ICR hits a snag

Loyalty to a co-religionist so strong that they ignore gross incompetence. It takes my breath away...though out of horror or laughter (or both), I'm not sure.

I just hope they don't pick their pediatricians the way they pick their lawyers.

Of course they shouldn't be allowed to award science degrees! That would be fraud! Creationism is pseudoscientific dogma associated with religion.

"Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.”

Judges seem usually inclined to exact and neutral language. In this case, however, one gets the clear
impression that the court was annoyed.

Sigh, when people spend all their time talking baloney, they find it difficult to say anything else -- even when when it's in their own best interests to STOP.

Here's another good quote (p31, discussing whether the rejection creates a burden on ICR's free exercise of religion):

"Because ICRGS alternates between arguing
it is merely teaching science and arguing its program is compelled by its religious beliefs, the Court is at a loss to determine what portion of ICRGS’s behavior should be considered motivated by its religious beliefs."

They don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a court and a congregation. Or maybe they consider everyone to be part of the congregation. But at least the court is getting a clue about how the "science" program is conducted.

eric said: Here's another good quote ...

Ooh! And another good one, from page 34:

"ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is."

Okay I'll stop now. Apologies for multi-posting, its just too fun to read.

eric said: Ooh! And another good one, from page 34: "ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is." Okay I'll stop now. Apologies for multi-posting, its just too fun to read.

"It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information" (p. 12)

eric said: Ooh! And another good one, from page 34: "ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is." Okay I'll stop now. Apologies for multi-posting, its just too fun to read.

RBH said: Feel free--it's all ... erm ... educational. :)

fasteddie said: Couldn't he have run it by the ICR secretary first? Surely any reasonably well-read person, even among biblical literalist types, would have been able to say, "You know, I'm just not sure what you're complaining about here."

See, it's only the high schools in Texas that deal with stupid government management. The colleges (and Higher Ed Coordinating Board) are much better...

unfortunately, we have to recruit all our college students from out of state... and the professors... sigh.

Flint said: They don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a court and a congregation. Or maybe they consider everyone to be part of the congregation.

fasteddie said:

eric said: Ooh! And another good one, from page 34: "ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is." Okay I'll stop now. Apologies for multi-posting, its just too fun to read.

Wasn't this type of thing in Sagan's baloney detection kit? Continuing MrG's thought, this has the earmarks of something one person wrote late at night by himself and submitted to the court without having anyone else proofread it. Couldn't he have run it by the ICR secretary first? Surely any reasonably well-read person, even among biblical literalist types, would have been able to say, "You know, I'm just not sure what you're complaining about here." Or maybe groups like this are so insular and counterculture that they are unaware of how backward and illiterate they appear to the rest of the world. This makes me want to read a book about the social/anthropological aspects of fundamentalist groups. Any suggestions?

Andrew Stallard said: Despite being over twenty years old, I still recommend this one.

MrG said: "Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.” Judges seem usually inclined to exact and neutral language. In this case, however, one gets the clear impression that the court was annoyed.

Andrew Stallard said: Despite being over twenty years old, I still recommend this one.

Maybe our much-reviled, but too-dense-to-get-it, and therefore indefatigable R. Byers helped them with the difficult and precise legal language.

Ooh! And another good one, from page 34: “ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is.”

Okay I’ll stop now. Apologies for multi-posting, its just too fun to read.

Cubist said: Let's not be hasty--the judge might simply have chosen to describe the overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and irrelevancy-filled complaint in exact and neutral language

Just Bob said: Maybe our much-reviled, but too-dense-to-get-it, and therefore indefatigable R. Byers helped them with the difficult and precise legal language.

The Sensuous Curmudgeon has an excellent analysis of the wider meaning of this decision.

RBH said: The Sensuous Curmudgeon has an excellent analysis of the wider meaning of this decision.

MrG said: "Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.” Judges seem usually inclined to exact and neutral language. In this case, however, one gets the clear impression that the court was annoyed. Sigh, when people spend all their time talking baloney, they find it difficult to say anything else -- even when when it's in their own best interests to STOP.

The ICR's document is a very amusing ~80 pages of BS layered with more BS. It really was of the same general style as creationist's crap on internet BBs. Then reading the Judge's ~36 page document, it is clear that he was not amused at all.

Thanks for the links.

I am not embarrassed to admit I had to look up "maundering!"

eric said: Ooh! And another good one, from page 34: "ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is." Okay I'll stop now. Apologies for multi-posting, its just too fun to read.

fnxtr said:

Andrew Stallard said: Despite being over twenty years old, I still recommend this one.

What would you recommend if you were under twenty years old, Andrew? ;-}

Ted Herrlich thinks Louisiana may be a good next stop for ICR (sorry, Barbara Forrest!), and the Texas Freedom Network has good words.

MrG said:

Just Bob said: Maybe our much-reviled, but too-dense-to-get-it, and therefore indefatigable R. Byers helped them with the difficult and precise legal language.

Well, if they have that kind of expertise there's no sense in not making use of it, right? Sort of along the lines of Terry Pratchett's "Bloody Stupid Johnson": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Stupid_Johnson#Bloody_Stupid_Johnson

This is a bit off topic, but courtesy of the Dishonesty Institute's Nota Bene e-mail newsletter, I received this most intriguing legal tidbit:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/national_legal_organization_ba035551.html

A JPL employee, a YEC, who believes in ID, is filing suit to preserve his right to promote his favorite mendacious intellectual pornography at work.

darvolution proponentsist said: Don't apologize on my account. I have no intention on wading through those 80 or so pages and appreciate the sweet tidbits being carved out for me.

A JPL employee, a YEC, who believes in ID, is filing suit to preserve his right to promote his favorite mendacious intellectual pornography at work.

— John Kwok

I find it telling that while NCSE posted about the decision the day after it was released, ICR, Discovery and ARN have all failed to even acknowledge that anything was decided at all. Why am I not surprised?

M. Hunter said: I find it telling that while NCSE posted about the decision the day after it was released, ICR, Discovery and ARN have all failed to even acknowledge that anything was decided at all. Why am I not surprised?

fasteddie said: Couldn't he have run it by the ICR secretary first? Surely any reasonably well-read person, even among biblical literalist types, would have been able to say, "You know, I'm just not sure what you're complaining about here."

Despite being over twenty years old, I still recommend this one.

John, you're obviously very intelligent. I'm begging you to put your brain to the task of coming up with a new catchphrase. It's gotten to the point where I cringe every time I hear or read the word "mendacious". It was amusing the first 5 times I saw you use it, but it's been all downhill since then. You've used it in 100% of your postings on this thread already. You can do better!

Mike in Ontario, NY said: John, you're obviously very intelligent. I'm begging you to put your brain to the task of coming up with a new catchphrase. It's gotten to the point where I cringe every time I hear or read the word "mendacious". It was amusing the first 5 times I saw you use it, but it's been all downhill since then. You've used it in 100% of your postings on this thread already. You can do better!

Mike in Ontario, NY said: I'm begging you to put your brain to the task of coming up with a new catchphrase.

DI IDiot Borg Collective

Mike in Ontario, NY said:

DI IDiot Borg Collective

See, I like that better, at least for now. Fortunately for us, resistance is quite productive. Mr.G: hehehe!

I won't complain about "medacious intellectual pornography". I just tune it out. Along with the rest of the comment containing it.

John Kwok said: Came up with both phrases at the same time BTW:

Mike in Ontario, NY said:

DI IDiot Borg Collective

See, I like that better, at least for now. Fortunately for us, resistance is quite productive. Mr.G: hehehe!

But thought I'd remind me too that I think Casey Luskin ought to find himself a real job.... as the backup guitarist to the Katy Perry Band (which I have suggested on more than one occasion).

MrG said: I won't complain about "medacious intellectual pornography". I just tune it out. Along with the rest of the comment containing it.

John Kwok said: Well Mike, I have received consistently more plaudits than complaints over its usage and I know it drives the Dishonesty Institute crazy by its usage. So I'll continue using it and referring to DI acolytes as intellectually-challenged members of the DI IDiot Borg Collective:

Mike in Ontario, NY said: John, you're obviously very intelligent. I'm begging you to put your brain to the task of coming up with a new catchphrase. It's gotten to the point where I cringe every time I hear or read the word "mendacious". It was amusing the first 5 times I saw you use it, but it's been all downhill since then. You've used it in 100% of your postings on this thread already. You can do better!

MrG said: I won't complain about "medacious intellectual pornography". I just tune it out. Along with the rest of the comment containing it.

ICRGS has not presented any evidence indicating that it is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief in offering the Master of Science Education degree.

fasteddie said:

eric said: Ooh! And another good one, from page 34: "ICRGS cites no legal support for its argument whatsoever, but instead relies on rambling, repetitive assertions and a hodgepodge of legal terminology, most of which are irrelevant to its argument. Thus, before evaluating ICRGS’s vagueness claim, the Court is faced with the exasperating task of determining exactly what the claim is." Okay I'll stop now. Apologies for multi-posting, its just too fun to read.

Wasn't this type of thing in Sagan's baloney detection kit? Continuing MrG's thought, this has the earmarks of something one person wrote late at night by himself and submitted to the court without having anyone else proofread it. Couldn't he have run it by the ICR secretary first? Surely any reasonably well-read person, even among biblical literalist types, would have been able to say, "You know, I'm just not sure what you're complaining about here." Or maybe groups like this are so insular and counterculture that they are unaware of how backward and illiterate they appear to the rest of the world. This makes me want to read a book about the social/anthropological aspects of fundamentalist groups. Any suggestions?

I don't want to get involved in a big debate here. I have no comments on John Kwok's many mildly controversial activities, apart from his critiques of ID, at this time.

I have to say, though, that to me, "mendacious intellectual pornographers" is a timeless classic.

I have to say, though, that to me, “mendacious intellectual pornographers” is a timeless classic.

Just to be clear, ICR’s submission was 80-90 pages long. The Judge’s ruling was only 39 pages. The ruling is about on par with the Dover decision in terms of readability. So don’t be scared to dive in. I’d avoid ICR’s submission unless you want to read 90 pages of the legal equivalent of the Sokal hoax, but without the humor.

I won’t complain about “medacious intellectual pornography”. I just tune it out. Along with the rest of the comment containing it.

you might like this then:

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4107

fasteddie said: This makes me want to read a book about the social/anthropological aspects of fundamentalist groups. Any suggestions?

harold said: I have to say, though, that to me, "mendacious intellectual pornographers" is a timeless classic.

I watched Blade Runner the Director's Cut on the plane this week and it was great. No, I don't watch Blade Runner everyday. I watch Kill Bill 2 every day. "Future, you ain't got a future." Sort of reminds me of ID the Future.

Just sayin'

It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

IBelieveInGod said: It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

Gary Hurd said:

fasteddie said: This makes me want to read a book about the social/anthropological aspects of fundamentalist groups. Any suggestions?

I would suggest; Numbers, Ronald L. 2006 "The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism" Berkeley: University of California Press Scott, Eugenie C., 2005 "Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction" University of California Press

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said: It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

Because the creationists of all stripes keep trying to wedge (and I use that term deliberately) their nonsense into science classes. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Gary Hurd said:

fasteddie said: This makes me want to read a book about the social/anthropological aspects of fundamentalist groups. Any suggestions?

I would suggest; Numbers, Ronald L. 2006 "The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism" Berkeley: University of California Press Scott, Eugenie C., 2005 "Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction" University of California Press

Karen S. said:

I have to say, though, that to me, “mendacious intellectual pornographers” is a timeless classic.

You said it! It would be hard to improve upon it.

John Kwok said: It is an apt term describing the attitudes and behaviors of all creationists, whether they are YECs, OECs or IDiots. They claim that they are the purveyors of "morality" by lying on behalf of Jesus, Mohammed or some other prophet and/or Deity. Let's just call a spade a spade by telling them how immoral they are in advocating evolution denialism. That's why we should refer to creationism as mendacious intellectual pornography and anyone actively promoting it as a mendacious intellectual pornographer:

Karen S. said:

I have to say, though, that to me, “mendacious intellectual pornographers” is a timeless classic.

You said it! It would be hard to improve upon it.

IBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said: It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

Because the creationists of all stripes keep trying to wedge (and I use that term deliberately) their nonsense into science classes. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Why the concern? If evolution is so obvious as you would have us believe, then students wouldn't accept Creationism anyway. If evolution is so obvious then teaching Creationism, Evolution side-by-side would only serve to strengthen evolution right?

IBelieveInGod said:

John Kwok said: It is an apt term describing the attitudes and behaviors of all creationists, whether they are YECs, OECs or IDiots. They claim that they are the purveyors of "morality" by lying on behalf of Jesus, Mohammed or some other prophet and/or Deity. Let's just call a spade a spade by telling them how immoral they are in advocating evolution denialism. That's why we should refer to creationism as mendacious intellectual pornography and anyone actively promoting it as a mendacious intellectual pornographer:

Karen S. said:

I have to say, though, that to me, “mendacious intellectual pornographers” is a timeless classic.

You said it! It would be hard to improve upon it.

If you are so certain that evolution is true, and that all evidence clearly backs up evolution as true, then why are you even concerned with creationism?

IBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said: It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

Because the creationists of all stripes keep trying to wedge (and I use that term deliberately) their nonsense into science classes. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Why the concern? If evolution is so obvious as you would have us believe, then students wouldn't accept Creationism anyway. If evolution is so obvious then teaching Creationism, Evolution side-by-side would only serve to strengthen evolution right?

IBelieveInGod said:

John Kwok said: It is an apt term describing the attitudes and behaviors of all creationists, whether they are YECs, OECs or IDiots. They claim that they are the purveyors of "morality" by lying on behalf of Jesus, Mohammed or some other prophet and/or Deity. Let's just call a spade a spade by telling them how immoral they are in advocating evolution denialism. That's why we should refer to creationism as mendacious intellectual pornography and anyone actively promoting it as a mendacious intellectual pornographer:

Karen S. said:

I have to say, though, that to me, “mendacious intellectual pornographers” is a timeless classic.

You said it! It would be hard to improve upon it.

If you are so certain that evolution is true, and that all evidence clearly backs up evolution as true, then why are you even concerned with creationism?

Evolution is obvious to those who follow the rules of science. The dishonesty of Creationists and I D promoters is not always obvious to those who deny the value of science and instead follow religious bigotry.

IBelieveInGod said: Why the concern? If evolution is so obvious as you would have us believe, then students wouldn't accept Creationism anyway. If evolution is so obvious then teaching Creationism, Evolution side-by-side would only serve to strengthen evolution right?

IBelieveInGod said: It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

Biggy, Biggy, Biggy...

No-one would look twice at your bullshit if you weren't trying to sneak it into publicly-funded high school science classes.

Would you like us to waste children's time on phrenology, astrology, and magic spells, too?

Please go back to wherever you were hiding / relegated to. You are, like ID, a waste of time.

To blow my own trumpet my

Evangelicals and Science; Greenwood Press 2008 gives an overview of the good and bad of evangelicals and science since 1730 and seeks to put all into historical perspective

IBelieveInGod said: If you are so certain that evolution is true, and that all evidence clearly backs up evolution as true, then why are you even concerned with creationism?

To I believe in God

I also believe in God but have no truck with creationism. It has been shown to be false so many times . Its basic flaws are

1. It is terrible science

2, What alternative "science" put forward is utter nonsense

3. It is either deliberately or accidentally dishonest, thus gaining the charge "lying for Jesus"

That is the summary by a Christian believer

IBelieveInGod said: It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:(

Why all of the concern if you are so certain?

Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

Mike of Oz said: I think, IBelieveInGod, that you're barking way up the wrong tree here.

I think, IBelieveInGod, that you're barking.

Robin UK said: Possibly one for the Brits!

SEF said:

Robin UK said: Possibly one for the Brits!

Eg also Upney and Dagenham.

It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists

IBelieveInGod said: If you are so certain that evolution is true, and that all evidence clearly backs up evolution as true, then why are you even concerned with creationism?

IBIG,

You have confirmed that in your world view:
(1) God is all powerful.
(2) God is unconditionally loving and ethical.
(3) That a literal/plain reading of the bible is completely consistent with (1) and (2).

You are insane and/or lying. Why would anyone listen to you or your ideas, suggestions and comments? You are a danger to children and adults everywhere.

IBelieveInGod said: Why the concern? If evolution is so obvious as you would have us believe, then students wouldn’t accept Creationism anyway. If evolution is so obvious then teaching Creationism, Evolution side-by-side would only serve to strengthen evolution right?

Because the design of Creationism (and Creationists in particular) is to pervert the rules by which science is applied in the real world. They want to change definitions and distort facts so as to confuse the young minds of students who struggle with even basic concepts. They do this under the guise of “fair play” instead of following the actual rules and processes of science. This is done intentionally because reality supplies absolutely no support for their literal interpretation of the Bible. But, I suspect that you already know this.

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said: It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

Because the creationists of all stripes keep trying to wedge (and I use that term deliberately) their nonsense into science classes. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Why the concern? If evolution is so obvious as you would have us believe, then students wouldn't accept Creationism anyway. If evolution is so obvious then teaching Creationism, Evolution side-by-side would only serve to strengthen evolution right?

People reject evolution and proclaim and follow creationist dogmas because they are either scam artists trying to enrich themselves from and have power over others who follow them, or they are too ignorant to realize they have been lied to and they allow their prejudices to lead them. Since Creationism is a fraud, why should fraud be allowed to stand equally with the truth of evolution? By your argument, we should never prosecute acts of fraud anywhere. If a customer is cheated out of her money by a greedy and dishonest business owner, we should do nothing about it. Hey, how did you manage to escape the prison known as the bathroom wall?

Tardis said:

IBelieveInGod said: Why the concern? If evolution is so obvious as you would have us believe, then students wouldn’t accept Creationism anyway. If evolution is so obvious then teaching Creationism, Evolution side-by-side would only serve to strengthen evolution right?

Because the design of Creationism (and Creationists in particular) is to pervert the rules by which science is applied in the real world. They want to change definitions and distort facts so as to confuse the young minds of students who struggle with even basic concepts. They do this under the guise of “fair play” instead of following the actual rules and processes of science. This is done intentionally because reality supplies absolutely no support for their literal interpretation of the Bible. But, I suspect that you already know this.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

John Kwok said: It is an apt term describing the attitudes and behaviors of all creationists, whether they are YECs, OECs or IDiots. They claim that they are the purveyors of "morality" by lying on behalf of Jesus, Mohammed or some other prophet and/or Deity. Let's just call a spade a spade by telling them how immoral they are in advocating evolution denialism. That's why we should refer to creationism as mendacious intellectual pornography and anyone actively promoting it as a mendacious intellectual pornographer:

Karen S. said:

I have to say, though, that to me, “mendacious intellectual pornographers” is a timeless classic.

You said it! It would be hard to improve upon it.

If you are so certain that evolution is true, and that all evidence clearly backs up evolution as true, then why are you even concerned with creationism?

Because there are people like you, who desire that the Bible be used as the secular law and textbook of the land, preferably under pain of death. And they are more than willing to lie, cheat, manipulate and break laws to see that happen.

It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren’t there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

IBelieveInGod said: So, then if one truly believes that God Created all that we see, and promotes what they truly believe, are you saying that they are guilty of fraud???

Do you admit that there are many things taught in our public schools about evolution that have been proven false, but are still being taught anyway, wouldn't that be considered fraud?

Actually, IBIG would be correct in saying that teaching Creationism would enhance evolution -- IF we taught Creationism to demonstrate the reality of exactly what a pack of doubletalk and silliness it is. Let's show the class Thuderf00t's "Why People Laugh At Creationists" video series!

But that's the last thing IBIG wants. He wants the game rigged so that Bambi is on equal -- no, better! -- terms than Godzilla.

fasteddie said: ...a book about the social/anthropological aspects of fundamentalist groups. Any suggestions?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

John Kwok said: It is an apt term describing the attitudes and behaviors of all creationists, whether they are YECs, OECs or IDiots. They claim that they are the purveyors of "morality" by lying on behalf of Jesus, Mohammed or some other prophet and/or Deity. Let's just call a spade a spade by telling them how immoral they are in advocating evolution denialism. That's why we should refer to creationism as mendacious intellectual pornography and anyone actively promoting it as a mendacious intellectual pornographer:

Karen S. said:

I have to say, though, that to me, “mendacious intellectual pornographers” is a timeless classic.

You said it! It would be hard to improve upon it.

If you are so certain that evolution is true, and that all evidence clearly backs up evolution as true, then why are you even concerned with creationism?

Because there are people like you, who desire that the Bible be used as the secular law and textbook of the land, preferably under pain of death. And they are more than willing to lie, cheat, manipulate and break laws to see that happen.

Now you are putting words in my mouth, where did I say that the Bible should be used as secular law and the textbook of the land?

Truth is that it is not known how life came about, evolution is nothing more then a framework built on assumptions about what happened in the past, assumptions that there will never be backed up by actual observational proof.

Natman said:

IBelieveInGod said: It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

Maybe, and I don't want to alarm you here, it's because this is a blog mainly concerned with all things evolutionary based, and this is a thread dealing with the attempts of the cDesign crowd to insinuate themselves into a sphere they know nothing about? Just a thought. Hell, we could all go over to a forum dealing with the benefits of Java over C++ and start posting that they all seem preoccupied with C++, this must imply some form of uncertainty. But that would be a waste of time, no? We don't have doubt over the validity of the theory, just in the mentality of people out there to recognise the truth over dogmatic delusions.

Now you are putting words in my mouth, where did I say that the Bible should be used as secular law and the textbook of the land?

And now that IBelieveInGod is thoroughly infesting this thread, would it be possible if the administrators killed this thread, or at least reinstate IBelieve's well-earned exile to the Bathroom Wall?

IBelieveInGod said: Why be concerned with creationism or intelligent design being presented along side evolution in the classroom and letting the students decide?

Do you admit that there are many things taught in our public schools about evolution that have been proven false,

but are still being taught anyway,

wouldn’t that be considered fraud? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/[…]/3003946.stm

Why be concerned with creationism or intelligent design being presented along side evolution in the classroom and letting the students decide?

IBelieveInGod said: So, then if one truly believes that God Created all that we see, and promotes what they truly believe, are you saying that they are guilty of fraud???

Do you admit that there are many things taught in our public schools about evolution that have been proven false, but are still being taught anyway, wouldn't that be considered fraud? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3003946.stm

raven said:

It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists

That is because they keep trying to take over the USA, destroy it, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages. Most of us like living in a technological first world democracy rather than the next Somalia. The battle against hate, ignorance, and superstition is a long one in human history. In fact, it is most of human history. For the forseeable future, there will always be some groups trying to destroy societies. They occasionally succeed. For us in the USA right now, it happens to be fundie creationist xians.

stanton: And now that IBelieveInGod is thoroughly infesting this thread, would it be possible if the administrators killed this thread, or at least reinstate IBelieve’s well-earned exile to the Bathroom Wall?

raven said: I wouldn't spend too much time and thought on replying to the troll who just plays whack a mole and eventually ends up repeating himself in endless loops of nonlogic.

Stanton said: And now that IBelieveInGod is thoroughly infesting this thread, would it be possible if the administrators killed this thread, or at least reinstate IBelieve's well-earned exile to the Bathroom Wall?

IBelieveInGod said: If evidence for evolution is so strong, then wouldn't the teaching of opposing views actually strengthen your side?

IBelieveInGod said: I know that this is a blog about evolution, but what I find is that most of the posts are devoted to countering creationism, and intelligent design rather then discussing evidence for evolution. If you were so certain that your evidence was so strong, then why are you even concerned with creationism and intelligent design? Why be concerned with creationism or intelligent design being presented along side evolution in the classroom and letting the students decide?

raven: For the forseeable future, there will always be some groups trying to destroy societies. They occasionally succeed. For us in the USA right now, it happens to be fundie creationist xians.

troll: That is only what you think, it really isn’t the truth! Obviously I can’t speak for all Christians, but that is not at all what I want.

IBelieveInGod said: ... If evidence for evolution is so strong, then wouldn't the teaching of opposing views actually strengthen your side?

RBH said:

Stanton said: And now that IBelieveInGod is thoroughly infesting this thread, would it be possible if the administrators killed this thread, or at least reinstate IBelieve's well-earned exile to the Bathroom Wall?

I thought about that, but comments like this one from Stanton lead me to keep it here. What the BBC article IBIG linked to actually suggests is that science is a process of learning.

While the journalism is overblown, it does illustrate the fact that we continue to learn. IBIG could use a dose of that.

Since this particular post is education based this comment is only slightly off topic. Education affects so much of who we are and how we are perceived. And, of course, that is the crux of the issue. The condition of adult science literacy in the United States is in an abhorrent order. Much of our current world dominance is founded on science inspired by World War II, Sputnik and the Cold war. Twice as many Bachelor’s degrees in physics were issued (in the U.S.) in 1956 than were issued in 2003.
According to a recent National Science Foundation biennial report, approximately 70 percent of adult Americans are illiterate of the basic processes of science. Without that information it is simply impossible to make rational, everyday decisions about the world around us. Without that information we must limit our decision and policy making to instinct, gut reactions, the opinions of others or superstition. In all of those situations we are far more likely to make the wrong decisions than the right ones. This ultimately affects everything here, and across the world, from economics to the actual freedom to believe any silly thing you wish.

If evidence for evolution is so strong, then wouldn’t the teaching of opposing views actually strengthen your side?

It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren’t there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

This blog is not a review of “what I accept”. For that, go to any university library and have a look at the sections on General Chemistry, General Physics, basic Calculus, basic Statistics and Probability, basic Computer Science, Organic Chemistry, Biochemistry, General Biology, Molecular Biology, Cell Biology, Physiology, Anatomy, Paleontology, and Physical Anthropology. That should acquaint you with the evidence for evolution which I accept, and give you the most basic tools which you need to understand and evaluate it. This would only be a brief survey of the most important evidence, of course. Anyone serious about science goes beyond the most basic books in these areas. And most people do not formally study every single one of these areas. And there is a great deal of recent, advanced level work, not necessarily found in basic material, which is also evidence for evolution. Nevertheless, if you want to know what people “accept”, start there. Please note that theology and philosophy books have no relevance here. I couldn’t care less about what you believe privately, beyond the fact that I strongly support your right to live and believe as you want, with only the limitation that you obey the law and respect the rights of others. This blog exists because some people can’t handle that limitation. They want to teach factually incorrect sectarian dogma as “science”, in public schools, at taxpayer expense. That violates my constitutional rights. Of course, it is also true that, just as you have the right to believe whatever you want, and express whatever you want, within the broad confines of the law that protects everyone’s rights, others have the same right. Thus, even if creationists were not trying to violate the constitution, it is likely that blogs like this would exist to mock, ridicule, scorn, and deride their foolhardy denial of basic scientific reality.

IBIG -

I HAVE AN IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR YOU.

It would not be fair for me not to give you some chance to convince me.

So let's try.

Forget about evolution. Pretend that I have never heard of it. What is the evidence for ID/creationism?.

Is it all just denial of evolution? Or do you have some positive claims that can be tested? Who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail?

IBelieveInGod said: I know that this is a blog about evolution

most of the posts are devoted to countering creationism, and intelligent design rather then discussing evidence for evolution.

[Do you admit that there are many things taught in our public schools about evolution that have been proven false, but are still being taught anyway, wouldn’t that be considered fraud?]

I actually read the article you posted and find that you are now utilizing the creationist trolling technique of "Teach the Controversy." The article does not say what you either think or are implying that it says. Again, I think you know this.

IBelieveInGod said: To get back on the subject here, I really don't have a problem with evolution being taught as long as at least one opposing view is also taught, i.e. creation, intelligent design. If evidence for evolution is so strong, then wouldn't the teaching of opposing views actually strengthen your side?

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said: It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

Because the creationists of all stripes keep trying to wedge (and I use that term deliberately) their nonsense into science classes. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Why the concern? If evolution is so obvious as you would have us believe, then students wouldn't accept Creationism anyway. If evolution is so obvious then teaching Creationism, Evolution side-by-side would only serve to strengthen evolution right?

People reject evolution and proclaim and follow creationist dogmas because they are either scam artists trying to enrich themselves from and have power over others who follow them, or they are too ignorant to realize they have been lied to and they allow their prejudices to lead them. Since Creationism is a fraud, why should fraud be allowed to stand equally with the truth of evolution? By your argument, we should never prosecute acts of fraud anywhere. If a customer is cheated out of her money by a greedy and dishonest business owner, we should do nothing about it. Hey, how did you manage to escape the prison known as the bathroom wall?

So, then if one truly believes that God Created all that we see, and promotes what they truly believe, are you saying that they are guilty of fraud??? Do you admit that there are many things taught in our public schools about evolution that have been proven false, but are still being taught anyway, wouldn't that be considered fraud? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3003946.stm

IBelieveInGod said: It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

IBelieveInGod said: If evidence for evolution is so strong, then wouldn't the teaching of opposing views actually strengthen your side?

I think IBelieveInGod is Megan Fox!

IBIG has ruined this thread with circular statements, never genuinely addressing anything, just like Megan Fox (MF for short;-) did on another PT thread.

Sounds like the same troll to me - MF.

IBIG--
Public elementary and high schools are not supposed to "let the students decide" on any academic subject. It is NOT all right to "decide" on a test that Chicago is the capitol of Illinois, or Thomas Jefferson was the first president of the United States, or water is a chemical element. It is not even all right to decide all right should be alright.

The fact of evolution is even more solidly based than the fact that Springfield is the capitol of Illinois. The capitol could be moved somewhere else; but the fact of evolution will never go away.

If you cannot see that you are advocating a process that would totally undercut American public education, you are, to put it as kindly as possible, naive in the extreme. Because you may be sure that whoever came up with "let the students decide" knew exactly what a terrible effect that policy would have on our schools. Creationism is simply the wedge the Christian dominionists are using to undercut American education, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing the American constitution. This is all clearly explained in their statement of purpose, appropriately enough called the wedge document.

If you are really innocent in asking why we fight against creationism, then you are being used by some very dishonest people. If you know the truth about the creationist movement and are disingenuously arguing that it should be foisted upon innocent children, then you deserve nothing but utter contempt.

IBIG -

I HAVE AN IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR YOU.

It would not be fair for me not to give you some chance to convince me.

So let’s try.

Forget about evolution. Pretend that I have never heard of it. What is the evidence for ID/creationism?.

Is it all just denial of evolution? Or do you have some positive claims that can be tested? Who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail?

John Vanko said: I think IBelieveInGod is Megan Fox!

Oh - and he has a goofy tattoo.

IBelieveInGod said: Truth is that it is not known how life came about, evolution is nothing more then a framework built on assumptions about what happened in the past, assumptions that there will never be backed up by actual observational proof.

IBelieveInGod said: To get back on the subject here, I really don't have a problem with evolution being taught as long as at least one opposing view is also taught

I wonder if PT chased IBIG off? Probably not: "He'll be back."

IBIG wrote:

"I know that this is a blog about evolution, but what I find is that most of the posts are devoted to countering creationism, and intelligent design rather then discussing evidence for evolution. If you were so certain that your evidence was so strong, then why are you even concerned with creationism and intelligent design? Why be concerned with creationism or intelligent design being presented along side evolution in the classroom and letting the students decide?"

Why, is that what you do in your church? Every time you present some creationist nonsense in your tax free church, you invite a real evolutionary biologist to explain why that is all completely wrong? If you cannot prove that you do this then you are just another hypocrite trying to play to "fair" card inappropriately.

eddie said; "As it happens, I have a fossil rabbit embedded in Precambrian rock, found in the Pilbara region of Western Australia."

The Founding Mothers said: "Eddie: Show me the bunny. SHOW ME THE BUNNY!"

Elwood P. Dowd (voice of Jimmy Stewart) replies:
“Harvey, step over here and meet our friends Megan and Biggy. Let's all have a drink together!"

And what do Harvey, Megan, and Biggy have in common? None of them are real. (And only Harvey can think logically.)

IBelieveInGod said: Truth is that it is not known how life came about, evolution is nothing more then a framework built on assumptions about what happened in the past, assumptions that there will never be backed up by actual observational proof.

IBIG -

I HAVE AN IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR YOU.

It would not be fair for me not to give you some chance to convince me.

So let’s try.

Forget about evolution. Pretend that I have never heard of it. What is the evidence for ID/creationism?.

Is it all just denial of evolution? Or do you have some positive claims that can be tested? Who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail?

I don't understand why I can't get an answer here. I guess I'll just have to keep posting.

raven said:

It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists

That is because they keep trying to take over the USA, destroy it, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages. Most of us like living in a technological first world democracy rather than the next Somalia. The battle against hate, ignorance, and superstition is a long one in human history. In fact, it is most of human history. For the forseeable future, there will always be some groups trying to destroy societies. They occasionally succeed. For us in the USA right now, it happens to be fundie creationist xians.

John Vanko said: I think IBelieveInGod is Megan Fox! IBIG has ruined this thread with circular statements, never genuinely addressing anything, just like Megan Fox (MF for short;-) did on another PT thread. Sounds like the same troll to me - MF.

This is kind of upsetting. There is an idea that your worth can be judged by the strength of your enemies. Surely we ought to be able to attract more intelligent, knowledgeable and honest enemies than we see here.

Precisely!

IBelieveInGod -

I HAVE AN IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR YOU.

It would not be fair for me not to give you some chance to convince me.

So let’s try.

Forget about evolution. Pretend that I have never heard of it. What is the evidence for ID/creationism?.

Is it all just denial of evolution? Or do you have some positive claims that can be tested? Who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail?

I don’t understand why I can’t get an answer here. I guess I’ll just have to keep posting.

Boy, am I ever getting discouraged that I can't get an answer to these simple questions.

It forces me to conclude that you can't answer them.

But that would mean all you've got is denial of evolution. And you've already shown that you don't even understand what the theory of evolution is. So that would mean that you've got nothing.

harold said: Forget about evolution. Pretend that I have never heard of it. What is the evidence for ID/creationism?.

"Truth ..."

IDon'tReallyBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IDon'tReallyBelieveInGod said: It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

Because the creationists of all stripes keep trying to wedge (and I use that term deliberately) their nonsense into science classes. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Why the concern? If evolution is so obvious as you would have us believe, then students wouldn't accept Creationism anyway. If evolution is so obvious then teaching Creationism, Evolution side-by-side would only serve to strengthen evolution right?

Jim Thomerson said: Surely we ought to be able to attract more intelligent, knowledgeable and honest enemies than we see here.

Paul Burnett said:

Jim Thomerson said: Surely we ought to be able to attract more intelligent, knowledgeable and honest enemies than we see here.

What, are you trying to get Casey Luskin to comment here?

I always ask very simple, specific, questions, for which there is simply no alternate answer. Invariably, the other party tries to return to bashing Darwin but don’t let them.

— stevaroni

Robin said:

IBelieveInGod said: I know that this is a blog about evolution, but what I find is that most of the posts are devoted to countering creationism, and intelligent design rather then discussing evidence for evolution. If you were so certain that your evidence was so strong, then why are you even concerned with creationism and intelligent design? Why be concerned with creationism or intelligent design being presented along side evolution in the classroom and letting the students decide?

You say all this like pointing out that creationism/ID is false is somehow not part of study of evolution. Clearly it is since you creationists keep insisting that creationism/ID is science and the only way to note it isn't is by pointing that out.

Frank J said:

IDon'tReallyBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IDon'tReallyBelieveInGod said: It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

Because the creationists of all stripes keep trying to wedge (and I use that term deliberately) their nonsense into science classes. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Why the concern? If evolution is so obvious as you would have us believe, then students wouldn't accept Creationism anyway. If evolution is so obvious then teaching Creationism, Evolution side-by-side would only serve to strengthen evolution right?

I'll be glad to teach Creationism and Evolution side-by-side, but you wouldn't want me to.

Why do you have to keep pointing out that creationism/intelligent design isn’t science?

why must your mind live in constant denial?

why must you repeat your lies when they have been answered ad infinitum already?

why are you such a lying sack?

why are you here?

Shall you put the blame on your religion, your mental status, what?

IBelieveInGod said: Why be concerned with creationism or intelligent design being presented along side evolution in the classroom and letting the students decide?

Stevaroni -

Yes, you reminded me to do this.

When I first started dealing with creationists on the internet, I used to ask them over and over again to explain what they thought evolution actually meant, and what evidence scientists actually thought existed for it. I would tell them that it didn't make sense to argue against something unless they understood it first.

It's a similar strategy - don't just chase down all the lies, challenge them to show that they understand what they are talking about and have a testable claim.

Those were the pre-Dover days before word had gone round to only repeat the same tiny subset of falsehoods and never ad lib, and they would often try to answer. The prescient hard core trolls would run away, but many people would try to answer, and discover that they had no clue and had been lied to. Whether it did any good I don't know.

Since Dover, it has changed, and they play a very different game now.

Nowadays all you get is the tactics that the "leaders" have been using for decades - memorize a set of superficial lying sound bites, show up, release them, ignore feedback, run away, and try again somewhere else, over and over again.

These days they're barely even trying to convince an imaginary judge, even though they do often use vestigial "legalistic" claims. (After all, if you were trying to convince me of your claim, why would you bother to tell me "evolution is a religion, too"? How the hell is that supposed to change my mind, even if I actually believed it? It originated as a dumb fantasy claim to use in front of a fantasy judge - "We have established that evolution is a religion too, and therefore schools are just as entitled to teach creationism, yay!".)

But these days it seems to be more about retention - reinforcing the delusions of the already brainwashed, trying to keep the kids from encountering the outside world until they can be thoroughly programmed, and repeating mantras to deal with one's own cognitive dissonance.

However, the power of the direct question remains considerable.

FYI I have been to Houston a few times due to the start up company I am involved with and will be there again soon. I have to tell you that I have never minded the parts of Texas that I have been in (I used to live in NM). It has its extreme problems and eccentricities, but for some reason, it seems to be possible to mind one's own business and deal with every day situations in a mutually civil manner, at least in many areas. That is not the case everywhere. Huge caveat - I am a pale white guy and speak with a very mild Nova Scotian accent, which sounds like "standard North American English" except to people who have spent a lot of time in NS. (I was born in the US but spent a lot of my childhood in Canada.)

IBelieveInGod -

Okay, let's talk about the study of design in nature.

Forget about evolution. Pretend that I have never heard of it. What is the evidence for ID/creationism?.

Is it all just denial of evolution? Or do you have some positive claims that can be tested? Who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail?

IBelieveInGod said: And why would that be?

MrG said:

IBelieveInGod said: Why be concerned with creationism or intelligent design being presented along side evolution in the classroom and letting the students decide?

Again and again I say it: I'm all for it! Let's show them "Why People Laugh At Creationists" and let them have some fun! That's FOUR. One might get the impression that you're playing dodgeball here, IBIG.

IBelieveInGod said: why wouldn't creationism be science if it is the study of evidence for creation?

IBelieveInGod said: Have we settled it?

Open question to PT'ers before IBIG responds: Wouldn't most people here be perfectly happy to have kids watch "Why People Laugh At Creationists" -- ? Since it would cut into class time, it might be just recommended as a voluntary extracurricular activity.

IBelieveInGod said: Why do you have to keep pointing out that creationism/intelligent design isn't science?

IBelieveInGod -

Okay, let’s talk about the study of design in nature.

Forget about evolution. Pretend that I have never heard of it. What is the evidence for ID/creationism?.

Is it all just denial of evolution? Or do you have some positive claims that can be tested? Who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail?

Why won't you answer these questions?

Yes, harold, hard to get answers out of him, isn't it?

As far as my own question, IBIG, let me ask it again in a VERY specific fashion so I can avoid your attempts at deliberately miscontruing it ...

You say that kids should be exposed to both evolution and creationism (or "intelligent design" as if there was a difference) in school and make up their own minds on the matter. I agree. In SPECIFIC, we should present them with materials that show in detail that creationism is a classic example of pseudoscience, a demonstration of gross ignornace, a fraud, an exercise in doubletalk and evasion intended to confuse and mislead.

I think they would find it amusing to watch the antics of VenomFangX (though I will admit that even by creationist standards his credibility was rock-bottom) and would be a very valuable lesson in how to recognize other pseudoscience con games.

And if you have a problem with creationism being characterized as a cheap doubletalking con-game ... well, your behavior here is not exactly dispelling the notion that it is.

Where does the human conscience come from?

Let me ask everyone here, do you believe in the law of cause and effect?

harold said: IBelieveInGod - Okay, let’s talk about the study of design in nature. Forget about evolution. Pretend that I have never heard of it. What is the evidence for ID/creationism?. Is it all just denial of evolution? Or do you have some positive claims that can be tested? Who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail? Why won't you answer these questions?

IBelieveInGod said: Where does the human conscience come from?

Why won't IBIG answer these questions?

And why does IBIG keep asking, "Why the concern?", after being answered by almost everyone here?

Because IBIG is earning her crown in heaven. She argues from a superior position which no answers from unbelievers can change. She is battling the forces of Satan. Arguing is useless. Only the bathroom wall is left. But having learned from Megan Fox that too much nonsense gets oneself terminate, she restrains herself, sits back, and enjoys all the energy her enemies expend.

fasteddie said: This makes me want to read a book about the social/anthropological aspects of fundamentalist groups. Any suggestions?

IBelieveInGod said: I look at the incredibly complex human body and brain, and see evidence of a designer, and you look at that same body and see evidence of evolution.

IBelieveInGod said: Where does the human conscience come from?

IBelieveInGod said: I look at a beautiful flower, and I see evidence of a creator.... I look at the incredibly complex human body and brain, and see evidence of a designer...

IBelieveInGod said:

harold said: IBelieveInGod - Okay, let’s talk about the study of design in nature. Forget about evolution. Pretend that I have never heard of it. What is the evidence for ID/creationism?. Is it all just denial of evolution? Or do you have some positive claims that can be tested? Who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail? Why won't you answer these questions?

Actually the evidence is right in front of you. We all have the same evidence, but because of our very different presuppositions we interpret the evidence differently. I look at a beautiful flower, and I see evidence of a creator, you look at that same flower and see evidence of evolution. I look at the incredibly complex human body and brain, and see evidence of a designer, and you look at that same body and see evidence of evolution.

Paul Burnett said: And why won't (IBelieveInGod) answer Harold's question?

Stanton said: In other words, you're saying that you're perfectly satisfied with the non-answer of GODDIDIT ...

Frank J said:

IDon'tReallyBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IDon'tReallyBelieveInGod said: It appears that you folks are still preoccupied with Creationists:( Why all of the concern if you are so certain? Why aren't there more posts about what you accept, rather then all of the posts attempting to discredit Creationists, and those in the Intelligent Design movement?

Because the creationists of all stripes keep trying to wedge (and I use that term deliberately) their nonsense into science classes. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Why the concern? If evolution is so obvious as you would have us believe, then students wouldn't accept Creationism anyway. If evolution is so obvious then teaching Creationism, Evolution side-by-side would only serve to strengthen evolution right?

I'll be glad to teach Creationism and Evolution side-by-side, but you wouldn't want me to.

IBelieveInGod said: Actually the evidence is right in front of you. We all have the same evidence, but because of our very different presuppositions we interpret the evidence differently. I look at a beautiful flower, and I see evidence of a creator, you look at that same flower and see evidence of evolution. I look at the incredibly complex human body and brain, and see evidence of a designer, and you look at that same body and see evidence of evolution.

Paul Burnett said:

fasteddie said: This makes me want to read a book about the social/anthropological aspects of fundamentalist groups. Any suggestions?

The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby - http://www.amazon.com/Age-American-Unreason-Vintage/dp/1400096383/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277505876&sr=8-1 Also Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free by Charles P. Pierce - http://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/dp/0767926153/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277505876&sr=8-2 Both titles are appropriate for the willful ignorance and scientific illiteracy of our current and other clueless trolls.

MrG said:

Stanton said: In other words, you're saying that you're perfectly satisfied with the non-answer of GODDIDIT ...

BALONEY! The answer was that it was done by ALIEN INTELLIGENCES FROM ANOTHER DIMENSION in the form of WHITE LAB MICE! And I can guarantee that the evidence is every bit as good as it is for IBIG's case.

IBelieveInGod said: Actually the evidence is right in front of you. We all have the same evidence, but because of our very different presuppositions we interpret the evidence differently. I look at a beautiful flower, and I see evidence of a creator, you look at that same flower and see evidence of evolution. I look at the incredibly complex human body and brain, and see evidence of a designer, and you look at that same body and see evidence of evolution.

Alex H said: Does that mean the Earth will be destroyed seconds before we can figure out the Answer?

Dale Husband said: That is actually one of the biggest outright lies Creation "scientists" tell about how they work. While there may be different interpretations of evidence, there is only ONE such interpretation that is consistent with the rules of science. Interpreting the evidence in a non-scientific fashion to support a religious dogma actually proves the religious dogma itself is unscientific. There is no such thing as creation "science". In order for creationism to be valid, the laws of physics and chemistry must have no meaning. If the laws of physics and chemistry have no meaning, science has no meaning. If science has no meaning, life itself has no meaning. Most of us are using computers and even alive at all because of science and its products. Including YOU, hypocrite!

IBelieveInGod said: Actually the evidence is right in front of you. We all have the same evidence, but because of our very different presuppositions we interpret the evidence differently. I look at a beautiful flower, and I see evidence of a creator, you look at that same flower and see evidence of evolution. I look at the incredibly complex human body and brain, and see evidence of a designer, and you look at that same body and see evidence of evolution.

IBelieveInGod said: Can you tell me what that one interpretation is?

IBelieveInGod said: Where does the human conscience come from?

IBelieveInGod said: Actually the evidence is right in front of you. We all have the same evidence, but because of our very different presuppositions we interpret the evidence differently. I look at a beautiful flower, and I see evidence of a creator, you look at that same flower and see evidence of evolution. I look at the incredibly complex human body and brain, and see evidence of a designer, and you look at that same body and see evidence of evolution.

IBIG is clearly now just trolling, just sounding the same note over and over again while paying minimal attention to the replies.

OK, I've had my fun, I've nailed IBIG a fair amount of times, but IBIG is just in an idle loop, playing the fraud and ignoramus -- it's gotten boring, enough as far as I'm concerned. "The show must go on but I won't stay and watch."

Just Bob said:

IBelieveInGod said: Where does the human conscience come from?

I'm guessing (having dealt for years with barely-literate high school sophomores [in Texas!]) that IBIG means consciousness , but that he, not surprisingly, doesn't know the difference.

Animals don't have a conscience, ...

IBelieveInGod said: Only one interpretation consistent with the rules of science? Can you tell me what that one interpretation is?

IBelieveInGod said:

Just Bob said:

IBelieveInGod said: Where does the human conscience come from?

I'm guessing (having dealt for years with barely-literate high school sophomores [in Texas!]) that IBIG means consciousness , but that he, not surprisingly, doesn't know the difference.

No I not referring to human consciousness. The question was where does the human conscience come from? The inner knowledge of right and wrong! Animals don't have a conscience, so where does the human conscience come from?

IBelieveInGod said: We all have the same evidence, but because of our very different presuppositions we interpret the evidence differently.

IBelieveInGod, in the pursuit of pleasing God, you've torn out your own eyes, and welded your earholes shut, all because apparently reality conflicts with your religious beliefs.

So be it.

So, why is it so important for you to show off to us the ruined, abominable wreck of your face? Do you enjoy showing off how you use your belief in Jesus as a license to act like an utter asshole? Are you trying to drive us away from Jesus so you can have Him all to yourself?

John Vanko said: IBelieveInGod said:

Animals don't have a conscience, ...

My dog knows when she's done wrong. If that isn't a conscience what is?

RBH said: That kind of variation, of course, is the raw material on which selection can operate in the appropriate selective environment.

RBH said:

John Vanko said: IBelieveInGod said:

Animals don't have a conscience, ...

My dog knows when she's done wrong. If that isn't a conscience what is?

And there are individual differences among my four dogs in that respect. Sherlock, for example, has a well-developed sense of guilt, though one can see him (apparently) making up his mind whether some act--say, grabbing Watson's cookie--is worth the guilt. Watson, on the other hand, doesn't have any scruples at all. Scruffy is completely guilt-ridden while Casey is gaily hell-raising. That kind of variation, of course, is the raw material on which selection can operate in the appropriate selective environment.

MrG said:

RBH said: That kind of variation, of course, is the raw material on which selection can operate in the appropriate selective environment.

The selection pressures may be significant. I've known people who had no conscience. People tended to want to do them harm, and I suspect in more lawless societies such folk tend to have short lifespans.

IBelieveInGod said: A dog can be trained to know they have done something wrong, by disciplining every time they do something, but that isn't a conscience. Humans are born with a conscience.

IBelieveInGod said: A dog can be trained to know they have done something wrong, by disciplining every time they do something, but that isn't a conscience. Humans are born with a conscience.

IBelieveInGod said: Humans are born with a conscience.

IBelieveInGod said:

MrG said:

RBH said: That kind of variation, of course, is the raw material on which selection can operate in the appropriate selective environment.

The selection pressures may be significant. I've known people who had no conscience. People tended to want to do them harm, and I suspect in more lawless societies such folk tend to have short lifespans.

Even the Bible states that a conscience can be ruined. 1 Timothy 4:1-2 (New International Version) 1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: A dog can be trained to know they have done something wrong, by disciplining every time they do something, but that isn't a conscience. Humans are born with a conscience.

Then how come babies do not know that it is bad to wake their parents and other care-givers up in the dead of night with their wailing? How come small children throw temper tantrums if they do not have their way, even if it's wrong? I am forced to assume that IBelieveInGod has never ever encountered living babies or children before.

IBelieveInGod said: I have two daughters so I know all about babies. Even babies know when they have done something wrong even though they have never been disciplined for it.

IBelieveInGod said: I have two daughters so I know all about babies. Even babies know when they have done something wrong even though they have never been disciplined for it.

IBelieveInGod said: Only one interpretation consistent with the rules of science? Can you tell me what that one interpretation is?

IBelieveInGod said: No I not referring to human consciousness. The question was where does the human conscience come from? The inner knowledge of right and wrong! Animals don't have a conscience, so where does the human conscience come from?

IBelieveInGod said: I have two daughters so I know all about babies. Even babies know when they have done something wrong even though they have never been disciplined for it.

ibelieveinbeingcrazy: Humans are born with a conscience.

IBelieveInGod said: Let me ask everyone here, do you believe in the law of cause and effect?

IBelieveInGod said: Humans are born with a conscience.

IBIG, you should probably read at least a little bit of the work by Professor Frans de Waal, who has been studying primate behaviour for decades. There you'll learn that fundamental signs of morality and ethical behaviour have been observed in non-humans, and without "training".

Of course, his work has made him one of many scientists which creationists love to hate. You get that occasionally when you spend years thoroughly researching something which challenges narrow-minded religious dogma.

Law of cause and effect? Effects involving more than one or two subatomic particles are influenced by a huge number of factors, each of which might be regarded as a partial cause.

Besides that, even if every "effect" were necessarily the result of a cause, that doesn't imply that the cause would be visible or known.

IBIG is on record that:

(1) God is all powerful.

(2) God is unconditionally loving and ethical.

(3) A literal/plain reading of the bible is fully consistent with (1) and (2).

Therefore, IBIG is insane. He is also a manipulative liar.

It is time for IBIG to go back to the bathroom wall where he can smear his effluent away from the rational.

He lost all his arguments there before. He has lost them all here now. He will lose them at the bathroom wall again. It is his way.

Stanton said:

Paul Burnett said:

Jim Thomerson said: Surely we ought to be able to attract more intelligent, knowledgeable and honest enemies than we see here.

What, are you trying to get Casey Luskin to comment here?

What do intelligence, knowledge and honesty have to do with Casey Luskin?

MrG said: IBIG is clearly now just trolling, just sounding the same note over and over again while paying minimal attention to the replies. OK, I've had my fun, I've nailed IBIG a fair amount of times, but IBIG is just in an idle loop, playing the fraud and ignoramus -- it's gotten boring, enough as far as I'm concerned. "The show must go on but I won't stay and watch."

Hi there IBelieveInGod,

Let me start by saying that do not share the opinion of some of the other contributors to this discussion board that you are a liar or insane, or even necessarily an idiot. I do think you are woefully misinformed and have arrived at entirely errant conclusions, presumably for a number of reasons. In my experience with believers of many varieties, these reasons are multifarious and complex, generally not simplistic and monolithic, as the repeated accusations of lying etc. seen here would suggest. (That said, there certainly are hucksters and hypocrites out there, they are, however, in my experience a small minority compared to those who really believe the errors that they proclaim.) In any case, the reasons why even otherwise intelligent people can and do come to demonstrably nonsensical conclusions is a very interesting topic, but not really the question at hand.

Concerning the issue of whether evolution or creation (by which I will assume is intended a creation roughly as per Genesis within the last few thousand years), I'm afraid I have to agree with the repeated comments on this board that you are clearly demonstrating a dreadful and embarrassing lack of knowledge of the evidence and rationale at hand. Many of the contributors here, on the contrary, are very well informed about these matters, so that one can understand their frustration, even outrage, especially since it occurs quite regularly that someone comes along on this (and similar) discussion board(s) hoping to provide an energetic challenge to the “evolutionists” who normally inhabit it. Inevitably, however, they show themselves to be poorly informed.

So, I guess all I can really suggest is that you educate yourself about the evidence upon which evolutionary theory has been constructed as well as the theory itself. I don’t say you have to believe it or anything else, but you would do well to at least inform yourself. Otherwise, you see, it’s as if I were to walk into the Harvard Theological Seminary and start proclaiming loudly that, let’s say, the Hebrew scriptures are the earliest written texts, or that the Pentateuch represents a coherent work of a single author. By doing so I will have shown myself to be ridiculously ignorant, and no one will bother engaging in a discussion with me. Some may even call me nasty names, including “liar”, even if, out of ignorance, I really believe what I have said, as opposed to knowingly saying something untrue, which would make someone a liar.

Just as one example on this point, you ask “Where does the human conscience come from?“ presumably expecting that this would be a great stumper to those contributing here; but by doing so you show that you are completely uninformed about a vast body of empirical and theoretical literature addressing precisely this point from every perspective. Of course, you don’t have to agree with any of it, but demonstrating that you are entirely unacquainted with it is not an overly productive way to introduce yourself to the conversation. You see, this is why you get such vehement replies. Again, it would be if I were to walk into a NASA flight center and ask “So how do you explain how bees can fly!?” The engineers there are not likely to be impressed or stumped, in the slightest.

Hope this might help a bit.

All the best,
Jared

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: I have two daughters so I know all about babies. Even babies know when they have done something wrong even though they have never been disciplined for it.

If babies and children have innate consciences, and automatically know when they've done something wrong, then why do they still misbehave, and throw temper tantrums over silly things?

Cheeses! Unneeded evidence about the utterly brazen stupidity that is every single Xian I have ever encountered by any means!

IBIG - you have been condemned to an absolutely empty shell of a perfectly livable human life. May you at least realize what you've missed for a minute or two before you die. According to one of the few passages in the New Testament that rings with the slightest human truth: you'll realize you have been forsaken.

IBelieveInGod said:

MrG said:

IBelieveInGod said: Why be concerned with creationism or intelligent design being presented along side evolution in the classroom and letting the students decide?

Again and again I say it: I'm all for it! Let's show them "Why People Laugh At Creationists" and let them have some fun! That's FOUR. One might get the impression that you're playing dodgeball here, IBIG.

If you are all for teaching the different views then why all the concern here? Have we settled it?

MrG said: Open question to PT'ers before IBIG responds: Wouldn't most people here be perfectly happy to have kids watch "Why People Laugh At Creationists" -- ? Since it would cut into class time, it might be just recommended as a voluntary extracurricular activity.

IBelieveInGod said: Where does the human conscience come from? Let me ask everyone here, do you believe in the law of cause and effect?

Paul Burnett said:

fasteddie said: This makes me want to read a book about the social/anthropological aspects of fundamentalist groups. Any suggestions?

The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby - http://www.amazon.com/Age-American-Unreason-Vintage/dp/1400096383/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277505876&sr=8-1 Also Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free by Charles P. Pierce - http://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/dp/0767926153/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277505876&sr=8-2 Both titles are appropriate for the willful ignorance and scientific illiteracy of our current and other clueless trolls.

If you are all for teaching the different views then why all the concern here? Have we settled it?

If I'm not too late, IBIG, you should read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Yes, he also wrote the God Delusion, but this book is not about religion. I thought I had a good handle on all the evidence for evolution, but I have learned new things on EVERY page (I'm 3/4 done) IBIG, if you truly are interested in learning, you'll show it by picking up this book (you don't have to buy it: check it out at your local library) and reading just how well evolution is documented. If you are a coward who does not care to have your secure beliefs challenged, well, then you won't.

As a science educator, I am coming to the realization that we don't teach enough earth science in US high schools. Every student should have a firm understanding of the great age of the earth, the changes in the earth's surfaces, and basic geological processes. Without this, fossil evidence means little. If they understand this, and add a little biogeography, physiology, genetics and embryology, evolution is much better understood. Without a good grasp of the great age of the earth, it's hard to get your brain around such slow change in populations.

IBIG:
Let me ask everyone here, do you believe in the law of cause and effect?

Where have I heard that before? At first I couldn't figure out how IBIG intended to use that against the scientific response (there is no such thing as the "Law of Cause and Effect" in science).

Hinduism discusses the law of cause and effect. The Buddha, reportedly, discussed the law of cause and effect. Even the Rosicrucians talk about the law of cause and effect. But I don't think IBIG is one of them. The Marovingian discusses the law of cause and effect in The Matrix (with the outstanding visual of a beautiful young lady eating chocolate cake - all the way down to her ... back on topic).

Then I found AIG quoting Henry Morris:
"Eternal God or eternal matter—that is the choice. The latter is an impossibility if the present scientific law of cause-and-effect is valid, since random particles of matter could not, by themselves, generate a complex, orderly, intelligible universe, not to mention living persons capable of applying intelligence to the understanding of the complex order of the universe. A personal God is the only adequate Cause to produce such effects."

Combined with IBIG's presuppositional apologetics (also repeatedly harped on at AIG), we get a better picture of where IBIG is coming from. Maybe IBIG works at AIG. What fun.

John Vanko said: IBIG: Let me ask everyone here, do you believe in the law of cause and effect? Where have I heard that before? At first I couldn't figure out how IBIG intended to use that against the scientific response (there is no such thing as the "Law of Cause and Effect" in science). Hinduism discusses the law of cause and effect. The Buddha, reportedly, discussed the law of cause and effect. Even the Rosicrucians talk about the law of cause and effect. But I don't think IBIG is one of them. The Marovingian discusses the law of cause and effect in The Matrix (with the outstanding visual of a beautiful young lady eating chocolate cake - all the way down to her ... back on topic). Then I found AIG quoting Henry Morris: "Eternal God or eternal matter—that is the choice. The latter is an impossibility if the present scientific law of cause-and-effect is valid, since random particles of matter could not, by themselves, generate a complex, orderly, intelligible universe, not to mention living persons capable of applying intelligence to the understanding of the complex order of the universe. A personal God is the only adequate Cause to produce such effects." Combined with IBIG's presuppositional apologetics (also repeatedly harped on at AIG), we get a better picture of where IBIG is coming from. Maybe IBIG works at AIG. What fun.

IBelieveInGod said: The law of conservation of energy has been verified every time tested right?

I definitely second the recommendation to read Richard Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth." He sets out the basic arguments for evolution in a clear, not-too-technical way. If IBelieveInGod (or any creationist lurkers) will read that and come back with specific questions, maybe this discussion can go somewhere.

hoary puccoon said: I definitely second the recommendation to read Richard Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth." He sets out the basic arguments for evolution in a clear, not-too-technical way. If IBelieveInGod (or any creationist lurkers) will read that and come back with specific questions, maybe this discussion can go somewhere.

Okay, let’s talk about the study of design in nature. Forget about evolution. Pretend that I have never heard of it. What is the evidence for ID/creationism?. Is it all just denial of evolution? Or do you have some positive claims that can be tested? Who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail? Why won’t you answer these questions?

Actually the evidence is right in front of you. We all have the same evidence, but because of our very different presuppositions we interpret the evidence differently.

Then tell me what the evidence is. Who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail?

I look at a beautiful flower, and I see evidence of a creator, you look at that same flower and see evidence of evolution.

No, that's not what I asked. I already know that you pretend to think the flower was "designed". What I asked was, who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail?

I look at the incredibly complex human body and brain, and see evidence of a designer, and you look at that same body and see evidence of evolution.

No, that's not what I asked. I already know that you pretend to think that the human brain and body were designed. What I asked was - who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail?

harold said: IBelieveInGod - You didn't answer my questions honestly.

Okay, let’s talk about the study of design in nature. Forget about evolution. Pretend that I have never heard of it. What is the evidence for ID/creationism?. Is it all just denial of evolution? Or do you have some positive claims that can be tested? Who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail? Why won’t you answer these questions?

Actually the evidence is right in front of you. We all have the same evidence, but because of our very different presuppositions we interpret the evidence differently.

Then tell me what the evidence is. Who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail?

I look at a beautiful flower, and I see evidence of a creator, you look at that same flower and see evidence of evolution.

No, that's not what I asked. I already know that you pretend to think the flower was "designed". What I asked was, who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail?

I look at the incredibly complex human body and brain, and see evidence of a designer, and you look at that same body and see evidence of evolution.

No, that's not what I asked. I already know that you pretend to think that the human brain and body were designed. What I asked was - who was the designer? How can I know, using objective evidence? How can I rule out other designers, using objective evidence? Precisely what did the designer do, in detail?

If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

IBelieveInGod said: If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

IBelieveInGod said: If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

IBelieveInGod said: Here is the problem with your questions, you can't answer the very same questions. I could answer what I believe, but that wouldn't be accepted by you anyway, and then you would just attack what I believe. Sure you can give assumptions as to how a beautiful flower came about by natural causes, but they would be nothing more then assumptions. I could give in detail how I believe that they came about, but that would just be faith. So, let's just look at the beautiful design of each flower objectively, study it and see how wonderfully made it is.

harold said: IBelieveInGod - You didn't answer my questions honestly.

John Vanko said: IBIG: Let me ask everyone here, do you believe in the law of cause and effect? Where have I heard that before? At first I couldn't figure out how IBIG intended to use that against the scientific response (there is no such thing as the "Law of Cause and Effect" in science). Hinduism discusses the law of cause and effect. The Buddha, reportedly, discussed the law of cause and effect. Even the Rosicrucians talk about the law of cause and effect. But I don't think IBIG is one of them. The Marovingian discusses the law of cause and effect in The Matrix (with the outstanding visual of a beautiful young lady eating chocolate cake - all the way down to her ... back on topic). Then I found AIG quoting Henry Morris: "Eternal God or eternal matter—that is the choice. The latter is an impossibility if the present scientific law of cause-and-effect is valid, since random particles of matter could not, by themselves, generate a complex, orderly, intelligible universe, not to mention living persons capable of applying intelligence to the understanding of the complex order of the universe. A personal God is the only adequate Cause to produce such effects." Combined with IBIG's presuppositional apologetics (also repeatedly harped on at AIG), we get a better picture of where IBIG is coming from. Maybe IBIG works at AIG. What fun.

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: Here is the problem with your questions, you can't answer the very same questions. I could answer what I believe, but that wouldn't be accepted by you anyway, and then you would just attack what I believe. Sure you can give assumptions as to how a beautiful flower came about by natural causes, but they would be nothing more then assumptions. I could give in detail how I believe that they came about, but that would just be faith. So, let's just look at the beautiful design of each flower objectively, study it and see how wonderfully made it is.

You insist that the Bible can be used to do better science than actual science: in fact, you insist that pointing and saying GODDIDIT is actually more scientific than actual science. Yet, you repeatedly refuse to explain to us why pointing and saying GODDIDIT is supposed to be more scientific than actual science. As far as I can tell, you like this because pointing and saying GODDIDIT in lieu of studying or explaining anything gives you warm, squishy fuzzies. And you also get your jollies by mocking us for not being contented morons for Jesus like you are. As for all this bullshit whining about attacking you for what you believe in... Well, you came in here taunting and attacking us by using your own personal beliefs in God as an excuse to act like a liar and an asshole. How did you honestly expect us to respond? Develop Stockholm Syndrome and become your adoring loveslaves? If you don't like us tearing apart your inane nonsense and heaping scorn on you for lying to us and mocking us for not being pious idiots, then go away.

Wouldn't you agree that this is a blog to discuss evolution? So, is it your view that it is only acceptable to discuss evolution here if one is acceptable of the theory? Opposing views aren't acceptable? Are your really that concerned about the theory that you can't handle questions from someone who disagrees with the theory?

IBelieveInGod said: Here is the problem with your questions, you can't answer the very same questions.

I could answer what I believe, but that wouldn't be accepted by you anyway, and then you would just attack what I believe.

Sure you can give assumptions as to how a beautiful flower came about by natural causes, but they would be nothing more then assumptions.

I could give in detail how I believe that they came about, but that would just be faith. So, let's just look at the beautiful design of each flower objectively, study it and see how wonderfully made it is.

Here is the problem with your questions, you can’t answer the very same questions.

I could answer what I believe, but that wouldn’t be accepted by you anyway,

and then you would just attack what I believe.

Sure you can give assumptions as to how a beautiful flower came about by natural causes, but they would be nothing more then assumptions.

I could give in detail how I believe that they came about,

but that would just be faith.

So, let’s just look at the beautiful design of each flower objectively, study it

and see how wonderfully made it is.

IBelieveInGod said: Wouldn't you agree that this is a blog to discuss evolution? So, is it your view that it is only acceptable to discuss evolution here if one is acceptable of the theory? Opposing views aren't acceptable? Are your really that concerned about the theory that you can't handle questions from someone who disagrees with the theory?

IBelieveInGod said: Can you state here, that there is absolutely no cause and effect in nature, no cause and effect of any kind seen in the universe or here on earth?

J. Biggs said:

IBelieveInGod said: Can you state here, that there is absolutely no cause and effect in nature, no cause and effect of any kind seen in the universe or here on earth?

John said he knew of no Scientific Law of Cause and Effect. He then went on to point out its origins in Creationist literature. Misrepresenting what John said will not help your already abysmal credibility here.

J. Biggs said:

IBelieveInGod said: Can you state here, that there is absolutely no cause and effect in nature, no cause and effect of any kind seen in the universe or here on earth?

John said he knew of no Scientific Law of Cause and Effect. He then went on to point out its origins in Creationist literature. Misrepresenting what John said will not help your already abysmal credibility here.

J. Biggs said:

IBelieveInGod said: Can you state here, that there is absolutely no cause and effect in nature, no cause and effect of any kind seen in the universe or here on earth?

John said he knew of no Scientific Law of Cause and Effect. He then went on to point out its origins in Creationist literature. Misrepresenting what John said will not help your already abysmal credibility here.

You know, this is sounding like arguing with someone ver the finer points of Le Chatelier's Principle of Equilibrium Shift with someone who can't write a formula or balance a chemical equation (ie-we are speaking a different language) Perhaps it's time that IBIG state his/her background in science, so that the discussion can take the appropriate tone. So, how 'bout it, IBIG Guy? Let us know what science you have done, and the degree(s) or last level of instruction at University, so we can formulate our answers to your questions in language we all understand.

Stanton said:

J. Biggs said:

IBelieveInGod said: Can you state here, that there is absolutely no cause and effect in nature, no cause and effect of any kind seen in the universe or here on earth?

John said he knew of no Scientific Law of Cause and Effect. He then went on to point out its origins in Creationist literature. Misrepresenting what John said will not help your already abysmal credibility here.

Then there's the fact that IBelieve wants us to worship him for unsubtly hinting that God, as described in the Bible, is the Cause of everything.

KL said: Perhaps it's time that IBIG state his/her background in science, so that the discussion can take the appropriate tone.

To IBelieveInGod,

This is not an accusation, nor a question, or even an insult, but you really, really need to stop clouding the issue with questions that bear no relevance to the subject of the thread, modern science education or even evolution.

Until you adequetely explain the flaws present in whichever belief system you happen to agree with, no one on here is going to take you seriously, or even contemplate any suggestions or questions you might have, genuine or not.

Your apparent refusal to defend your own belief (and it is a belief, as there is no rational basis for it) using well researched and independant sources (IE, not the bible, or ID/creationist websites) means that you are being perceived as an antagonist at best, a troll at worst.

Don't consider for a moment anyone here is taking you seriously, or spending much thought on your frequent questions other than 'How can someone be so deluded?' and until you address the issues I've mentioned, everything you say will be treated with the scorn you've witnesses so far.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

J. Biggs said:

IBelieveInGod said: Can you state here, that there is absolutely no cause and effect in nature, no cause and effect of any kind seen in the universe or here on earth?

John said he knew of no Scientific Law of Cause and Effect. He then went on to point out its origins in Creationist literature. Misrepresenting what John said will not help your already abysmal credibility here.

Then there's the fact that IBelieve wants us to worship him for unsubtly hinting that God, as described in the Bible, is the Cause of everything.

I don't want you to worship me:(

Bear with me here, Stanton. It would be interesting to know in more detail, even at the secondary school level. (Sorry, it's the educator in me)
So how about it, IBIG?

IBelieveInGod said: The law of conservation of energy has been verified every time tested right?

KL said: Bear with me here, Stanton. It would be interesting to know in more detail, even at the secondary school level. (Sorry, it's the educator in me) So how about it, IBIG?

KL said: Bear with me here, Stanton. It would be interesting to know in more detail, even at the secondary school level. (Sorry, it's the educator in me) So how about it, IBIG?

IBelieveInGod said: If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

darvolution proponentsist said: Snake + Fruit + Fall = Rebellion All Science So Far !

Well, we're not getting an answer.

Let me explain something to you IBIG, while you are formulating the answer to my inquiry: Science involves collaboration. No one can "know" everything, so scientists must communicate with each other. If I was curious about the features of a fossil, say, of Eocene apes, I would talk with the people who have the most experience in working with these fossils. The features are subtle and take years of mileage in the lab and field to evaluate. If a new fossil ape is found, the opinions of those people most experienced carry the most weight.

This is not to say that laypeople (like myself) can't learn more about Eocene apes. But the opinion of someone like me is meaningless in the scientific discussion.

Multiply that little example by all the areas of science. I must follow the conclusions of scientists who work in the various sciences because I don't have the background to make these judgments myself. The one thing I have that many people (and possibly you) may not have is an understanding of how science is done. I also am not tied to a Biblical explanation for how things came to be, therefore I am open to learn.

The fact is there is TONS of evidence for evolution, and absolutely nothing out there that falsifies evolution. When folks like you say that there is nothing out there, you are dismissing the work of countless scientists. My spouse's work is directly connected to evolution (primate behavior).

So, IBIG, open your mind. READ. There are dozens of books out there that are written for you and me. None of them will ask you to give up your belief in God. However, they will show you enough evidence for you to let go of special creation as written in Genesis. It will not diminish your Christianity, I promise.

John Vanko said: Maybe IBIG works at AIG.

Frank J said:

hoary puccoon said: I definitely second the recommendation to read Richard Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth." He sets out the basic arguments for evolution in a clear, not-too-technical way. If IBelieveInGod (or any creationist lurkers) will read that and come back with specific questions, maybe this discussion can go somewhere.

You do realize that any pro-science book, especially one wtitten by an admitted atheist, would only give these trolls more quotes to mine.

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

You know, that's even dumber than the "If we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?" canard!

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

You know, that's even dumber than the "If we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?" canard!

Why is it dumber? I'm just asking a question, there was no statement of my opinion. If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

You know, that's even dumber than the "If we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?" canard!

Why is it dumber? I'm just asking a question, there was no statement of my opinion. If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

I already answered your moronic canard, idiot.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

You know, that's even dumber than the "If we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?" canard!

Why is it dumber? I'm just asking a question, there was no statement of my opinion. If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

You know, that's even dumber than the "If we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?" canard!

Why is it dumber? I'm just asking a question, there was no statement of my opinion. If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

I already answered your moronic canard, idiot.

I was not responding to you, this was a response to the post by Dale Husband.

I have been polite, and asked a simple background question (and explained my rationale for asking it) and you have ignored it. My guess is that you are only here to cause trouble.

I conclude that Stanton was right. To the Bathroom Wall with IBIG.

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said: If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

You know, that's even dumber than the "If we evolved from apes, why are apes still around?" canard!

If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

At any rate, this is evidence FOR common ancestry.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of cellular life, it describes the subsequent evolution of cellular life and post-cellular self-replicators such as viruses.

One of the obvious pieces of evidence of common ancestry, to the reasonable and unbiased mind, is the common biochemistry, including a common genetic code, across life.

Needless to say, magical design by Jesus and the FSM teaming up to ride on a pink unicorn and do everything by magic cannot be ruled out, since they could have just magically made it look like evolution to fool everybody (*this parody is not intended to mock sincere religious belief, but rather, to mock science denial, regardless of its motivation*).

However, we could hardly argue for common descent if different species had completely different biochemistry, could we?

Creationists are good at telling us that they have something positive to offer, but somehow or other they never get around to telling us what that is.

Just to take one example: What would it look like if we were to see a creation/design of a species/kind/whatever taking place? What sort of world is it before that happens, and how is it different after that happens? What did the prior uncreated/undesigned things look like? How did they survive? Where did the uncreated/undesigned things come from? What happened to them when the created/designed things showed up?

IBelieveInGod said: If evolution is true, then why only carbon based lifeforms?

While there are some interesting answers to what appear to be disingenuous questions still appearing in this thread, is there a consensus that it has run its course?

RBH said: While there are some interesting answers to what appear to be disingenuous questions still appearing in this thread, is there a consensus that it has run its course?

RBH said: While there are some interesting answers to what appear to be disingenuous questions still appearing in this thread, is there a consensus that it has run its course?

IBelieveInGod said:

J. Biggs said:

IBelieveInGod said: Can you state here, that there is absolutely no cause and effect in nature, no cause and effect of any kind seen in the universe or here on earth?

John said he knew of no Scientific Law of Cause and Effect. He then went on to point out its origins in Creationist literature. Misrepresenting what John said will not help your already abysmal credibility here.

I never said scientific law of cause and effect in my question, I said law of cause and effect. It doesn't really have it's origins in creationist literature either, google it and you will see that you are wrong. My real question though was do you believe in cause and effect!

IBelieveInGod said:

J. Biggs said:

IBelieveInGod said: Can you state here, that there is absolutely no cause and effect in nature, no cause and effect of any kind seen in the universe or here on earth?

John said he knew of no Scientific Law of Cause and Effect. He then went on to point out its origins in Creationist literature. Misrepresenting what John said will not help your already abysmal credibility here.

Let me also point out that I didn't misrepresent what John said, I just asked some questions to see what he does believe, so when did asking questions become misrepresenting what someone says.

RBH said: While there are some interesting answers to what appear to be disingenuous questions still appearing in this thread, is there a consensus that it has run its course?

So be it. Thanks for playing, everyone!