentioning Women who accomplished things doesn't change the equation here. I believe all people, save for retardation, are created and born equal in the mental capabilities. Differences have logical reasons but there is a present and past difference. Modern science professions are not a cross section of America. A nation is not the same thing as a people and thier heart. i live in a different nation from America yet we are the same people as Americans and later immigrant peoples. (save the French). America is not a Christian nation. In those days anyways they would of said they are a protestant nation if this was to be a identity. Yet America is a Christian people. First a Puritan and regular Protestant people. Now a christian people in all presumptions where religion affects man and thats a great deal since the end of the Roman empire and more since the protestant reformation. It does matter what the people thought about things that touched on religion in the 1770's. Yet it was not a part of the national identity to have religious establishments. On purpose. It was on their mind to have no religion in the government or as a part of national identity. The problem today is that hostiles use this concept to attack the Christian identity etc of the people . So censorship of creationism or Christmas by anything the state has a buck in has become a crusade. So a slow but growing defence. Here I am. America worked fine for hundreds of years without religious problems. Problems only came when faith was attacked in public institutions or the cultureal institutions. Who fired first on fort Sumpter here?

Creationism in aggression and effect grows by the hour. I’m sure most people on this forum feel this pressure.

— Robert Byers

BTW, Robert. I should add that I feel no pressure at all from people like you and Steve P. If anything you both undermine the efforts of the anti-evolution movement to pretend that they are merely challenging the science.

Robert wrote:

"Therefore the origin of most of what we are including language and accent."

Oh, so that explains it. English really isn't your first language, it's really Canadian. Got it. I guess we'll have to cut you some slack.

The only pressure that I feel from Robert is against my diaphragm, if you know what I mean.

As a mother of a young son, I do feel "pressure", pressure that I will have to homeschool due to IDiots and other creationists.

Robert Byers, disgrace to Canada, said: Canadians do see ourselves as wayward americans but do see a different tribe... The same people but a different nation which keads to a different tribe. We are a Protestant and Catholic christian people with a few others of late immigration. We are a Christian civilization, people, society.

Robert Byers, disgrace to Canada, said: Yet not a Christian nation.

Robert Byers, disgrace to Canada, said: Therefore the problems today come from recent attacks against our Christian beliefs and society in many forms. Evolution is one such attack that was quiet in obscure circles but now is treated as natinal truths.

Robert Byers, disgrace to Canada, said: This shall end in our time. Creationism in aggression and effect grows by the hour. I'm sure most people on this forum feel this pressure.

More to the point of this thread, did Kirk Cameron give up "legitimate" acting so that he could lie for Jeebus and steal from the ignorant?

John Kwok said: You ought to read Gordon Woods's excellent histories, but I strongly doubt whether you can comprehend them since your understanding of early American history seems to be as deficient as your abysmal knowledge of biology and what constitutes sound science:

henry said:

John Kwok said: henry, You may be especially good at quote mining, but do you understand what stevaroni - and others here, myself included - are trying to tell you regarding the separation between church and state as it is noted in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights? I don't think so. Suggest you read both documents and read one of Gordon Wood's excellent histories, before you post again here, my dear delusional twit.

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. John Quincy Adams Here is the first amendment again. No mention of separation of church and state. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

undereducated atheist said: As a mother of a young son, I do feel "pressure", pressure that I will have to homeschool due to IDiots and other creationists.

My dear Byers,

I stand corrected. There is definitely no hope for you after this little example of breathtaking inanity:

"Just one point. Canadians do see ourselves as wayward americans but do see a different tribe. Like southerners are different from Yankees. The settlers of English speaking Canada were Yankee immigrants. Therefore the origin of most of what we are including language and accent. Just a little British stuff at the top. The same people but a different nation which keads to a different tribe. We are a Protestant and Catholic christian people with a few others of late immigration. We are a Christian civilization, people, society. Yet not a Christian nation. Therefore the problems today come from recent attacks against our Christian beliefs and society in many forms. Evolution is one such attack that was quiet in obscure circles but now is treated as natinal truths. This shall end in our time. Creationism in aggression and effect grows by the hour. I’m sure most people on this forum feel this pressure."

I'll be certain to tell Royal Canadian Navy personnel that I've encountered online one of their countrymen who thinks that Canadians are the same as Americans (I've visited several frigates and destroyers over the past few years during the annual Fleet Week New York event that is held around Memorial Day.).

But you're absolutely right about "pressure" for the very reasons that Frank J and undereducated atheist have posted here lately. Am relieved that there seems me be more intelligent Canadians who recognize that evolution is valid science (If we make comparison via percentage of the population.) unlike their intellectually-challenged "cousins" here in the good ol' USA.

P. S. Am tempted to e-mail Royal Canadian Naval headquarters now just so I can "enlighten" them regarding your most "astute" observations. Maybe I should....

henry said:

undereducated atheist said: As a mother of a young son, I do feel "pressure", pressure that I will have to homeschool due to IDiots and other creationists.

Creationists have been homeschooling since the 1960s. In fact, they were taken to court and won the right to homeschool so you can thank them winning the right for you to homeschool.

henry said: On a different issue, was it you that mention how the flight less birds arrived at Australia since it is surrounded by water? Australia is very close to Malaysia, Indonesia, and New Guinea. During the ice age, which followed the global flood, the sea level could have been 400-600 feet lower than the current level. This would have made the land bridge the birds used to travel to Australia.

henry said:

undereducated atheist said: As a mother of a young son, I do feel "pressure", pressure that I will have to homeschool due to IDiots and other creationists.

Creationists have been homeschooling since the 1960s. In fact, they were taken to court and won the right to homeschool so you can thank them winning the right for you to homeschool.

henry said:

John Kwok said: You ought to read Gordon Woods's excellent histories, but I strongly doubt whether you can comprehend them since your understanding of early American history seems to be as deficient as your abysmal knowledge of biology and what constitutes sound science:

henry said:

John Kwok said: henry, You may be especially good at quote mining, but do you understand what stevaroni - and others here, myself included - are trying to tell you regarding the separation between church and state as it is noted in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights? I don't think so. Suggest you read both documents and read one of Gordon Wood's excellent histories, before you post again here, my dear delusional twit.

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. John Quincy Adams Here is the first amendment again. No mention of separation of church and state. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ok, I'll look up Gordon Wood. On a different issue, was it you that mention how the flight less birds arrived at Australia since it is surrounded by water? Australia is very close to Malaysia, Indonesia, and New Guinea. During the ice age, which followed the global flood, the sea level could have been 400-600 feet lower than the current level. This would have made the land bridge the birds used to travel to Australia.

undereducated atheist said: Also, if that is true, why do (Creationists) not all homeschool so that public schools can be a place of learning and not superstition?

Y'know Robert, I don't give a flying about your insane ramblings about evolution and religion, it's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about and you have no clue that everyone here is laughing at you.

But when you start spouting bullshit about MY COUNTRY, asshole, that's a different fight.

I'll be sending links of your insane rants to your employer.

Asshole.

Stanton said:

undereducated atheist said: Also, if that is true, why do (Creationists) not all homeschool so that public schools can be a place of learning and not superstition?

Because Creationists want the Bible to be enshrined as the sole History/Law/Science textbook of the land, ideally under pain of death

fnxtr said: Y'know Robert, I don't give a flying about your insane ramblings about evolution and religion, it's obvious you have no clue what you're talking about and you have no clue that everyone here is laughing at you. But when you start spouting bullshit about MY COUNTRY, asshole, that's a different fight. I'll be sending links of your insane rants to your employer. Asshole.

John, and everyone else, the Canadian Navy hasn't been "Royal" for several years now.

viz. Wikipedia:
"The current incarnation of the Canadian Forces dates from 1 February 1968,[8] when the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Air Force were merged into a unified structure."

Divided into Maritime Command, Land Forces Command, and Air Command.

Cheers.

undereducated atheist said: Too true. Yet many creationist xtians do not want biblical law to apply to them, only to those who hold differing ideas. Mr. Byers is a good example of that, I think.

undereducated atheist said: Also, if that is true, why do they [creationists] not all homeschool so that public schools can be a place of learning and not superstition?

Robert Byers said: Evolution is one such attack that was quiet in obscure circles but now is treated as natinal truths. This shall end in our time. Creationism in aggression and effect grows by the hour. I'm sure most people on this forum feel this pressure.

Dan said:

Robert Byers said: Evolution is one such attack that was quiet in obscure circles but now is treated as natinal truths. This shall end in our time. Creationism in aggression and effect grows by the hour. I'm sure most people on this forum feel this pressure.

Ahhh, yes. The good ol' "evolution on its last legs" misconception. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html I feel only humor, not pressure, from such misconceptions.

eric said:

undereducated atheist said: Also, if that is true, why do they [creationists] not all homeschool so that public schools can be a place of learning and not superstition?

Just to expand on what Stanton said, creationism is in large part a religious proselytization movement. Ensuring their own children believe is only part of the goal: they also want to convert your children. They think government establishement (in both schools and elsewhere) is a great means to do that, and that it is justified by the ends (saving souls). Right now its easier to baffle school boards with academic bull**it than it is to argue that a morning prayer to Jesus doesn't violate the first amendment, so that's what they do. The drive to insert religion into science, history, english etc... is about proselytization, rather than academic rigor.

fnxtr said: John, and everyone else, the Canadian Navy hasn't been "Royal" for several years now. viz. Wikipedia: "The current incarnation of the Canadian Forces dates from 1 February 1968,[8] when the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Air Force were merged into a unified structure." Divided into Maritime Command, Land Forces Command, and Air Command. Cheers.

Thank you for your answer, I appreciate it. However, not to be unkind, but my question was rhetorical. The creationist agenda is not lost on me. I am just trying to gain as much knowledge as I can for the battles I know I will soon have to fight in order for my son to remain god and superstition free. This website and these threads are some of the best places I have found to gather information and insight, not only about evolution, but about its opponents as well.

John Kwok said: But the thirty three ships in the Canadian Navy each have the designation "HMCS", which stands for Her Majesty's Canadian Ship.

fnxtr said:

John Kwok said: But the thirty three ships in the Canadian Navy each have the designation "HMCS", which stands for Her Majesty's Canadian Ship.

True enough. Not sure what alerting Maritime Command will do, though, since as far as I know RB isn't in the service. However, I've asked the head office of the Ontario Ministry of Education if this is indeed the same Robert Byers. Education! Wow. There's one for Alanis. :-)

The ships of what is now the Maritime Command of Canada are still designated "HCMS" as before, because Her Majesty the Queen is still the formal head of State for Canada. Australian naval vessels are "HMAS", because she is also our formal head of State, and long may she reign. (I tend to think that after her illustrious reign closes, her lawful successor will feel a tap on his shoulder and the polite suggestion that maybe the time has come.)

Personally, traditionalist that I am, I feel a certain sense of regret that a service with such a splendid fighting record as that of the Royal Canadian Navy should simply cease to exist.

John Kwok said: undereducated atheist, I thank you for your heartfelt praise. IMHO I can't think of a better place than Panda's Thumb to begin your task, though I would also recommend most highly the websites of the National Center for Science Education (http://www.ncse.com) and Ken Miller's website (http://www.millerandlevine.com), which he established with his colleague, friend and co-author, Joe Levine:

Thank you for your answer, I appreciate it. However, not to be unkind, but my question was rhetorical. The creationist agenda is not lost on me. I am just trying to gain as much knowledge as I can for the battles I know I will soon have to fight in order for my son to remain god and superstition free. This website and these threads are some of the best places I have found to gather information and insight, not only about evolution, but about its opponents as well.

henry said:

John Kwok said: undereducated atheist, I thank you for your heartfelt praise. IMHO I can't think of a better place than Panda's Thumb to begin your task, though I would also recommend most highly the websites of the National Center for Science Education (http://www.ncse.com) and Ken Miller's website (http://www.millerandlevine.com), which he established with his colleague, friend and co-author, Joe Levine:

Thank you for your answer, I appreciate it. However, not to be unkind, but my question was rhetorical. The creationist agenda is not lost on me. I am just trying to gain as much knowledge as I can for the battles I know I will soon have to fight in order for my son to remain god and superstition free. This website and these threads are some of the best places I have found to gather information and insight, not only about evolution, but about its opponents as well.

To undereducated atheist, While you are checking out the ncse website, Dr. Eugenie Scott has a book called Evolution vs Creationism. This was reviewed by the late Dr. Henry Morris about 5 years ago in an article titled Creation vs Evolutionism. This can be found at icr.org. Dr. Morris thought the book did a fair job.

John Kwok said: That's faint praise coming from Dr. Morris, whom both Ken Miller and I have to thank for getting us interested in dealing with creo weirdoes like Morris, Comfort, Cameron, Ham, Meyer, Dembski, Luskin, Nelson, Wells, etc. etc. (In the interest of full disclosure, I assisted Ken in his very first debate against a creationist, who was none other than Dr. Morris. Needles to say, Ken gave Morris more than a few rhetorical "knock out punches".). However, I would agree with you with regards to Genie Scott's book. It is a superb text and will be better once the newly revised edition is published:

henry said:

John Kwok said: undereducated atheist, I thank you for your heartfelt praise. IMHO I can't think of a better place than Panda's Thumb to begin your task, though I would also recommend most highly the websites of the National Center for Science Education (http://www.ncse.com) and Ken Miller's website (http://www.millerandlevine.com), which he established with his colleague, friend and co-author, Joe Levine:

Thank you for your answer, I appreciate it. However, not to be unkind, but my question was rhetorical. The creationist agenda is not lost on me. I am just trying to gain as much knowledge as I can for the battles I know I will soon have to fight in order for my son to remain god and superstition free. This website and these threads are some of the best places I have found to gather information and insight, not only about evolution, but about its opponents as well.

To undereducated atheist, While you are checking out the ncse website, Dr. Eugenie Scott has a book called Evolution vs Creationism. This was reviewed by the late Dr. Henry Morris about 5 years ago in an article titled Creation vs Evolutionism. This can be found at icr.org. Dr. Morris thought the book did a fair job.

Dave Luckett said: The ships of what is now the Maritime Command of Canada are still designated "HCMS" as before, because Her Majesty the Queen is still the formal head of State for Canada. Australian naval vessels are "HMAS", because she is also our formal head of State, and long may she reign. (I tend to think that after her illustrious reign closes, her lawful successor will feel a tap on his shoulder and the polite suggestion that maybe the time has come.) Personally, traditionalist that I am, I feel a certain sense of regret that a service with such a splendid fighting record as that of the Royal Canadian Navy should simply cease to exist.

Stanton said:

henry said: On a different issue, was it you that mention how the flight less birds arrived at Australia since it is surrounded by water? Australia is very close to Malaysia, Indonesia, and New Guinea. During the ice age, which followed the global flood, the sea level could have been 400-600 feet lower than the current level. This would have made the land bridge the birds used to travel to Australia.

No, you willfully stupid asshat: not only would it been physically impossible for an ice age to magically follow the Flood, the flightless birds of Australia are unrelated to the flightless birds of Southeast Asia: the ancestors of the flightless birds of Australia entered Australia back when Australia was still attached to Antarctica and the rest of Gondwanaland.

henry said:

undereducated atheist said: As a mother of a young son, I do feel "pressure", pressure that I will have to homeschool due to IDiots and other creationists.

Creationists have been homeschooling since the 1960s. In fact, they were taken to court and won the right to homeschool so you can thank them winning the right for you to homeschool.

No, asshat: she means that politically active, and maliciously stupid creationists are ruining educational standards.

Have you ever seen a map that shows Wallace's Divide, henry? Look it up.

Now, for your next trick, explain it. How come there's this neat, clean, hard line between the "Old World" forms on one side, and the "Australian" forms on the other? Evolution plus (slow) plate tectonics explains it. World-wide floods and repopulation from Noah's Ark doesn't.

henry the moronic asshat babbled: Have you seen a world map of Australia? It is very close to Malaysia, Indonesia, and New Guinea.

It is not magic for the ice age to follow the global flood. Due to the volcanic activity, plate tectonics, etc. the ocean temperature would have been 100 degrees, which meant that a lot of water would have evaporated and eventually led to heavy snowing and the ice age.

Henry,

So let me get this straight, you are denying plate tectonics and contintental drift just so that you can hold on to your myth of a 6,000 year old earth, does that about cover it?

Well, I guess if you can deny all of the evidence for evolution, you can also deny all of the evidence from geology as well. Funny how all of the evidence gives the same answer though isn't it?

Now here's the big question Henry, who cares what you think? Apparently reality doesn't, why should anyone else?

henry probably means 100 degrees Farenheit, not Celsius. In the latter case, he would be saying the oceans were at boiling point. I can't imagine even someone as lost to reality as henry would be that brain-dead. However, 100 degrees F (just over blood temperature) would still be enough to kill off nearly all marine life, which is mostly very temperature-sensitive, and, even more so, sensitive to levels of oxygen in solution.

Dave Luckett said: henry probably means 100 degrees Farenheit, not Celsius. In the latter case, he would be saying the oceans were at boiling point. I can't imagine even someone as lost to reality as henry would be that brain-dead. However, 100 degrees F (just over blood temperature) would still be enough to kill off nearly all marine life, which is mostly very temperature-sensitive, and, even more so, sensitive to levels of oxygen in solution.

Stanton said: And you'd have to be brain-dead to assume that having 100 degrees water, whether farenheit or celsius, would automatically lead up to an ice age.

undereducated atheist said:

eric said:

undereducated atheist said: Also, if that is true, why do they [creationists] not all homeschool so that public schools can be a place of learning and not superstition?

Just to expand on what Stanton said, creationism is in large part a religious proselytization movement. Ensuring their own children believe is only part of the goal: they also want to convert your children. They think government establishement (in both schools and elsewhere) is a great means to do that, and that it is justified by the ends (saving souls). Right now its easier to baffle school boards with academic bull**it than it is to argue that a morning prayer to Jesus doesn't violate the first amendment, so that's what they do. The drive to insert religion into science, history, english etc... is about proselytization, rather than academic rigor.

Thank you for your answer, I appreciate it. However, not to be unkind, but my question was rhetorical. The creationist agenda is not lost on me. I am just trying to gain as much knowledge as I can for the battles I know I will soon have to fight in order for my son to remain god and superstition free. This website and these threads are some of the best places I have found to gather information and insight, not only about evolution, but about its opponents as well.

henry said: Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son eventually became a Christian preacher despite his mother's militant atheism.

henry said: There is hope for your son. Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son eventually became a Christian preacher despite his mother's militant atheism.

Dave Luckett said: henry probably means 100 degrees Farenheit, not Celsius. In the latter case, he would be saying the oceans were at boiling point. I can't imagine even someone as lost to reality as henry would be that brain-dead. However, 100 degrees F (just over blood temperature) would still be enough to kill off nearly all marine life, which is mostly very temperature-sensitive, and, even more so, sensitive to levels of oxygen in solution.

henry bullshitted: I stand corrected. The oceans were less than 100 degrees F, but high enough to cause enough evaporation to start the ice age. The snowfall would have been much greater than current levels so that the glaciers can grow and not melt away during the summer months. As the oceans cooled, the snowfall diminished eventually ending the ice age.

stevaroni said:

John Kwok writes... ...especially given the elegant language in both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution (including the Bill of Rights)

Or as evidenced by the lack thereof. It's a little know fact that the words "God" and "Christ" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution, and whenever terms like "religion" are used it's always in an enumeration about how the government needs to stay away from it. Even the famous preamble to the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident...", though it does mention a "Creator", is clearly far, far more about civil rights than it is about any reference to religion.

henry said:

Dave Luckett said: henry probably means 100 degrees Farenheit, not Celsius. In the latter case, he would be saying the oceans were at boiling point. I can't imagine even someone as lost to reality as henry would be that brain-dead. However, 100 degrees F (just over blood temperature) would still be enough to kill off nearly all marine life, which is mostly very temperature-sensitive, and, even more so, sensitive to levels of oxygen in solution.

I stand corrected. The oceans were less than 100 degrees F, but high enough to cause enough evaporation to start the ice age. The snowfall would have been much greater than current levels so that the glaciers can grow and not melt away during the summer months. As the oceans cooled, the snowfall diminished eventually ending the ice age.