I'm Proud of Wyoming

I drove through the Bighorn National Forest just two weeks ago, and had the exact same thought. 'm not sure if that would go over so well here in Texas.

Wow, I live in Northern Colorado, and I had never associated Wyoming with forward thinking. Good for them!!!

Impressive. In Kentucky signs like that would all have the same date.

Y'know, I've seen those signs while cruising across Wyoming, and it never occurred to me just how much they probably infuriate fundies.

I always paid more attention to the "jackalope" billboard one sees going up I-25. There's a triceratops billoard as well -- state dinosaur, you see. There's a nice little fossil museum at Thermopolis in the middle of the state and
of course the triceratops is a prominent exhibit.

I didn't notice the bit about DT's debate with the Troothers on CTC-AM on the first read. Oh dear, if anything could be worse than creationists, Troothers would be a prime candidate.

I keep thinking the Troothers are on the fade. As long as the Bush II Administration was in office,
they could scream "coverup", but that gets harder now that Obama is president -- "C'mon people, you really think Obama, like him or not, is going to cover up for Bush and not stick it to him immediately?" Alas, conspiracy theorists always have an answer, generally involving the "CIA conspiracy".

What's the difference between a fairy tale and a conspiracy theory? A fairy tale starts: "Once upon a time ..." -- while a conspiracy theory starts: "There is absolutely NO doubt ..."

No appeasement of young-earth creationists here!

— Dave Thomas

I want to report here that in the past, I have driven a similarly labeled stretch of highway between Vernal Utah and Flaming Gorge, which I believe is called the road through the ages scenic byway or something similar. A Google search gave a link that connected to the Bureau of Land Management, but I could find no specific information there. Some Utah tourist sites listed a "wildlife through the ages" scenic drive, but gave no specifics. Is this being obscured? Has it been dismantled? Is it not been promoted as part of the scenic byway system? These geologically labeled highways serve an important purpose in tourism and science education and ought to be protected and promoted.

Meanwhile, I just returned to Colorado from a trip to Pittsburgh traveling into a bit of Kentucky just south of Cincinnati. There, I encountered a sign on the freeway (US 275 I believe) letting me know that the Creation Museum was at the next exit. As far as I could tell, the sign was an official one and had the same brown background color as the ones pictured above. Does this mean (once I have the money) that I can buy a plot of land next to a federal freeway and get signage for a museum for the purpose of promoting a religious philosophy of my own choosing?

Y'all are missing the point. The age is in god dog years! So there's really no conflict.

I wonder if we could find out how often the Wyoming DOT gets complaints.

I remember going on a driving field trip in Oklahoma and finding the lone Pre-Cambrian outcrop.

There it was, outstanding in it's field, so to speak.

We circled it and had a moment of silence under the hot Oklahoma sun for this Old Man. We didn't even take a sample. Just left it there to enjoy the day unmolested.

I'm sure if the YEC's knew where it was they'd try to burn it! Just sayin'...

Have you guys ever noticed that one of the most common YEC claims is that the Cambrian explosion was the sudden appearance of life and thus the time of (recent) creation itself?

The problem with that assumption is that even the Cambrian period consisted only of ocean creatures, and none of them even remotely resembled animals living today, not even today's fish or arthropods.

If YEC was valid at all, the Cambrian period would have consisted of animals viturally identical to organisms living now, including land animals, and we would not even be able to differentiate the various periods from the Cambrian to the Tertiary periods. The fact that we can do so would be a sufficient proof for an honest and open-minded person of both an Earth hundreds of millions of years old and of evolution, but we must remember that we are dealing with con artists and dogmatic extremists.

Frank J said:

No appeasement of young-earth creationists here!

— Dave Thomas

It's not the YECs who are appeased when the ages are avoided, but the "don't ask don't tell" gang (IDers and the more politically correct Biblicals). A well-read YEC will see the ages as opportunities to spin incredulity sound bites, whereas the last thing an IDer wants is for their audience to know how anti-evolutionists are in hopeless disagreement on some of the most basic - and settled - questions.

Vacationers flood national parks. Museums are the secular temples of our culture where people go to worship either the "works of their hands" (Acts 7:41) or "the creature rather than the Creator." (Romans 1:25) Not content with being politically correct, Bill Jack and Rusty Carter from B.C. Tours guide you through a Biblically Correct Tour of: The Denver Zoo, The Denver Museum of Nature and Science, The Denver Museum of Art, Law and Order at the Colorado State Capitol, and Dinosaur Ridge outside Denver.

So please everyone, mention ages, especially if in the millions or billions of years, at every opportunity. And never miss an opportunity to note when an anti-evolution activist concedes that science is correct on those ages, and/or common descent.

The Emperor's New Clothes Format: DVD Every one of the Emperor's courtiers raved about the magnificent and elegant cloth the two strangers were weaving for the Emperor's new clothes — even though the courtiers obviously could not see anything on the looms. Why? The two weavers had convinced the Emperor that only the wise and discerning could see the magical cloth. No one, not even the Emperor himself, wanted to appear foolish and stupid...so the Emperor ended up parading naked before the kingdom in his "exquisite new clothes" in order to maintain his "credibility." Many of the True King's courtiers are raving about Progressive Creationism's magnificent and elegant theories on the origin of His creation. These courtiers are convinced that only the wise and discerning — those with advanced academic degrees — can magically explain the King's creation and thus maintain the Christian's credibility with the scientific community. Before you find yourself parading naked in the marketplace of ideas, watch and learn as Bill Jack exposes the bare truth about Progressive Creationism through interviews and commentary from a biblical perspective. Learn to value the integrity of the King's Word over credibility with the world.

What a sad day when we feel we should congratulate a state office for simply not spreading middle-ages fairy tales.

For even more such signs and a very close look at the strata I suggest a drive through Wind River Canyon between Shoshone and Thermopolis, Wyoming. It's like a Wayback machine carved out of the cornerstone of the planet.

If YEC was valid at all, the Cambrian period would have consisted of animals viturally identical to organisms living now, including land animals, and we would not even be able to differentiate the various periods from the Cambrian to the Tertiary periods.

That's a good observation, Dale. Don't the YEC's try to counter that with their "hydrologic" model?

I typically forget most of that stuff as soon as I read it; too much stupid to retain.

...

watch them struggle with essentially your point here, Dale:

http://forums.ccmmagazine.com/m_4660664/printable.htm

and *I think* this is their standard response, for what it's worth:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences25.html

Not quite on topic, but the Bighorn range is a really interesting place. On one side of it is high plains - rolling grasslands, farms and ranches, terrain typical of that found all the way at least to Minnesota. On the other side of the mountains, just a dozen or two miles away, is bare desert. No grass, no rolling hills, terrain characterized by creosote bushes and steep cliffs, canyons carved into the rock. Almost like a short drive through the woods to a different planet altogether.

A fascinating transition in the summer. Not driveable in the winter.

Ichthyic said: If YEC was valid at all, the Cambrian period would have consisted of animals viturally identical to organisms living now, including land animals, and we would not even be able to differentiate the various periods from the Cambrian to the Tertiary periods. That's a good observation, Dale. Don't the YEC's try to counter that with their "hydrologic" model? I typically forget most of that stuff as soon as I read it; too much stupid to retain.

Ichthyic said: ... watch them struggle with essentially your point here, Dale: http://forums.ccmmagazine.com/m_4660664/printable.htm and *I think* this is their standard response, for what it's worth: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences25.html

Dr. Mark's response:

"And I really don't understand your reasoning at all. The prevalence of fossils is primarily correlated with the number of individual organisms available to be fossilized. Why should less common "modern" animals leave just as many fossils as more common extinct ones? "

and:

" the flood itself didn't lead to their becoming fossils, the after effects of it's draining away did"

would probably be the response to:

You would only expect such layers and such order if the fossils were laid down in millions of local floods.

seriously, I do believe that's the BEST argument I've seen against stratigraphy coming from the YEC's, and it's all essentially based on Morris.

*shakes head sadly*

yes, if one wants to believe, one can rationalize anything as true.

Ichthyic said: Dr. Mark's response: "And I really don't understand your reasoning at all. The prevalence of fossils is primarily correlated with the number of individual organisms available to be fossilized. Why should less common "modern" animals leave just as many fossils as more common extinct ones? " and: " the flood itself didn't lead to their becoming fossils, the after effects of it's draining away did" would probably be the response to: You would only expect such layers and such order if the fossils were laid down in millions of local floods. seriously, I do believe that's the BEST argument I've seen against stratigraphy coming from the YEC's, and it's all essentially based on Morris. *shakes head sadly* yes, if one wants to believe, one can rationalize anything as true.

The Law of Faunal Succession states that assemblages of plants and animals get progressively more and more different from those observed today the further back in the past you go in the fossil record. Now if hydrologic sorting after the magic flood was by size or density, then that means that in order to account for the observed pattern, all extant forms must be either smaller or less dense than all of the extinct forms. SImple really. You just make stuff up and hope that no one is smart enough to figure out that your so called "hypothesis" ids conclusively falsified by these inconvenient truths.

Now I wonder why these guys are surprised when no one takes them seriously?

The evidence of the Earth testifies that there has never been a 'worldwide flood'.

Every genuine geologist (not the fake geologists of the YEC organizations, degrees notwithstanding) knows that a 'worldwide flood' would have scoured every sedimentary rock off the face of every continent, leaving only bare basement rock, like northern and central Canada.

The Oceans would be filled to the brim with one gigantic column of graded-bedding sediments - no deep trenches, no abyssal plains.

The continents would be leveled, and the oceans would be filled. All stratigraphy and palaeontology testify against a 'worldwide flood'.

Ergo there has never been a 'worldwide flood'.

Genuine geologists consider "Flood Geology" silly and childish, undeserving of serious comment. Such questions were settled 150 years ago.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: I wonder if we could find out how often the Wyoming DOT gets complaints.

John Vanko said: The evidence of the Earth testifies that there has never been a 'worldwide flood'. Every genuine geologist (not the fake geologists of the YEC organizations, degrees notwithstanding) knows that a 'worldwide flood' would have scoured every sedimentary rock off the face of every continent, leaving only bare basement rock, like northern and central Canada. The Oceans would be filled to the brim with one gigantic column of graded-bedding sediments - no deep trenches, no abyssal plains. The continents would be leveled, and the oceans would be filled. All stratigraphy and palaeontology testify against a 'worldwide flood'. Ergo there has never been a 'worldwide flood'. Genuine geologists consider "Flood Geology" silly and childish, undeserving of serious comment. Such questions were settled 150 years ago.

Hang on, he’s saying that all the extinct forms were more common and that all the current forms were less common? (Assuming, as he has to, that they were all extant at the same time before the Flood.)
So the Flood wiped out all the commonest sea creatures, but left the uncommon ones to persist to this day? They’re actually saying that?</i?

*looks behind*

wait, you're looking at ME?

btw, maybe this is "Dr Mark"?

http://creationwiki.org/Mark_Harwood

I have no clue! far be it from me to truly understand the mind of a fundy, or what crazy shit they will think up next as rationalizations.

read the thread i linked to!

man, codefail.

Hang on, he’s saying that all the extinct forms were more common and that all the current forms were less common? (Assuming, as he has to, that they were all extant at the same time before the Flood.) So the Flood wiped out all the commonest sea creatures, but left the uncommon ones to persist to this day? They’re actually saying that?

*looks behind*

wait, you’re looking at ME?

I have no clue! far be it from me to truly understand the mind of a fundy, or what crazy shit they will think up next as rationalizations. read the thread i linked to!

btw, maybe this is “Dr Mark”?

http://creationwiki.org/Mark_Harwood

arguing with a creationist....

read the comments from and responses to in this thread from Alan Clarke:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/titanoboa.php

good way to waste an afternoon.

John Vanko said: Genuine geologists consider "Flood Geology" silly and childish, undeserving of serious comment. Such questions were settled 150 years ago.

Dale Husband said: May I quote you on that?

Mike Elzinga said: I don’t know how any of these ID/creationist “PhDs” can look at themselves in the mirror and not start laughing.

Ichthyic said: wait, you’re looking at ME? I have no clue! far be it from me to truly understand the mind of a fundy, or what crazy shit they will think up next as rationalizations. read the thread i linked to!

Crudely Wrott said: For even more such signs and a very close look at the strata I suggest a drive through Wind River Canyon between Shoshone and Thermopolis, Wyoming. It's like a Wayback machine carved out of the cornerstone of the planet.

Hey, this seems like a good opportunity to shamelessly repost something I wrote back in 2007. Really, it's on topic. Sort of.

Last month I found myself in Laramie, Wyoming, looking for birds, and
several friends and I took a short trip to the summit of the nearby
Snowy Range. And so I discovered some spectacular geology as interesting
as the pine grosbeaks and western pirangas. The Snowy Range (at least
what I saw of it) is mostly quartzite and greenschist, the product of
continental-scale metamorphism occasioned by some ancient orogeny.

And here and there I saw a few big chunks of metaconglomerate. The rock
consisted of white quartz pebbles, an inch or so in averaqe diameter,
somewhat flattened, in a darker ground. The pebbles had fuzzy edges, and
if the recrystalization had proceeded very much further all I would have
seen would have been a purplish gray quartzite.

So I got to thinking. How would a young-earth creationist explain this rock?

I know how I would. First we need a source rock for the pebbles. For
such big lumps of quartz that would be a coarse-grained granite. It
would form as a pluton intruded miles under the earth, taking millions
of years to cool so that the minerals would have time to grow such big
crystals. Then erosion and uplift would have had to bring the granite to
the surface, where the pebbles would be eroded out of it, and
transported by water toward the sea, in the process giving them their
rounded form. And then the pebbles would be deposited together with sand
in some high-energy process that didn't allow time for sorting of
particles by size -- perhaps an alluvial fan built by spring floods.
Eventually this fan would be buried deep enough that the mixed sand and
pebbles would be cemented together into a conglomerate. Later, that
continental-scale metamorphism I mentioned before would cause the
conglomerate to recrystallize, atoms migrating to form crystal bonds
between sand grain and sand grain, sand grain and pebble. Pressure on
the rock made plastic by heat would flatten the originally rounded
pebbles too. And so the sedimentary conglomerate becomes a much harder
metamorphic metaconglomerate. Finally, the buried metaconglomerate must
be uplifted, exposed by erosion, and eroded itself to produce the rock I
way.

So we have a multitude of steps, which I will briefly recap here:

1. Intrusion of magma.
2. Cooling to solid granite.
3. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of granite.
4. Erosion and stream transport of granite pebbles.
5. Deposition of sediment.
6. Formation of conglomerate.
7. Metamorphism of conglomerate.
8. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of metaconglomerate.
9. Erosion of metaconglomerate.

All within a year, or what? Can any YEC enlighten me as to the
geological facts?

John Harshman said: 1. Intrusion of magma. 2. Cooling to solid granite. 3. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of granite. 4. Erosion and stream transport of granite pebbles. 5. Deposition of sediment. 6. Formation of conglomerate. 7. Metamorphism of conglomerate. 8. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of metaconglomerate. 9. Erosion of metaconglomerate. All within a year, or what? Can any YEC enlighten me as to the geological facts?

Dale Husband said: Claims that the fossils were "sorted" by the flood waters of Noah's time to produce the results we see have absolutely NO foundation whatsoever.

Oclarki said:

John Harshman said: 1. Intrusion of magma. 2. Cooling to solid granite. 3. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of granite. 4. Erosion and stream transport of granite pebbles. 5. Deposition of sediment. 6. Formation of conglomerate. 7. Metamorphism of conglomerate. 8. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of metaconglomerate. 9. Erosion of metaconglomerate. All within a year, or what? Can any YEC enlighten me as to the geological facts?

It seems that you may need to add two steps: 10. Burial of metaconglomerate under sediments derived from (8). 11. Uplift and exhumation of metaconglomerate. A lot of activity to pack into a single year, no doubt.

An argument with a creationist is a little like a game in which one tries to clean up graffiti faster than the creationist spraypaints it all over the walls.

But this sign for the Cloverly formation, near Shell, Wyoming, is sadly incorrect. They’re putting the Cretaceous into the Triassic! Somebody fix me?

Oclarki said:

John Harshman said: 1. Intrusion of magma. 2. Cooling to solid granite. 3. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of granite. 4. Erosion and stream transport of granite pebbles. 5. Deposition of sediment. 6. Formation of conglomerate. 7. Metamorphism of conglomerate. 8. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of metaconglomerate. 9. Erosion of metaconglomerate. All within a year, or what? Can any YEC enlighten me as to the geological facts?

It seems that you may need to add two steps: 10. Burial of metaconglomerate under sediments derived from (8). 11. Uplift and exhumation of metaconglomerate. A lot of activity to pack into a single year, no doubt.

MrG said: An argument with a creationist is a little like a game in which one tries to clean up graffiti faster than the creationist spraypaints it all over the walls.

There's a certain irony to the fact that creationism is locked out of the public schools because of its religious origins -- and not to the fact that it is joke science,
which would seem on the face of it the more relevant issue. If it WASN'T scientific nonsense, then the religious origins wouldn't matter. However, this is not the issue the courts end up addressing.

On another thread, John Kwok linked to this talk by Barbara Forrest.

If you haven’t seen it, it is well worth watching. During the Q&A after the talk she has eloquently articulated all the conclusions about the creationists that we had reached by the mid to late 1970s and early 80s. I remember those times well.

And those bastards haven’t changed one bit. If anything, they have simply become meaner.

Mike Elzinga said: On another thread, John Kwok linked to this talk by Barbara Forrest. If you haven’t seen it, it is well worth watching. During the Q&A after the talk she has eloquently articulated all the conclusions about the creationists that we had reached by the mid to late 1970s and early 80s. I remember those times well. And those bastards haven’t changed one bit. If anything, they have simply become meaner.

Richard Blinne -

Those videos of Bill Jack are interesting.

In the first one, he does that particularly odd thing, which is common among creationists. He misrepresents the theory of evolution as being creationism, and then attacks it, ostensibly in defense of creationism. In this particular case, he argues that insect camouflage did not occur as a single, magical event. He then claims to have argued against "evolution".

I can only assume that some creationists manage the psychological trick of taking aspects of their own claims that make them uncomfortable and ludicrously claiming that they are aspects of the theory of evolution.

We see this incredibly commonly - "Evolution claims that some feature of modern suddenly exploded magically into existence, therefore evolution is ridiculous". But of course, we all know that such are the claims of creationism.

The second video shows what may be an insight into the underlying motivation. His argument is purely authoritarian, and is also a non sequitur and self-contradictory.

He argues that if we allow "doubts" about the first three books of Genesis, people may question traditional behaviors that he doesn't wish them to question, such as wearing clothes.

Well, of course, this has nothing to do with whether or not the first three books of Genesis are accurate as a literal description of reality.

I would say that this is a defense mechanism that simultaneously serves two purposes.

At a very superficial level, it is just blackmail - "Obey me as a religious authority or terrible things will happen".

But I can't help wondering if some of these authoritarians are desperately attempting to repress their own desire to break what is for them some sort of cultural taboo.

harold said: I can only assume that some creationists manage the psychological trick of taking aspects of their own claims that make them uncomfortable and ludicrously claiming that they are aspects of the theory of evolution.

But I can’t help wondering if some of these authoritarians are desperately attempting to repress their own desire to break what is for them some sort of cultural taboo.

harold said: Richard Blinne - Those videos of Bill Jack are interesting. In the first one, he does that particularly odd thing, which is common among creationists. He misrepresents the theory of evolution as being creationism, and then attacks it, ostensibly in defense of creationism. In this particular case, he argues that insect camouflage did not occur as a single, magical event. He then claims to have argued against "evolution". I can only assume that some creationists manage the psychological trick of taking aspects of their own claims that make them uncomfortable and ludicrously claiming that they are aspects of the theory of evolution. We see this incredibly commonly - "Evolution claims that some feature of modern suddenly exploded magically into existence, therefore evolution is ridiculous". But of course, we all know that such are the claims of creationism. The second video shows what may be an insight into the underlying motivation. His argument is purely authoritarian, and is also a non sequitur and self-contradictory. He argues that if we allow "doubts" about the first three books of Genesis, people may question traditional behaviors that he doesn't wish them to question, such as wearing clothes. Well, of course, this has nothing to do with whether or not the first three books of Genesis are accurate as a literal description of reality. I would say that this is a defense mechanism that simultaneously serves two purposes. At a very superficial level, it is just blackmail - "Obey me as a religious authority or terrible things will happen". But I can't help wondering if some of these authoritarians are desperately attempting to repress their own desire to break what is for them some sort of cultural taboo.

John Kwok said: It would be well worth your time watching Barbara Forrest's lecture that I linked to originally at another thread here and which Mike Elzinga has recently reposted here:

harold said: Richard Blinne - Those videos of Bill Jack are interesting. In the first one, he does that particularly odd thing, which is common among creationists. He misrepresents the theory of evolution as being creationism, and then attacks it, ostensibly in defense of creationism. In this particular case, he argues that insect camouflage did not occur as a single, magical event. He then claims to have argued against "evolution". I can only assume that some creationists manage the psychological trick of taking aspects of their own claims that make them uncomfortable and ludicrously claiming that they are aspects of the theory of evolution. We see this incredibly commonly - "Evolution claims that some feature of modern suddenly exploded magically into existence, therefore evolution is ridiculous". But of course, we all know that such are the claims of creationism. The second video shows what may be an insight into the underlying motivation. His argument is purely authoritarian, and is also a non sequitur and self-contradictory. He argues that if we allow "doubts" about the first three books of Genesis, people may question traditional behaviors that he doesn't wish them to question, such as wearing clothes. Well, of course, this has nothing to do with whether or not the first three books of Genesis are accurate as a literal description of reality. I would say that this is a defense mechanism that simultaneously serves two purposes. At a very superficial level, it is just blackmail - "Obey me as a religious authority or terrible things will happen". But I can't help wondering if some of these authoritarians are desperately attempting to repress their own desire to break what is for them some sort of cultural taboo.

Dear J-Dog, Unlike Bobby Jindal - who is a fellow alumnus of my college (along with Ken Miller) - Palin hasn't lobbied to have her religious views imposed on the state of Alaska's public school science curricula (Jindal vowed to have ID inserted in his state's curricula when he was running for governor.). That gives me another reason to support John McCain instead of Caesar Barack Obamaus (His nomination rally last night bore uncomfortable reminders of those organized on behalf of Il Duce and Die Fuhrer last century. It's a pity Leni Riefenstahl wasn't available to direct a sequel of her "Triumph of the Will" as a superb piece of cinematic propaganda for Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee.). Regards, John

Hi all (and this is especially to my "buddy" Dustin), You can be a staunch, diehard opponent of the Dishonesty Institute and its pathetic band of mendacious intellectual pornographers like Luskin and Dembski, be an avowed supporter of evolutionary biology and, in general, sound mainstream science, and still be a conservative willing to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. There are other, more prominent, conservative voices who have been harsh critics of the DI's shenanigans and supportive of evolutionary biology, etc. like Washington Post columnists Charles Krauthammer and George Will, National Review columnist John Derbyshire, and biologist Paul Gross, co-author of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design". If you are unable to accept this observation of mine, then please refrain from vehement, vituperative attacks upon me. Spend your time more appropriately instead by hurling insults at the Dishonesty Institute. Respectfully yours, John

For all of those who support Caesar Barack Obamaus, Eminent Afro-American economist Thomas Sowell has this intriguing analysis on Obama's speech last night, comparing and contrasting it with McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/changes_in_politics.html (Incidentally, in his own words, Sowell - who received his Ph. D. in economics from the University of Chicago - has admitted that he was an academic failure in high school, having flunked out of New York City's prestigious Stuyvesant High School (my alma mater). His enlistment in the US Army and the GI Bill saved him, allowing him to earn admittance to Harvard University.) John

Who would have thought that Obama's big speech at the Democratic convention would disappoint expectations, while McCain's speech electrified his audience when he announced his choice of Governor Sarah Palin for his running mate? Some people were surprised that his choice was a woman. What is more surprising is that she is an articulate Republican. How many of those have you seen?

Despite the incessantly repeated mantra of "change," Barack Obama's politics is as old as the New Deal and he is behind the curve when it comes to today's economy. Senator Obama's statement that "our economy is in turmoil" is standard stuff on the left and in the mainstream media, which has been dying to use the word "recession." Not only has the economic slowdown failed to reach the definition of a recession, the most recent data show the U.S. economy growing at a rate exceeding 3 percent-- a rate that many European economies would die for, despite our being constantly urged to imitate those countries whose end results are not as good as ours.

I said, "I guess Sowell redeemed himself in your mind because he flunked Stuyvesant." I meant to say, "I guess Sowell had to redeem himself in your mind because he flunked Stuyvesant."

I was a McCain supporter and lifelong Republican up to this point but Palin literally caused me to rethink my politics from the ground up.

harold said: Richard Blinne -

I was a McCain supporter and lifelong Republican up to this point but Palin literally caused me to rethink my politics from the ground up.

This is interesting, because, although I am an entrepreneur and investor and would be considered moderate by contemporary standards in many or most parts of the western world, including the part of the US I currently live in, I have always held a constellation of views that are considered "progressive" or "liberal" by US standards. Indeed, I've become "moderate" only because the world has caught up to me on some issues. For example, I'm pro-gay marriage, pro allowing gays in the military, and I think that marijuana should be legal. I've always held those views. However, although I grew up mainly in Canada, those views were not considered "moderate" when I was younger. Today one can hold them and be considered a moderate, though. Yet in your case, and in my case, after initially taking a naive approach to creationism, we have both come to many identical conclusions about the interaction of politics with science denial. This is despite the fact that we probably voted differently in every election since whichever was the first one that both of us could vote in. (Of interest, one of the main reasons I was attracted to science as a college student was that, in science, people with different biases or personal tastes could use objective criteria to arrive at an agreement about something amenable to scientific study. Another keen attraction for me was that professors could not declare their own arbitrary interpretations of works of literature or historic characters to be the "correct" ones, but rather, in science, had to show evidence for what they were teaching.)

This question about the varying values of the term "liberal" and "conservative" is interesting. They are descriptive words for a cloud of values, attitudes, beliefs and ideals, as "Christian" is, and like "Christian", they need to be carefully defined before use.

What does "liberalism" or "conservatism" consist of? Is there enough commonality in the definition, between people who wish to use those words (always assuming goodwill) for the words to be actually useful?

Rich Blinne said: I was a McCain supporter and lifelong Republican up to this point but Palin literally caused me to rethink my politics from the ground up.

MrG said: There's a certain irony to the fact that creationism is locked out of the public schools because of its religious origins -- and not to the fact that it is joke science, which would seem on the face of it the more relevant issue. If it WASN'T scientific nonsense, then the religious origins wouldn't matter. However, this is not the issue the courts end up addressing.

John Kwok said: It would be well worth your time watching Barbara Forrest's lecture that I linked to originally at another thread here and which Mike Elzinga has recently reposted here:

harold said: Richard Blinne - Those videos of Bill Jack are interesting. In the first one, he does that particularly odd thing, which is common among creationists. He misrepresents the theory of evolution as being creationism, and then attacks it, ostensibly in defense of creationism. In this particular case, he argues that insect camouflage did not occur as a single, magical event. He then claims to have argued against "evolution". I can only assume that some creationists manage the psychological trick of taking aspects of their own claims that make them uncomfortable and ludicrously claiming that they are aspects of the theory of evolution. We see this incredibly commonly - "Evolution claims that some feature of modern suddenly exploded magically into existence, therefore evolution is ridiculous". But of course, we all know that such are the claims of creationism. The second video shows what may be an insight into the underlying motivation. His argument is purely authoritarian, and is also a non sequitur and self-contradictory. He argues that if we allow "doubts" about the first three books of Genesis, people may question traditional behaviors that he doesn't wish them to question, such as wearing clothes. Well, of course, this has nothing to do with whether or not the first three books of Genesis are accurate as a literal description of reality. I would say that this is a defense mechanism that simultaneously serves two purposes. At a very superficial level, it is just blackmail - "Obey me as a religious authority or terrible things will happen". But I can't help wondering if some of these authoritarians are desperately attempting to repress their own desire to break what is for them some sort of cultural taboo.

Dale Husband said:

Rich Blinne said: I was a McCain supporter and lifelong Republican up to this point but Palin literally caused me to rethink my politics from the ground up.

So what are you now? As for me, I have vowed never to vote Republican again, no matter what they offer to seduce me and if I become fed up enough with the Democrats I will also totally reject them forever too. If more people had my attitude and would vote for so-called "third parties" instead of only the Big Duopoly, we might actually have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Right now, the Republicans are expecting the discontent with Obama to result in more people voting for them and putting them back in power. We shouldn't reward such arrogance when they have done NOTHING to earn our trust. Vote both the Dems AND the Reps out of our government and be done with it!

Yet a closer look complicates that picture. For one thing, it's political outlook -- not education -- that seems to motivate one's belief on this subject. According to polling performed by the Pew Research Center, Republicans who are college graduates are considerably less likely to accept the scientific consensus on climate change than those who have less education. These better-educated Republicans probably aren't ignorant; a more likely explanation is that they are politically driven consumers of climate science information. Among Democrats and independents, the relationship between education and beliefs about global warming is precisely the opposite -- more education leads to greater acceptance of the consensus climate science. In other words, it appears that politics comes first on such a contested subject, and better information is no cure-all -- people are likely to simply strain it through an ideological sieve. In fact, more education probably makes a global warming skeptic more persuasive, and more adept at collecting information and generating arguments sympathetic to his or her point of view.

TomS said:

MrG said: There's a certain irony to the fact that creationism is locked out of the public schools because of its religious origins -- and not to the fact that it is joke science, which would seem on the face of it the more relevant issue. If it WASN'T scientific nonsense, then the religious origins wouldn't matter. However, this is not the issue the courts end up addressing.

In the video of Barbara Forrest that others are talking about, she notes that Scalia, in his dissent on the Edwards case, chose to ignore the history of creationism in reaching his conclusion that we should assume that the legislators were not trying to advance a religious point of view, and therefore it was permitted. I am not confident that judges will always be as discerning as they were in Arkansas and Pennsylvania.

Proud of Wyoming?

Are you proud of other states or instances where they do the sensible thing? Surely you shouldn't be proud of a state for merely putting up the truth? Whilst it is admirable for them to spend the time and effort to educate people as to the age of the rocks, I wouldn't have given these signs a second look.

However, had the signs said 'Granite Post Flood 3500 years old' then perhaps someone should say something.

Perhaps it's my over-the-pond attitude to think that anything government sponsored that promotes extreme pseudo-scientific ideas is weird and would never be allowed.

I forget, who's got the seperation of church and state?

In Montana there are official highway signs to let you know that if you die on the highway, they will place a white marker cross at the scene of the accident, making you a Christian by state decree. From my observation, these signs are larger than all other types of state highway signs in Montana. I don't know how they handle geologic information.

Rich Blinne said: I'd be careful with that sentiment. Political parties are just collections of likeminded people. Think tanks run and funded by multinational corporations cannot be gotten rid by "voting the bums out" and they are now even more powerful with the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling.

MrG said: There's a certain irony to the fact that creationism is locked out of the public schools because of its religious origins -- and not to the fact that it is joke science, which would seem on the face of it the more relevant issue. If it WASN'T scientific nonsense, then the religious origins wouldn't matter. However, this is not the issue the courts end up addressing.

Well, in all fairness, the courts can't be expected to rule on what's good and bad science. That's for the white heat of peer assessment, the hardest court of all to convince. But the courts are not asked to do that. There is no scientific controversy. This is not a matter of ruling which is the better science. There is science on the one hand, and a religious doctrine on the other.

The courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not fooled by the smokescreens adopted by the proponents of the latter. Courts are actually very good at seeing through smokescreens and detecting dissimulation and evasion. Not to mention outright fraud and untruth.

Dave Luckett said: Well, in all fairness, the courts can't be expected to rule on what's good and bad science. That's for the white heat of peer assessment, the hardest court of all to convince. But the courts are not asked to do that.

There is always the possibility that clever lawyers will come along to say that creationism is not a religious doctrine, but that the religious cover is a sham. The real basis of creationism being a purely secular disgust at the idea of being related to monkeys. And to agree that creationism (or "intelligent design") is not scientific, but social and political. And there is nothing in the constitution which forbids the state from endorsing a particular social-political attitude over science.

Dave Luckett said: Well, in all fairness, the courts can't be expected to rule on what's good and bad science. That's for the white heat of peer assessment, the hardest court of all to convince. But the courts are not asked to do that. There is no scientific controversy. This is not a matter of ruling which is the better science. There is science on the one hand, and a religious doctrine on the other. The courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not fooled by the smokescreens adopted by the proponents of the latter. Courts are actually very good at seeing through smokescreens and detecting dissimulation and evasion. Not to mention outright fraud and untruth.

This question about the varying values of the term “liberal” and “conservative” is interesting.

a former ally against Creationism who went wacko about Libertarian bull$#it.

Great... now I imagine a bus load of YECs setting out for WY with spray paint and a sign on the bus "vandalism for Jesus"

TomS said: There is always the possibility that clever lawyers will come along to say that creationism is not a religious doctrine, but that the religious cover is a sham. The real basis of creationism being a purely secular disgust at the idea of being related to monkeys. And to agree that creationism (or "intelligent design") is not scientific, but social and political. And there is nothing in the constitution which forbids the state from endorsing a particular social-political attitude over science.

chip said: Great... now I imagine a bus load of YECs setting out for WY with spray paint and a sign on the bus "vandalism for Jesus"

eric said: "Disgust" with scientific theory A is not a valid reason to teach alternate idea B. To teach B, you have to justify B on its own merits. Judges have already ruled that using anti-A arguments alone will not legally stand up, because such arguments rely on a false dichotomy.

TomS said:

eric said: "Disgust" with scientific theory A is not a valid reason to teach alternate idea B. To teach B, you have to justify B on its own merits. Judges have already ruled that using anti-A arguments alone will not legally stand up, because such arguments rely on a false dichotomy.

As far as I recall, the "false dichotomy" problem arises when the creationists are trying to argue that creationism is not religious because it is scientific.

TomS said: As far as I recall, the "false dichotomy" problem arises when the creationists are trying to argue that creationism is not religious because it is scientific.

TomS said: The only constitutional requirement is that the reason (if any) is not religious.

As far as I recall, the "false dichotomy" problem arises when the creationists are trying to argue that creationism is not religious because it is scientific.

I am arguing the “sincere” alternative. Disgust with a scientific theory is not a valid scientific or pedagogical reason to teach an alternative. But there is no constitutional requirement for there being such a reason. The only constitutional requirement is that the reason (if any) is not religious.

As far as I recall, the “false dichotomy” problem arises when the creationists are trying to argue that creationism is not religious because it is scientific.

If Kansans follow the the lead of Louisiana and Texas, they can beat the evolutionists.

FL is off his meds again. Testosterone levels are way up; itching for a fight.

Still hasn’t learned any science or read that Dembski and Marks paper.

FL said: If Kansans follow the the lead of Louisiana and Texas, they can beat the evolutionists.

Remember, for FundaLoon, it's not about reality, it's about him being in control of as many creobots as he can. It's a power trip, nothing else.

Jig's up, FL. You lose.

Mike Elzinga said: FL is off his meds again. Testosterone levels are way up; itching for a fight. Still hasn’t learned any science or read that Dembski and Marks paper.

LIFE SCIENCE – The student will develop an understanding of the cell, molecular basis of heredity, biological evolution, interdependence of organisms, matter, energy, and organization in living systems, and the behavior of organisms. Benchmark 3: The student will understand biological evolution. The student … 1 ▲understands biological evolution, descent with modification, is a scientific explanation for the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors. a. The presence of the same materials and processes of heredity (DNA, replication, transcription, translation, etc.) is used as evidence for the common ancestry of modern organisms. b. Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are documented in the fossil record. Evidence indicates that simple, bacteria-like life may have existed billions of years ago. c. The distribution of fossil and modern organisms is related to geological and ecological changes (i.e. plate tectonics, migration). There are observable similarities and differences among fossils and living organisms. d. The frequency of heritable traits may change over a period of generations within a population of organisms, usually when resource availability and environmental conditions change as a consequence of extinctions, geologic events, and/or changes in climate. 2. understands populations of organisms adapt to environmental challenges and changes as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and various mechanisms of genetic change. a. Genetic changes occur only in individual organisms. b. Natural selection and genetic drift occur within populations or organisms. c. Variation among individuals in a population allows individuals to respond differently to environmental challenges. 3. ▲ understands biological evolution is used to explain the earth’s present day biodiversity: the number, variety and variability of organisms. a. Separate populations within a species may become sufficiently different enough that new species develop. This process is called speciation. b. Changes in inherited traits accumulate in populations. c. Historically only a small percentage of species have survived to modern times. 4. ▲ understands organisms vary widely within and between populations. Variation allows for natural selection to occur. a. Heritable variation exists in every species. b. New heritable traits result from new combinations of genes and from mutations or changes in the reproductive cells. c. Variation of organisms within and among species increases the likelihood that some members will survive under changing environmental conditions. d. Times, populations, or entire lineages become extinct. One effect of this is to increase the differences between the surviving lineages. 5. understands the primary mechanism acting on variation is natural selection. a. Favorable heritable traits are more advantageous to reproduction and/or survival than others. b. There is a finite supply of resources available for offspring; therefore not all survive. c. Individuals with beneficial traits generally survive to reproduce in greater numbers. d. Favorable heritable traits tend to increase in the population through time if the selective pressure is maintained. 6. understands biological evolution is used as a broad, unifying theoretical framework for biology. a. Organisms are classified and according to the rules of nomenclature, and are given scientific names. b. The behavioral, physical, and genetic characteristics upon which these classifications are based are used as evidence for common descent. g. Natural selection, genetic drift, genomes, and the mechanisms of genetic change provide a context in which to ask research questions and help explain observed changes in populations.

Another session between the Pandas and their natural enemy, the Trolls. I think both sides just enjoy this WAY too much.

Rich Blinne said: Perhaps he can learn some science from the Kansas Standards. It took less than an hour to undo the damage in 2007.

Rich Blinne said: Perhaps he can learn some science from the Kansas Standards. It took less than an hour to undo the damage in 2007. An indicator with a delta ▲ in the Grades 8-12 Standards will be assessed at a high school grade by the Kansas State Assessment. The marked indicators are aligned with the ACT science subtest and may be helpful for students who choose to take this assessment.

Ok, I gotta ask. What is the ASCII or extended ASCII code for that delta (▲ )?

Apparently I can copy and paste it from Rich’s post, but I don’t see it in the extended ASCII table.

I can find ■, but not the delta or filled triangle.

Ok, I figured it out. It's Unicode. Duh!

You got it backwards, FL. It's allegedly the Kansans who beat people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Mirecki

We don't actually know who assaulted Mirecki, but it could well have been creationists, because it's perfectly okay to behave like that under the post-modern version of Christianity that creationists accept. Even for the ones who actually believe their own religious statements, it's a no-rules, "anything goes" religion. All you have to do is "repent" later. Far from being a motivation not to do wrong, Christianity has been distorted into a full license to indulge any impulse.

Actually, under post-modern creationist fundamentalism, there's no reason for ANYONE to have any ethics. The only accepted objective of behavior is to avoid displeasing the creationist god. But the creationist god only cares about ritualistic display. Praise him, claim to "interpret the Bible literally", and "repent" frequently, and you go to heaven - no matter what else you do. Fail to do any of the above and you go to hell for all eternity - no matter what else you do.

It's easy to see how Kent Hovind got confused.

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

I started discussing a number of issues with Glenn Morton on the ASA list and started discussing global warming. I very wrongly assumed we would be on the same page here.

harold said: Also, as Eric and others point out, the discipline required to pursue a stealth strategy almost invariably tends to break down.

FL said: If Kansans follow the the lead of Louisiana and Texas, they can beat the evolutionists.

Crudely Wrott said: For even more such signs and a very close look at the strata I suggest a drive through Wind River Canyon between Shoshone and Thermopolis, Wyoming. It's like a Wayback machine carved out of the cornerstone of the planet.

eric said: That's the problem with any stealth strategy - you can't maintain the deceit while fulfilling the purpose of the deceit.

harold said: Richard Blinne said -

I started discussing a number of issues with Glenn Morton on the ASA list and started discussing global warming. I very wrongly assumed we would be on the same page here.

No surprise to me. Whatever set of biases and/or psychological pathologies allowed Morton to be an adult creationist and have that particular "demon" probably still exists, even though something - hopefully an understanding of the objective data - allowed him to break free in the very specific area of the theory of evolution. If anything, he may have doubled down on other irrational defense mechanisms, in an effort to relieve some of the anxiety acknowledgment of even a segment of reality may be causing him. The question is why our society is producing so many people who exhibit the trait of strong denial of objective reality.

the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models

“C’mon people, you really think Obama, like him or not, is going to cover up for Bush and not stick it to him immediately?”

truthspeaker -

Largely off topic, but I think that on this matter, you are correct.

In situations where I have the constrained choice of doing something that will help to elect a typical Democrat, versus doing something that will help to elect a typical Republican, to me, it is clear that current Democrats are preferable, because science denial legislation/bureaucratic appointments, exploitation of ethnic bigotry, and exploitation of homophobia are much less common among Democrats. But the current Democrats are largely unable to take any real positive actions, and don't even attempt to fully maintain the status quo.

However, we must acknowledge that the most recent Republican administration, apparently deliberately, brilliantly set up situations that constrain the Democrats from taking even what timid positive actions they might otherwise have taken.

For example, a future terrorist attack that in some way impacts on US interests is highly likely to happen at some point in the future. Terrorists are despicable criminals who use mainly low tech methods against targets that have no relationship to any ostensible justifying rationale, and are willing to commit suicide in the process, in many cases. Logical policies can do a great deal to reduce the harm level, but total elimination of any such crimes is impossible. The gutting of civil rights in recent years is justified as "protecting against terrorism". Of course, it does no such thing. But if a Democrat takes any action that moves back toward basic respect for international norms of human rights as respected by free countries, as soon as that inevitable terrorist attack occurs, Republicans will be able to claim that it happened because of the return to former baseline respect for human rights, and campaign on that.

Likewise, the Bush administration created vast budget deficits, a substantial recession, and ongoing resource-draining wars. The propaganda press constantly beats the drum that the type of standard economic policies that even old time Republicans might have advanced would be "radical". The Democrats are forced to use weak medicine, in a situation in which even historically standard economic policy might have limited effects in the short term. The public becomes angry at the slow recovery. However, there are only two major parties, so, absurdly, the public flails back to the party which created the situation in the first place.

harold said: truthspeaker - Largely off topic, but I think that on this matter, you are correct. In situations where I have the constrained choice of doing something that will help to elect a typical Democrat, versus doing something that will help to elect a typical Republican, to me, it is clear that current Democrats are preferable, because science denial legislation/bureaucratic appointments, exploitation of ethnic bigotry, and exploitation of homophobia are much less common among Democrats. But the current Democrats are largely unable to take any real positive actions, and don't even attempt to fully maintain the status quo. However, we must acknowledge that the most recent Republican administration, apparently deliberately, brilliantly set up situations that constrain the Democrats from taking even what timid positive actions they might otherwise have taken. For example, a future terrorist attack that in some way impacts on US interests is highly likely to happen at some point in the future. Terrorists are despicable criminals who use mainly low tech methods against targets that have no relationship to any ostensible justifying rationale, and are willing to commit suicide in the process, in many cases. Logical policies can do a great deal to reduce the harm level, but total elimination of any such crimes is impossible. The gutting of civil rights in recent years is justified as "protecting against terrorism". Of course, it does no such thing. But if a Democrat takes any action that moves back toward basic respect for international norms of human rights as respected by free countries, as soon as that inevitable terrorist attack occurs, Republicans will be able to claim that it happened because of the return to former baseline respect for human rights, and campaign on that. Likewise, the Bush administration created vast budget deficits, a substantial recession, and ongoing resource-draining wars. The propaganda press constantly beats the drum that the type of standard economic policies that even old time Republicans might have advanced would be "radical". The Democrats are forced to use weak medicine, in a situation in which even historically standard economic policy might have limited effects in the short term. The public becomes angry at the slow recovery. However, there are only two major parties, so, absurdly, the public flails back to the party which created the situation in the first place.

My favorite flood geology claim is that the Grand Canyon formed quickly due to the rapid transit of a large volume of water. Even as they ignore the serpiginous route of the Colorado and the strata there is still a glaring oversight.

WHERE does a large volume of water disappear TO? The flood didn't drain out ala bathtub. I don't care how many foundations of the earth open. It took hundreds of days to (snicker) EVAPORATE over 5 miles of water covering the entire planet surface. Last I checked no matter how quickly a puddle evaporates it doesn't FLOW down.

NoodlyJames said: My favorite flood geology claim is that the Grand Canyon formed quickly due to the rapid transit of a large volume of water. Even as they ignore the serpiginous route of the Colorado and the strata there is still a glaring oversight. WHERE does a large volume of water disappear TO? The flood didn't drain out ala bathtub. I don't care how many foundations of the earth open. It took hundreds of days to (snicker) EVAPORATE over 5 miles of water covering the entire planet surface. Last I checked no matter how quickly a puddle evaporates it doesn't FLOW down.

John Vanko said:

NoodlyJames said: My favorite flood geology claim is that the Grand Canyon formed quickly due to the rapid transit of a large volume of water. Even as they ignore the serpiginous route of the Colorado and the strata there is still a glaring oversight. WHERE does a large volume of water disappear TO? The flood didn't drain out ala bathtub. I don't care how many foundations of the earth open. It took hundreds of days to (snicker) EVAPORATE over 5 miles of water covering the entire planet surface. Last I checked no matter how quickly a puddle evaporates it doesn't FLOW down.

Even more dishonest are the claims of their 'geologists' (i.e. fake geologists, degrees notwithstanding) that the Columbia River scablands are the direct result of 'the flood'. How stupid. 'The flood' as they describe it would have scoured all sedimentary rocks off every continent, right down to the crystalline basement. There would be no Grand Canyon. All the rocks around the canyon would have been eroded into the ocean too! They are lying and they know it.

Wyoming belongs to the American people and the wyomingers. So if state signs are being put up that contradict Christian teachings then its a mater of state/church isn't it.
If the legislature put only or also signs saying about the formations from a YEC stance would it be kosher to the evolution gang?!
Got a hunch they would say its state support for religion.
The great equation stands tall in the saddle.
If the state can't say God/genesis is true or a option for truth in state paid places then it CAN'T say its not true by banning creationism or teaching the opposite.
I never have got beat on this equation. REALLY.
I believe organized creationism will take this stance soon. In fact Luskin is flirting with some species of this as I understand.

Booby has been beat every single time. It's simple:

The State cannot support a religious teaching. Creationism is a religious teaching. Therefore the State cannot support it. Evolution is not a religious teaching, but a scientific fact. Therefore the State may support it. End of case.

Booby says he's never been beaten on this, because Booby's dead from the neck up, and he wouldn't notice if you were up him with an armful of chairs. Reality, to him, is what he wants it to be.

Robert Byers said: Wyoming belongs to the American people and the wyomingers. So if state signs are being put up that contradict Christian teachings then its a mater of state/church isn't it. If the legislature put only or also signs saying about the formations from a YEC stance would it be kosher to the evolution gang?! Got a hunch they would say its state support for religion. The great equation stands tall in the saddle. If the state can't say God/genesis is true or a option for truth in state paid places then it CAN'T say its not true by banning creationism or teaching the opposite. I never have got beat on this equation. REALLY. I believe organized creationism will take this stance soon. In fact Luskin is flirting with some species of this as I understand.

Robert Byers said: Wyoming belongs to the American people and the wyomingers. So if state signs are being put up that contradict Christian teachings then its a mater of state/church isn't it.

NoodlyJames said: My favorite flood geology claim is that the Grand Canyon formed quickly due to the rapid transit of a large volume of water. Even as they ignore the serpiginous route of the Colorado and the strata there is still a glaring oversight.

Robert Byers said: (the same batshit insane ramblings as always)

wyomingers

is that anything like a wanamingo?

There is such a large variety of religious opinions that it's difficult to imagine anything that anyone says would not be in conflict with some religious opinion. There are people who have the religious opinion, based on their reading of their holy books, that the earth is flat, or have opinions about the history of the Americas, or ...

Can anyone think of something which we can prove is not in conflict with any religious opinion? Is that what we are restricted to teaching in public schools in the USA?

Byers.

8.7

Disappointingly lacking in weird pseudo-biblical fantasy, but the lack is abundantly made-up for with the delightfully crazy claim that he has WON, and that his interpretation of American law is RIGHT, even though it loses every time it makes it to court. The United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of US law--Robert Byers is! Breathtaking in its brave craziness.

Extra points for having had this all explained to him many, many times, yet blithely persevering.

So if state signs are being put up that contradict Christian teachings then its a mater of state/church isn’t it.

Robert Byers said: WSo if state signs are being put up that contradict Christian teachings then its a mater of state/church isn't it.

I believe organized creationism will take this stance soon. In fact Luskin is flirting with some species of this as I understand.

I cross posted this story and, as someone pointed out, the Cretaceous sign has the wrong dates. The Cretaceous is from 145 to 65 mya. 245 mya is early Triassic.

Can anyone think of something which we can prove is not in conflict with any religious opinion?

It takes 3 licks to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop.

Just ask Mr. Owl

stevaroni said: Your God was good, Byers, he somehow managed to erase every single scrap of evidence for his existence. Now that's thoroughness.

Robert Byers said: Wyoming belongs to the American people and the wyomingers. So if state signs are being put up that contradict Christian teachings then its a mater of state/church isn't it.

Dave Luckett said: Booby has been beat every single time. It's simple: The State cannot support a religious teaching. Creationism is a religious teaching. Therefore the State cannot support it. Evolution is not a religious teaching, but a scientific fact. Therefore the State may support it. End of case. Booby says he's never been beaten on this, because Booby's dead from the neck up, and he wouldn't notice if you were up him with an armful of chairs. Reality, to him, is what he wants it to be.

Boob, what part of "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion" don't you understand?

Ah, sorry. I was asking Boob if he understood something. My bad. Of course he doesn't.

TomS said: There is such a large variety of religious opinions that it's difficult to imagine anything that anyone says would not be in conflict with some religious opinion. There are people who have the religious opinion, based on their reading of their holy books, that the earth is flat, or have opinions about the history of the Americas, or ... Can anyone think of something which we can prove is not in conflict with any religious opinion? Is that what we are restricted to teaching in public schools in the USA?

harold said: Robert Byers said -

So if state signs are being put up that contradict Christian teachings then its a mater of state/church isn’t it.

And indeed, if Wyoming or any other state put up a publicly funded sign that actually did unequivocally "contradict Christian teachings", that probably would be constitutionally problematic. For example, if a state sign said "Jesus Did Not Exist and Is Not Useful as a Metaphorical Figure of Spirituality Either. All Christianity is Entirely False. Therefore it is Implied that Other Religions are Preferable. Signed, the Government of Wyoming. This Sign Was Funded by Taxes.", such a sign would certainly seem to violate state/church norms. Of course it would be perfectly legal for a private individual to put up such a sign on private property, assuming it didn't violate appropriate local ordinances (e.g. it didn't block view of a traffic sign or some such thing). However, the signs Byers is complaining about merely make statements about rock formations that are intended to be factual according to mainstream geology (accidental error not withstanding). Millions of Christians accept the dates on the signs (except where there may be accidental scientific error), but that is irrelevant. Anyone can deny any aspect of scientific reality and claim that the denial is "religious". I could claim that only angels can fly, that airports and airplanes are illusionary, and that all signs which refer to airports contradict my religion and must be removed. This would be exactly analogous to what Byers is doing. This is the creationist behavior pattern in general. Arbitrarily contradict some aspect of reality and demand that the state use its authority to do the same, or at least censor mention of reality. However, since, as I noted above, since anyone can make up any arbitrary religious claim, such demands cannot be taken seriously. Scientific methodology is by definition the best way to arrive at consensus about issues clearly within its purvue, since it is based on objective, unbiased analysis and peer review.

The law is the law.

normally I might have a clue what this means.

coming from Bobby?

hell, could mean the moon is made of cheese.

Robert Byers lied when he said: The law is the law. This law is invoked to ban creationism. it is in fact a recent invention and doesn't exist in the constitution. Yet if its the working law then it must be obeyed. Your using it censor the truth as we see it. If it ruins education well then forsake the censorship and let freedom reign in america once more. The law is the law. Right now a law is invoked to censor ideas on origins, commonly held, in public schools/state territory. The law says no state/church interference with each other. Well these signs are saying for many the bible is also false on some doctrines. So this law is being broken. A new word is needed. Bi-origin equality.

Byers lies: "The law says no state/church interference with each other."

That's a lie. It doesn't say that. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion".

Byers, you're a liar as well as a fool. You are also a joke, but on this occasion, I'm not laughing.

Robert Byers said: It is simple. Your wrong. It isn't that the state can't support a religious teaching. Its that state/church can't interfere with each other. so the state can't oppose religious teachings. Words matter. Thats law.

Robert Byers said: The law is the law. Right now a law is invoked to censor ideas on origins, commonly held, in public schools/state territory. The law says no state/church interference with each other. Well these signs are saying for many the bible is also false on some doctrines. So this law is being broken. A new word is needed. Bi-origin equality.

Robert Byers said: This law is invoked to ban creationism.

Why can't you grasp the fact that "the law" in the US is what the US Supreme Court (as final arbiters) determine it to be? Even if you don't like their determination (and there are a couple of recent ones I don't like), they ARE THE LAW!

If we (in the US, not Canada) don't like the present law, as applied by the Supremes, we might get Congress to pass new laws, which again can be struck down or accepted as constitutional by the Court.

But again the LAW is what the Court says it is, and it says you're WRONG, Byers.

Just Bob said: Why can't you grasp the fact that "the law" in the US is what the US Supreme Court (as final arbiters) determine it to be? Even if you don't like their determination (and there are a couple of recent ones I don't like), they ARE THE LAW! If we (in the US, not Canada) don't like the present law, as applied by the Supremes, we might get Congress to pass new laws, which again can be struck down or accepted as constitutional by the Court. But again the LAW is what the Court says it is, and it says you're WRONG, Byers.

Oclarki said:

Robert Byers said: This law is invoked to ban creationism.

Creationism has effectively banned itself from science curricula because those who promote it consistently fail to demonstrate that its hypotheses have been developed and tested in accordance with the principles and methodologies of science. Outside of this self-imposed exile from the sciences, I can think of no other circumstances from which creationism has been banned by law.

Just Bob said: Why can't you grasp the fact that "the law" in the US is what the US Supreme Court (as final arbiters) determine it to be? Even if you don't like their determination (and there are a couple of recent ones I don't like), they ARE THE LAW! If we (in the US, not Canada) don't like the present law, as applied by the Supremes, we might get Congress to pass new laws, which again can be struck down or accepted as constitutional by the Court. But again the LAW is what the Court says it is, and it says you're WRONG, Byers.

Dave Luckett said: Byers lies: "The law says no state/church interference with each other." That's a lie. It doesn't say that. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion". Byers, you're a liar as well as a fool. You are also a joke, but on this occasion, I'm not laughing.

of coarse booby would rather follow a false religion so he can whine and moan about how persecuted he is than admit that his religion is false and he would rather not learn any englishes ever anyways

Robert Byers, you continue to talk like an idiot: Geology is not a religion, and making geological signs conform to Young Earth Creationism is illegal, period.

DS said: of coarse booby would rather follow a false religion so he can whine and moan about how persecuted he is than admit that his religion is false and he would rather not learn any englishes ever anyways

Robert Byers said: Huh? The law is the one banning creationism in school classes as a option for origins. This is why when creationism is brought in by legislatures it ends up in court. They claim its against the law.

Robert Byers said:

Dave Luckett said: Byers lies: "The law says no state/church interference with each other." That's a lie. It doesn't say that. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion". Byers, you're a liar as well as a fool. You are also a joke, but on this occasion, I'm not laughing.

I'm not lying! its a false accusation. Anyways. it is the essence of the whole debate that state/church should not interfere with each other. ... In short the state can't teach creationism because it is teaching religion as true. I say if it bans religion or teaches against it in origin issues then the state is making a law and a opinion on the [t]ruth of religion. Its breaking the law you invoke. In banning creationism the state is making a law respecting the [e]stablishment of religion. Its saying its false. By law. of coarse [sic] there is no such law in reality and the legislature is the one to decide.

“You can’t teach evolution, because it disagrees with my religion”: Shot down by Epperson v. Arkansas, and again by Seagraves v. State of California.

“OK, you can teach evolution, but you have to teach both”: Shot down by McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.

“But evolution is a religion, too; so teaching it violates the Establishment Clause …”: Shot down by Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District.

“… and making me teach it against my beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause …”: Also shot down by Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District.

“… and making me shut up about my religion in the classroom violates my First Amendment freedom of speech, too”: Also shot down by Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, and again by Webster v. New Lennox School District.

“Well, alright, you don’t have to teach either, but if you do teach evolution, you also have to give equal time to “creation science”: Shot down by Edwards v. Aguillard.

“And if our Christian fundamentalist school teaches that evolution is baloney and rewrites history a la Texas, the University of California has to admit our kids anyway”: Shot down by Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns.

“OK, teach evolution, and don’t teach creationism. But let the kids know there’s this other ‘theory’ out there – and by the way, we didn’t say the word ‘God’”: Shot down by Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover Area School District.

John_S said: Lying is a strong word ... let's say you're misinformed.

MrG said:

John_S said: Lying is a strong word ... let's say you're misinformed.

Ah, a tactful Panda. It is not the norm here. I am of the opionion that RB believes every word he says. I must add, however, that I don't really understand how.

Stanton said: Robert Byers believes every moronic word he spouts because he's an idiot, that's why.

John_S said:

Robert Byers said:

Dave Luckett said: Byers lies: "The law says no state/church interference with each other." That's a lie. It doesn't say that. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion". Byers, you're a liar as well as a fool. You are also a joke, but on this occasion, I'm not laughing.

I'm not lying! its a false accusation. Anyways. it is the essence of the whole debate that state/church should not interfere with each other. ... In short the state can't teach creationism because it is teaching religion as true. I say if it bans religion or teaches against it in origin issues then the state is making a law and a opinion on the [t]ruth of religion. Its breaking the law you invoke. In banning creationism the state is making a law respecting the [e]stablishment of religion. Its saying its false. By law. of coarse [sic] there is no such law in reality and the legislature is the one to decide.

Lying is a strong word ... let's say you're misinformed. Similar arguments have also been shot down in court. I have a feeling I've quoted these before, but you don't seem to have paid much attention. This is US law. Read the decisions. The first case addresses your argument that "if it bans religion or teaches against it in origin issues then the state is making a law and a opinion on the [t]ruth of religion.":

“You can’t teach evolution, because it disagrees with my religion”: Shot down by Epperson v. Arkansas, and again by Seagraves v. State of California.

“OK, you can teach evolution, but you have to teach both”: Shot down by McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.

“But evolution is a religion, too; so teaching it violates the Establishment Clause …”: Shot down by Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District.

“… and making me teach it against my beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause …”: Also shot down by Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District.

“… and making me shut up about my religion in the classroom violates my First Amendment freedom of speech, too”: Also shot down by Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, and again by Webster v. New Lennox School District.

“Well, alright, you don’t have to teach either, but if you do teach evolution, you also have to give equal time to “creation science”: Shot down by Edwards v. Aguillard.

“And if our Christian fundamentalist school teaches that evolution is baloney and rewrites history a la Texas, the University of California has to admit our kids anyway”: Shot down by Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns.

“OK, teach evolution, and don’t teach creationism. But let the kids know there’s this other ‘theory’ out there – and by the way, we didn’t say the word ‘God’”: Shot down by Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover Area School District.