Lauri Lebo on the Tennessee anti-evolution bill

The Dishonesty Institute is asking its readers to e-mail Governor Haslam.

I would follow this advice of theirs:

Contact Governor Bill Haslam now and urge him to sign HB 368 into law.

bill.haslam@tn.gov

Tel: (615) 741-2001

Be respectful in your message

I just sent this e-mail to Governor Haslam:

Dear Governor Haslam:

As a fellow Republican who views himself as a Conservative and is educated in science, I am urging you to veto Tennessee HB Bill 368. If you sign it, you would be contributing to the nationwide trend of declining science standards noted last week by former University of Virginia Provost and former Director, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole (MA), Dr. Paul R. Gross, a fellow Conservative, who has written extensively about the threat posed by "scientific creationists" who espouse Intelligent Design and other forms of creationism; a dire threat to our nation's economic and technological future that has been echoed by the likes of Brown University cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller, American Museum of Natural History invertebrate paleontologist Nile Eldredge, and many others:

http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-weekly/2012/march-22/still-dissing-darwin-1.html#body

After reading the language of Tennessee HB Bill, I realized immediately that it is the latest, most sophisticated, attempt to insert religiously-motivated pseudoscientific ideas like Intelligent Design and other forms of "scientific creationism" into your state's public science classrooms.

The eight Tennessee residents who are members of the National Academy of Sciences recently issued a statement urging that the General Assembly to vote against HB 368 and its Senate equivalent, SB 893. They concluded:

"These bills encourage teachers to emphasize what are misdescribed as the 'scientific

weaknesses' of evolution, which in practice are likely to include scientifically

unwarranted criticisms of evolution. As educators whose teaching involves and is based

on evolution, we affirm-- along with the nation’s leading science education organizations,

including the National Association of Biology Teachers and the National Science

Teachers Association -- that evolution is a central and crucial part of science education.

Neglecting evolution is pedagogically irresponsible."

"By undermining the teaching of evolution in Tennessee’s public schools, HB 368 and SB

893 would miseducate students, harm the state’s national reputation, and weaken its
efforts to compete in a science-driven global economy."

I hope you will heed their recommendation - as well as mine - and veto HB 368.


Sincerely yours,

John Kwok

From the article: "(Tennessee State Legislator) Dunn could not explain why a Christian organization would be pushing legislation that supposedly has nothing to do with inserting religion into science class."

Gosh, what could that reason possibly be? Particularly since the Family Action Council of Tennessee got the template for the proposed legislation from the Dishonesty Institute, mothership of intelligent design creationism.

All you have to do is follow the trail of slime back to its source. This will make it so much easier for the upcoming "Dover Trap" trials.

"…[T]oday's evolutionary scientists have become the modern-day equivalents of those who tried to silence Rhea County schoolteacher John Scopes for teaching evolution in 1925, by limiting even an objective discussion of the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory,"

Good of you to mention this, Richard. Lauri's article never did get the attention I thought it deserved.

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Good of you to mention this, Richard. Lauri's article never did get the attention I thought it deserved.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/57vt.Vh1yeasb_9YKQq4GyYNFhAbTpY-#b1375 said:

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Good of you to mention this, Richard. Lauri's article never did get the attention I thought it deserved.

It's always good to remind others, SensuousCurmudgeon, but this essay of hers was noticed and disseminated by many. Am surprised RBH just learned of it.

Nevertheless, I still think one of the most powerful arguments against the Tennessee bill is that it comes directly from the Discovery Institute, and I don't see that angle emphasized enough. Well, in Tennessee that may be seen as a reason to enact this law, but it's still something that should be mentioned more often.

Its weird and funny and weird to see such desperation to stop kids getting the essence on very common and popular and historical contentions on great matters of origins.
Its hurting the kids they cry!!
Well Christians historically would of said sincerely teaching against Christian , or perceived Christian, conclusions about nature would HURT the kids.
So censorship was around in times of more Christian society.
to overcome this they cried FREEDOM to explore the facts.
Now its STOP the exploring as the facts is settled or desirable.
Oh Brother.

I guess it does matter what kids are exposed to in schools.
they are also being exposed to how one should keep an eye on what truth is taught and who decides.

again however remember its not about teaching SCIENCE but about CONCLUSIONS in certain subjects that are presented as scientific ones and so not wrong.
creationism is saying the conclusions are wrong and take on the claim that science has been effective or involved at all in the CONCLUSIONS.
it sure seems like they are demanding the bible is false.
Very close to teaching some religious doctrines are false.!
that couldn't be however as there is a separation of state and church.
You know hands off each others .

SensuousCurmudgeon said: Nevertheless, I still think one of the most powerful arguments against the Tennessee bill is that it comes directly from the Discovery Institute, and I don't see that angle emphasized enough. Well, in Tennessee that may be seen as a reason to enact this law, but it's still something that should be mentioned more often.

Fowler, who would not say whether he is a young earth creationist ("I think that's irrelevant," he noted)

Robert Byers, it can't be repeated enough, but, you are an idiot. Not wanting children to be taught religious propaganda, instead of science, in a science classroom is not censorship.

Quite frankly, you are an evil liar to claim that this is somehow censorship that harms children.

Furthermore, creationists repeatedly demonstrate that they are not out to teach their students science, if they intend to teach their students anything at all.

Robert Byers said: Its weird and funny and weird to see such desperation to stop kids getting the essence on very common and popular and historical contentions on great matters of origins. Its hurting the kids they cry!! Well Christians historically would of said sincerely teaching against Christian , or perceived Christian, conclusions about nature would HURT the kids. So censorship was around in times of more Christian society. to overcome this they cried FREEDOM to explore the facts. Now its STOP the exploring as the facts is settled or desirable. Oh Brother. I guess it does matter what kids are exposed to in schools. they are also being exposed to how one should keep an eye on what truth is taught and who decides. again however remember its not about teaching SCIENCE but about CONCLUSIONS in certain subjects that are presented as scientific ones and so not wrong. creationism is saying the conclusions are wrong and take on the claim that science has been effective or involved at all in the CONCLUSIONS. it sure seems like they are demanding the bible is false. Very close to teaching some religious doctrines are false.! that couldn't be however as there is a separation of state and church. You know hands off each others .

Robert Byers the Evil Liar lied: Its weird and funny and weird to see such desperation to stop kids getting the essence on very common and popular and historical contentions on great matters of origins. Its hurting the kids they cry!! Well Christians historically would of said sincerely teaching against Christian , or perceived Christian, conclusions about nature would HURT the kids. So censorship was around in times of more Christian society. to overcome this they cried FREEDOM to explore the facts. Now its STOP the exploring as the facts is settled or desirable. Oh Brother.

I guess it does matter what kids are exposed to in schools. they are also being exposed to how one should keep an eye on what truth is taught and who decides.

again however remember its not about teaching SCIENCE but about CONCLUSIONS in certain subjects that are presented as scientific ones and so not wrong.

creationism is saying the conclusions are wrong and take on the claim that science has been effective or involved at all in the CONCLUSIONS.

it sure seems like they are demanding the bible is false.

Very close to teaching some religious doctrines are false.!

You know hands off each others .

SLC said: Here's a question for Booby Byers. Does he believe that Joshua caused the Sun to stand still in the sky for a day, as claimed in the Book of Joshua? If so, how does he explain why nobody else in other civilizations such as Egypt and China noted this remarkable event?

Robert Byers said: it sure seems like they are demanding the bible is false. Very close to teaching some religious doctrines are false.! that couldn't be however as there is a separation of state and church. You know hands off each others .

John_S said:

Robert Byers said: it sure seems like they are demanding the bible is false. Very close to teaching some religious doctrines are false.! that couldn't be however as there is a separation of state and church. You know hands off each others .

a) no one is "demanding the Bible is false". That's just a conclusion reached by a minority of Christian fundamentalists, Orthodox Jews and Muslims. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, doesn't see a conflict between science and their faith. Address this issue or STFU! b) It is established under US law that teaching doesn't have to conform to anyone's beliefs. I cited the exact US court cases to you months ago in other posts. I'm not going to repeat them, since you've ignored them. You just keep saying the same crap over and over regardless of any counter-arguments offered to you. Address the Supreme Court's arguments or STFU! This guy is just a typical "drive-by" parrot of the same things no matter what anyone says to him. If someone offers a counter-example, he runs off on a tangent arguing about the counter-example and derailing the thread instead of addressing the actual argument.

it sure seems like they are demanding the bible is false. Very close to teaching some religious doctrines are false.!

Its weird and funny and weird to see such desperation to try to force kids into getting the essence on very common and popular and historical contentions on great matters of origins. Its hurting the kids they cry!! Well Christians historically would of said sincerely teaching against Christian , or perceived Christian, conclusions about nature would HURT the kids. So censorship was around in times of more Christian society. to overcome this they cried FREEDOM to explore the facts. Now that they have actually got the fact the exploring as the facts is settled or desirable. Oh Brother. Why don't you just give up on the facts you don't have and admits to the ones you does.

I guess it does matter what kids are exposed to in schools. they are also being exposed to how one should keep an eye on what truth is taught and who decides. They are being taught why the science that has been so successful at lengthening their lives and increasing their standard of living is so important.

again however remember its about teaching SCIENCE and about CONCLUSIONS in certain subjects that are scientific ones and so not wrong. creationism is saying the conclusions are wrong and take on the claim that science has been effective or involved at all in the CONCLUSIONS,but that's just so much boloney. it sure seems like they are demanding the bible is false, but of course if it contradicts the facts that are being known, that's just too bad. Very close to teaching some religious doctrines are false, but not really since no one cares unless the religion make claims contrary to reality..! that couldn't be however even if there is a separation of state and church. You know hands off each others . But if religions want to try to play science, then they is the ones who are not keeping hands off. So stop that nonsense or you will pay the price.

DS said: [a bunch of imitation Byers stuff]

Do you suppose he got a computer program to generate it? :p

Robert Byers said: it sure seems like they are demanding the bible is false.

Just Bob said:

DS said: [a bunch of imitation Byers stuff]

I said it on another thread, and I'll say it again: How can you stand to write that stuff? You have a stronger stomach than I do, Gunga Din.

The Governor of Tennessee, Bill Haslam, is accepting messages regarding HB 368.

Contact Governor Bill Haslam now and urge him to veto HB 368.

bill.haslam@tn.gov

Tel: (615) 741-2001

Be respectful in your message.

As I see it, the question of the Sun standing still presents a problem not just for one correspondent to the Panda's Thumb. It is for every person who claims to hold to the literal truth of the Bible yet accepts that the Earth is in motion around the Sun.

For some 2000 years (500 BC to AD 1500) everybody accepted that the Bible taught that the Sun makes a daily motion around a fixed Earth. One cannot claim that the Biblical texts in support of geocentrism are plainly figurative: Lots of smart and sincere believers for a long time didn't notice that the texts were figurative. Not until the rise of modern science and the use of complex scientific instruments did it become clear that the Earth was a planet of the Sun. No one would believe that the Earth was in motion unless they accepted that naturalistic evidence and reasoning could influence how one should treat the Bible.

How can anyone claim Biblical literalism overrides naturalistic thought and accept the modern scientific view of the Solar System?

TomS said: How can anyone claim Biblical literalism overrides naturalistic thought and accept the modern scientific view of the Solar System?

The problem from a theological point of view, Tom, is not that this stopping of the sun is impossible. Miracles are, by definition, events that are impossible within the order of nature. So in order to perform them, God suspends the order of nature.

So the Earth stopped rotating, and God suspended or modified all the natural laws that would make this a tad inconvenient for life on it. F=ma? Gone! Newton's Third Law? No longer applies! Implications for wind belts, weather, air movements, tides, momentum, movement of the oceans, structural integrity of the planet, you name it? All rescinded. You think God can't do this? Allow me to introduce you to my little friend, the word "omnipotent".

Look, it's no more crazy than talking snakes or donkeys, and damn near mundane compared with fruit that you eat to know the difference between good and evil. Some theologians quibble over things like "uncovenanted miracles" when it turns out that stopping the sun is not one miracle, it's billions on end, but they're just party-poopers.

Actually, for theologians, God walking in the Garden because He enjoyed the cool of the evening, or not knowing that Adam had eaten of the fruit until He saw that Adam had clothed himself - those are more of a problem. I am not making this up.

Exactly.

God (supposedly) can do any damn thing, at any time, for reasons beyond human understanding. Which makes creationism absolutely useless as a science.

Dave Luckett said: The problem from a theological point of view, Tom, is not that this stopping of the sun is impossible. Miracles are, by definition, events that are impossible within the order of nature. So in order to perform them, God suspends the order of nature. So the Earth stopped rotating, and God suspended or modified all the natural laws that would make this a tad inconvenient for life on it. F=ma? Gone! Newton's Third Law? No longer applies! Implications for wind belts, weather, air movements, tides, momentum, movement of the oceans, structural integrity of the planet, you name it? All rescinded. You think God can't do this? Allow me to introduce you to my little friend, the word "omnipotent". Look, it's no more crazy than talking snakes or donkeys, and damn near mundane compared with fruit that you eat to know the difference between good and evil. Some theologians quibble over things like "uncovenanted miracles" when it turns out that stopping the sun is not one miracle, it's billions on end, but they're just party-poopers. Actually, for theologians, God walking in the Garden because He enjoyed the cool of the evening, or not knowing that Adam had eaten of the fruit until He saw that Adam had clothed himself - those are more of a problem. I am not making this up.

My problem is not any difficulty with the motion of the Sun around the Earth. Quite the opposite. It is no more difficult to accept that the Sun goes around the Earth than it is to accept that all of the "kinds" of living things were created over the course of a few days less than 10,000 years ago.

The problem is that the standards of Biblical literalism which demand that all of the evidence and reasoning in support of life having evolved over many millions of years be rejected in favor of a particular interpretation of the Bible does not (except rarely) extend to rejecting the Earth as planet of the Sun. It was the universally accepted reading of the Bible for the majority of the existence of the Bible in the Church that the Sun goes around the Earth. The belief that the Earth goes around the Sun was a result of naturalistic evidence and reasoning, using techniques that didn't exist before the rise of modern science. It most certainly is not obvious that those geocentric passages were meant figuratively.

How can someone justify taking a non-literalist position with respect to geocentrism and insist upon a literalist position with respect to an "old earth"? Even in the early days of Christianity one can find non-literalist interpretations of the "days" of Genesis 1. (Augustine, for example.)

Someone who is a heliocentric creationist on the basis of a literal reading of the Bible outweighing naturalistic evidence gives the impression of being a "cafeteria literalist", choosing literalism only when it is to one's liking.

TomS said: My problem is not any difficulty with the motion of the Sun around the Earth. Quite the opposite. It is no more difficult to accept that the Sun goes around the Earth than it is to accept that all of the "kinds" of living things were created over the course of a few days less than 10,000 years ago. The problem is that the standards of Biblical literalism which demand that all of the evidence and reasoning in support of life having evolved over many millions of years be rejected in favor of a particular interpretation of the Bible does not (except rarely) extend to rejecting the Earth as planet of the Sun. It was the universally accepted reading of the Bible for the majority of the existence of the Bible in the Church that the Sun goes around the Earth. The belief that the Earth goes around the Sun was a result of naturalistic evidence and reasoning, using techniques that didn't exist before the rise of modern science. It most certainly is not obvious that those geocentric passages were meant figuratively. How can someone justify taking a non-literalist position with respect to geocentrism and insist upon a literalist position with respect to an "old earth"? Even in the early days of Christianity one can find non-literalist interpretations of the "days" of Genesis 1. (Augustine, for example.) Someone who is a heliocentric creationist on the basis of a literal reading of the Bible outweighing naturalistic evidence gives the impression of being a "cafeteria literalist", choosing literalism only when it is to one's liking.

To add to TomS's comment, "heliocentric YEC" really took off when creationism evolved from "mere belief system" to "full blown pseudoscience" in the mid 20th century. Whether its peddlers personally believe that their "cafeteria" interpretation is the correct one, or just think sells best (to save the world and all), it has managed to get most fellow "Darwinists" to hastily imply, despite knowing better, that that it's the only anti-evolution position that exists. Yet it has ironically won over fewer than half of rank-and-file evolution-deniers.

With AiG whining about the DI (which in turn looks the other way), and Tony Pagano (geocentrist) and Ray Martinez (OEC) practically calling each other "atheists" I think it's time to put more focus on the "don't ask, don't tell what happened when" antics of the DI, and their (supposed) Biblical literalist followers who are in on the scam.

BTW, hat tip to John. I just emailed Gov. Haslam. And no, I didn't bribe him with a bottle of Old No. 7.

harold said: Nobody has ever been a true Biblical literalist*.

hey y'all,

most are missing the boat here. this is about academic freedom for teachers and students. teaching students HOW to think, not WHAT to think.
it's about experimental, falsifiable, observable science - not religion!

here's a problem for you.

please, explain SETI science apart from ID science.

low probability + specific objective pattern = intelligence ->(yielding) information x(by) design

please, explain SETI science apart from ID science.

toothful said: hey y'all, most are missing the boat here. this is about academic freedom for teachers and students. teaching students HOW to think, not WHAT to think. it's about experimental, falsifiable, observable science - not religion! here's a problem for you. please, explain SETI science apart from ID science. low probability + specific objective pattern = intelligence ->(yielding) information x(by) design

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

please, explain SETI science apart from ID science.

Alien evolution, ignoramus. And those on our side don't deny that intelligence could evolve, then act intelligently. What no known intelligence has ever done is to make life with all of the limitations of unintelligent evolution. Explain intelligence without a prior evolution, technology, and civilization, like the kind that IDiots claim made life. Glen Davidson

Why is it so hard for Intelligent Design proponents to explain to anyone why saying "DESIGNERDIDIT" is supposed to be science, let alone why it deserves a place in a science education curriculum?

TomS said: It was the universally accepted reading of the Bible for the majority of the existence of the Bible in the Church that the Sun goes around the Earth.

toothful said: hey y'all, most are missing the boat here. this is about academic freedom for teachers and students. teaching students HOW to think, not WHAT to think. it's about experimental, falsifiable, observable science - not religion! here's a problem for you. please, explain SETI science apart from ID science. low probability + specific objective pattern = intelligence ->(yielding) information x(by) design

Paul Burnett said:

harold said: Nobody has ever been a true Biblical literalist*.

Agreed. I bet even that blockhead Byers eats pork (Leviticus 11:7), or eats fat (Leviticus 3:17), or gets a haircut or trims his beard (Leviticus 19:27), or has a garment made of two different materials (Leviticus 19:19). Whattaya say, Robert?

apokryltaros said:

toothful said: ... please, explain SETI science apart from ID science. ...

There are actually several ways to distinguish SETI from Intelligent Design. If we move past the fact that SETI scientists have careers doing science, and Intelligent Design proponents do not, the primary difference is that SETI scientists set up actual parameters to help them search for intelligent life, whereas Intelligent Design proponents use their own deliberate ignorance of Biology in order to claim GODDIDIT and deny the occurrence of evolution. SETI scientists search for intelligent life by aiming their satellite dishes at sufficiently old star systems they suspect may harbor life in order to list for radio waves that may or may not be coming from technologically advanced civilizations. ...

SETI isn't about what led to what we see here on Earth; it is about what might or might not have occurred on other planets within range of our means of detecting it.

The basic idea as, I understand it, it fairly simple: that which happened here might have happened elsewhere. Oh, not the same details, but something roughly analogous.

Henry

I apologise for being a troll and only appearing when the egregious Mr Byers fronts but he is such a prat it is hard not to yield. And now another rube has arrived in the form of 'toothful' to regail us with brain farts that pre-date Kitzmiller; shit, they're anti-diluvian.

Toothful, SETI is a possibility, a search that is worthy of the effort as we are beings that strive and question. ID doesn't strive toward answers, it certainly doesn't question, indeed it is impossible to ask questions when you have the answers pre-prepared. Byers aaah you little independent echo-chamber you. Constantly asking purile already answered questions in the vain hope that with quantitiy you will make up for your willful ignorance. Gentlemen! Have either of you read Plato's 'Myth of the Cave', both of you should you are the turds sharing a particularly lonely damp spot with little light and no hope of ever seeing the Light. (I don't mean jesus either.)

The parallels between SETI and ID are superficial.

1. SETI is the search for intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. Intelligent Design is the search for the latest version of the xian god.

2. Neither theory has yet discovered anything.

toothful said: hey y'all, most are missing the boat here. this is about academic freedom for teachers and students. teaching students HOW to think, not WHAT to think. it's about experimental, falsifiable, observable science - not religion! here's a problem for you. please, explain SETI science apart from ID science. low probability + specific objective pattern = intelligence ->(yielding) information x(by) design

DS said:

toothful said: hey y'all, most are missing the boat here. this is about academic freedom for teachers and students. teaching students HOW to think, not WHAT to think. it's about experimental, falsifiable, observable science - not religion! here's a problem for you. please, explain SETI science apart from ID science. low probability + specific objective pattern = intelligence ->(yielding) information x(by) design

It is most decidedly not about academic freedom. Academic freedom is not the freedom to commit academic fraud. It does not include the freedom to ignore evidence and misrepresent the conclusions of science. It does not include the freedom to substitute religion for science. Believe me, you don't want that either. If you teach students how to think, they will inevitably conclude that evolution is true, at least when they are familiar with the evidence. This is in fact why there is no scientific controversy. There is one obvious interpretation of the evidence and any thinking person would be convinced by the evidence. All the experimental, falsifiable, observable evidence leads inexorably to this conclusion.

toothful said: hey y'all, most are missing the boat here. this is about academic freedom for teachers and students. teaching students HOW to think, not WHAT to think. it's about experimental, falsifiable, observable science - not religion! here's a problem for you. please, explain SETI science apart from ID science. low probability + specific objective pattern = intelligence ->(yielding) information x(by) design

most are missing the boat here. this is about academic freedom for teachers and students. teaching students HOW to think, not WHAT to think. it’s about experimental, falsifiable, observable science

teaching students HOW to think, not WHAT to think

Dave Luckett said: A "literalist" can take refuge in the fact that although the Bible may in places appear to imply that the sun is in motion around the Earth - the passage from Joshua 10, for instance - the Bible never actually says "the sun is in motion around the Earth". After all, we say "the sun rises" and "the sun sets" without meaning that the sun is actually in motion except relatively to the spot on the Earth where we stand. On the other hand, the Bible does say explicitly and in so many words that God created the Universe, Earth and all life in six days; that He created all life forms "in their kinds" ab initio; that He created human beings from the dust of the ground (and woman from man) in their present form. It says those things specifically. It does not say specifically that the sun goes around the Earth.

teaching students HOW to think, not WHAT to think

What difference does it make? The guy was obviously a drive by, crap spewing creotard. He didn't have the guts to stick around and answer the responses he provoked. Just add cowardice to the list of creationist traits, which now includes:

1) Hypocricy

2) Projection

3) Dishonesty

harold said: Nobody has ever been a true Biblical literalist*.

DS said: What difference does it make? The guy was obviously a drive by, crap spewing creotard. He didn't have the guts to stick around and answer the responses he provoked. Just add cowardice to the list of creationist traits, which now includes: 1) Hypocricy 2) Projection 3) Dishonesty

Dave Luckett said: A "literalist" can take refuge in the fact that although the Bible may in places appear to imply that the sun is in motion around the Earth - the passage from Joshua 10, for instance - the Bible never actually says "the sun is in motion around the Earth". After all, we say "the sun rises" and "the sun sets" without meaning that the sun is actually in motion except relatively to the spot on the Earth where we stand.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Some in the pews really do believe that the sun stood still as related in Joshua.

And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees. And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

I have mentioned several times in the past few weeks that you "Darwinists" have been worrying me with all your Bible talk and obsession with "fundies" and (heliocentric) YEC. It pains me to say this but the DI is almost making more sense in comparison. They have no science of course, but for kicks I contacted them and asked if they would put their $ where their mouths are (the "ID is not creationism" whine) and criticize Tony Pagano's geocentrism. I showed them how he makes all sorts of testable claims, without identifying any designer. To my astonishment they said that, while they disagree with his claims (but not to tell anyone) they think it will be a good idea to have them taught - and critically analyzed - in science class. They realize that, if the "critical analysis" of evolution passes, sooner or later many people will be objecting that "critical analysis" only applies to evolution and not to the alternatives (YEC, OEC, geocentrism, etc.), and accuse them of promoting censorship. Why critics (other than me, TomS and a few others) are not doing that now is a mystery, but that's another story. More importantly, since these "academic freedom" bills seem to be gaining traction, it won't be long before most 9th graders will know the name Tony Pagano. And you can thank me, and remember the day that I told you about it.

Some in the pews really do believe that the sun stood still as related in Joshua.

ntievolution.org Discussion Board :: The Critic's Resource on ... ww.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/.../static/topic-3-14-5138-180.html Norman Geisler, Kent Hovind, and Hugh Ross have all stated that flying saucers come from the Devil and are used to entice good Christians into the Occult.

Frank J said: I have mentioned several times in the past few weeks that you "Darwinists" have been worrying me with all your Bible talk and obsession with "fundies" and (heliocentric) YEC. It pains me to say this but the DI is almost making more sense in comparison. They have no science of course, but for kicks I contacted them and asked if they would put their $ where their mouths are (the "ID is not creationism" whine) and criticize Tony Pagano's geocentrism. I showed them how he makes all sorts of testable claims, without identifying any designer. To my astonishment they said that, while they disagree with his claims (but not to tell anyone) they think it will be a good idea to have them taught - and critically analyzed - in science class. They realize that, if the "critical analysis" of evolution passes, sooner or later many people will be objecting that "critical analysis" only applies to evolution and not to the alternatives (YEC, OEC, geocentrism, etc.), and accuse them of promoting censorship. Why critics (other than me, TomS and a few others) are not doing that now is a mystery, but that's another story. More importantly, since these "academic freedom" bills seem to be gaining traction, it won't be long before most 9th graders will know the name Tony Pagano. And you can thank me, and remember the day that I told you about it.

Harold is exactly right. The Disco Tute supports anybody, and I mean anybody, who even hints at not liking evolution. Their goal is to create doubt about science in general starting with evolution which they feel is "controversial," at least as a talking point.

Yeah, they'll worry about sorting out friend from foe after the main battle is won, at which time they'll battle about whose prayers should be heard in public school morning announcements. However, after ten years of banging their collective heads against the wall they've made little progress.

Doc Bill said: Harold is exactly right. The Disco Tute supports anybody, and I mean anybody, who even hints at not liking evolution. Their goal is to create doubt about science in general starting with evolution which they feel is "controversial," at least as a talking point.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: it sure seems like they are demanding the bible is false.

Okay, Robert - put up or shut up: Is the bible true or false? ...Insects have four legs (Leviticus 11:20-23) True or false?

raven said: A lot of fundies believe the moon is a self glowing disk because that is what it says in Genesis. They never explain why the Apollo astronauts never noticed this glow as they walked the surface. Probably they think the moon landings were faked.

I wonder if we can convince Mike Argento's employers to send him to Tennesse?

He and Lebo were quite a tag-team at Dover.

hey y'all,

you're, yet missin' it!

how do SETI scientists determine if the data, which they are receiving is intelligently designed information?

no one here (that being me) has said a thing about WHO the intelligent information should be ascribed to, no matter what the phenomena being researched. Just determining if it has the "signature" of being intelligently designed is what ID science is about, and that's what SETI is about.

you are the ones jumping to conclusions of sources, not me.

raven said: The parallels between SETI and ID are superficial. 1. SETI is the search for intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. Intelligent Design is the search for the latest version of the xian god. 2. Neither theory has yet discovered anything.

MichaelJ said:

raven said: The parallels between SETI and ID are superficial. 1. SETI is the search for intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. Intelligent Design is the search for the latest version of the xian god. 2. Neither theory has yet discovered anything.

The biggest difference is that when SETI gets a signal they try their hardest to find a natural explanation for the signal. If SETI was like the DI they would be demanding that schools teach that Quasars are actually signals from Aliens.

toothful said: tell you what, get together as many top biologists as you can and have them build a living cell capable of reproducing itself with all the info codes, blue prints, factories, machinery, and central processing unit it must contain, and then, give it to some engineers to reverse engineer, and see if they come to the conclusion that it was a product of unguided, natural processes...or if they conclude that it was intelligently designed. keep in mind that that is just a single cell...can you imagine building a complete common mammal with every bone, organ, fluid, neuron and capillary just the right size and quantity, and in just the right place?

This is, of course, Paley's argument. It must be designed, because it looks designed. It is very complex and intricate, with a large number of interrelated parts that work together for a specifiable purpose, so it must be designed for that purpose.

But what if it can be demonstrated that complex systems with many intricate interrelated parts that fulfil a purpose can exist without being designed? Weather, for instance. Even engineering solutions arrived at by reiteration of blind selection for function. The process of selection may be designed, but the solutions are arrived at without any design in view at all. There have been intricate electronics assemblies created by this process that the engineers didn't understand. But they worked better than the "designed" components did.

Blind selection for function, generation upon generation, can and does imitate design. It can and does build up enormous complexity and intricacy. It can and does increase in efficiency over time. And the function living things are selected for is simply survival and reproduction in a changing world.

Dave Luckett said: Byers actually demonstrated a fact in this last. Of course, it wasn't the fact he intended to demonstrate, but for Byers, that's par for the course. It was here:

it sure seems like they are demanding the bible is false. Very close to teaching some religious doctrines are false.!

Who Byers means by "they" in the first sentence is unclear, Byers being as incapable of coherent prose as he is of coherent thought. He probably means "people who insist that creationism can't be taught as science in public schools", but he might mean "scientists" or "the courts" or "Constitutional lawyers". But whatever he means by that, he has just given the game away. In what passes for the mind of Byers, not teaching creationism is the same thing as teaching that the Bible is false. It is the same thing as teaching that some religious doctrines are false. Specifically, his religious doctrines. So there you have it. To Byers, if you don't teach "some religious doctrines" - namely, his - in the public schools, you are actually teaching alternative religious doctrines, namely that his doctrines are false. So he has just cheerfully admitted that his objective is to have his religious doctrines taught as fact in the public schools. This is of course the same objective as the Discovery Institute's, but Byers is fatuous enough to come right out with it, while the DI tries to hide it. Byers should be encouraged, I think. His is a two-pronged attack on creationism. Yes, you read that correctly. Byers should be displayed to everybody who thinks that public schools should "teach both sides" or "explore the controversy" or "encourage open enquiry". He'll cheerfully blurt out the facts: it's not about controversy or enquiry; he doesn't want both sides taught. He wants his religion taught. He doesn't want anyone else's taught. He wants the public schools turned into madrassas. He wants the State to proselytise for his sect. Ultimately, he wants the State to be his sect. The DI would give a great deal to shut him up. He's giving the game away, and doing it with the same idiotic incomprehension that Byers does everything. That imbecilic unawareness of his own cluelessness is the second prong of the attack. Nobody can read Byers without becoming aware that he's irrational; that the entire fabric of his consciousness is riven with self-evident internal contradictions and syllogisms so obviously false as to be ridiculous, compounded with an ignorance so comprehensive that it can only be the product of a lifetime's coddling. The mouth-breathing goobers who actually believe the same things as he does won't read or comprehend him anyway, being incapable of it, so he's impotent to move them. Anyone who does manage to extract meaning from his shambolic prose will necessarily be brought face-to-face with a granite truth - that this is what religious fundamentalism does to minds. And having seen it, will allow the schools to teach it to their children only over their dead bodies.

toothful said: tell you what, get together as many top biologists as you can and have them build a living cell capable of reproducing itself with all the info codes, blue prints, factories, machinery, and central processing unit it must contain, and then, give it to some engineers to reverse engineer, and see if they come to the conclusion that it was a product of unguided, natural processes...or if they conclude that it was intelligently designed. keep in mind that that is just a single cell...can you imagine building a complete common mammal with every bone, organ, fluid, neuron and capillary just the right size and quantity, and in just the right place?

The biggest difference is that when SETI gets a signal they try their hardest to find a natural explanation for the signal. If SETI was like the DI they would be demanding that schools teach that Quasars are actually signals from Aliens.

personally knew of of one YEC that disputed the moon landings!

Byers said: I think I’m a bulls eye on this line of reasoning.

to teach the truth is the objective in subjects dealing with the truth.

Robert Byers

I'm guessing that you're utterly unfamiliar with the history of science, and that you're unaware that creationists ( in the literal sense as you understand it, such as Newton ) spent hundreds of years doing actual science - in physics, chemistry, geology, biology, paleontology etc - and the end result was the current scientific world picture.

Creationists who did actual science falsified the creationism that is dimly outlined in the bible, in a comprehensive and thoroughgoing way - they didn't set out to do this, and the process unfolded over the best part of 300-400 years, having engaged many of the finest minds in history working across diverse disciplines. Can you please explain how creationism can repeat this process and come to a different result?

Also, do you think that alchemy should be taught in chemistry classes? Do you think that astrology should be taught in astronomy classes?
If not, why not?

That’s ~100,000 years older than the Universe, according to ID Creationists.

— Scott F

Frank, their goal is not to promote some specific narrow version of creationism.

— harold

you’re, yet missin’ it! how do SETI scientists determine if the data, which they are receiving is intelligently designed information?

no one here (that being me) has said a thing about WHO the intelligent information should be ascribed to, no matter what the phenomena being researched. Just determining if it has the “signature” of being intelligently designed is what ID science is about, and that’s what SETI is about.

you are the ones jumping to conclusions of sources, not me.

tell you what, get together as many top biologists as you can and have them build a living cell capable of reproducing itself with all the info codes, blue prints, factories, machinery, and central processing unit it must contain, and then, give it to some engineers to reverse engineer, and see if they come to the conclusion that it was a product of unguided, natural processes…or if they conclude that it was intelligently designed.

keep in mind that that is just a single cell…can you imagine building a complete common mammal with every bone, organ, fluid, neuron and capillary just the right size and quantity, and in just the right place?

Also, do you think that alchemy should be taught in chemistry classes? Do you think that astrology should be taught in astronomy classes? If not, why not?

Frank J said:

Frank, their goal is not to promote some specific narrow version of creationism.

— harold

Not even on 4/1? ;-)

toothful said: hey y'all, you're, yet missin' it! how do SETI scientists determine if the data, which they are receiving is intelligently designed information?

no one here (that being me) has said a thing about WHO the intelligent information should be ascribed to,

Just determining if it has the "signature" of being intelligently designed is what ID science is about, and that's what SETI is about.

toothful said: hey y'all, you're, yet missin' it! how do SETI scientists determine if the data, which they are receiving is intelligently designed information? no one here (that being me) has said a thing about WHO the intelligent information should be ascribed to, no matter what the phenomena being researched. Just determining if it has the "signature" of being intelligently designed is what ID science is about, and that's what SETI is about. you are the ones jumping to conclusions of sources, not me.

Robert Byers, I can only say you are among the most uninformed and ignorant creationists known to mankind. Your absolutely insane ideas about genetics demonstrated by your claims about the relationship between the Wolf and Thylacine is evidence of that. Since you are a self appointed spokesman for all creationists, I trust you can reference at least one other creationist sharing your ideas about both genetics and common science.

Please let us know who he/she is.

Robert (the one trick pony) wrote:

"I cannot and have never seen evolutionists show why there is any flaw in this reasoning and I’ve dealt with hundreds on these forums. They don’t persuade me and would fail to persuade the public. Creationism(s) would persuade a attentive public."

Actually, it has been pointed out to you over one hundred times that religion is not science and cannot be substitute for science. Your refusal to accept reality does not alter that reality. You arrogantly assume that you know more about science, politics and legal matters than all the real experts combined. In fact, your abysmal ignorance is so impenetrable and your supposed reasoning so flawed that most rational people question your sanity. That fact that you have completely ignored all of the criticism leveled against you does not invalidate the criticism, it simply invalidates the hypothesis that you are interested in truth of any kind.

One last time, just to be fair. It is illegal and immoral to substitute religious mythology for science in science classes in publicly funded institutions. That is the flaw in your reasoning. If you really believed that that was the right thing to do, then you would still be teaching that the earth was flat and that the sun goes around the earth. Now you no doubt actually believe those things to be true, but that's the point. YEC nonsense isn't science, it isn't true and it isn't reality. There are three good reasons why it should not be taught as science. Deal with it.

Now if you ever try to claim that no one has ever shown you the flaw in your "reasoning" you will once again shown to be a liar. No one cares if you are persuaded. Creationism already tried to persuade the public, it failed miserably, as have you.

harold said:

Also, do you think that alchemy should be taught in chemistry classes? Do you think that astrology should be taught in astronomy classes? If not, why not?

The answer is yes, he'd be fine with that, at least for now.

Robert Byers

Given that you apparently want Genesis to be taught as science in public school science classes, can you tell me if you're also ok with teaching Hesiod's theogony, Vedic creationism, Zoroastrian theories of origins and the Gilgamesh theory of origins in said classes as well? If not, can you explain to me why Genesis is worthy of being taught as science, and Gilgamesh, say, isn't? What would be the basis for privileging Genesis over the others - descriptive power? predictive power? explanatory power? power of claimed authorship?

TomS said:

harold said:

Also, do you think that alchemy should be taught in chemistry classes? Do you think that astrology should be taught in astronomy classes? If not, why not?

The answer is yes, he'd be fine with that, at least for now.

If you want to get a reaction from the public, suggestions about the teaching of alchemy or astrology are not going to work. Ask, rather, whether alternative rules for football or basketball should be taught. Let the kids decide how many points a touchdown should count for; after all, it is a purely arbitrary decision. Or whether the team with the most points should win or lose; in golf it's the least that wins, why not also in basketball? Give equal time to the analog of "intelligent design" in sports: Calvinball.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Byers Given that you apparently want Genesis to be taught as science in public school science classes, can you tell me if you're also ok with teaching Hesiod's theogony, Vedic creationism, Zoroastrian theories of origins and the Gilgamesh theory of origins in said classes as well? If not, can you explain to me why Genesis is worthy of being taught as science, and Gilgamesh, say, isn't? What would be the basis for privileging Genesis over the others - descriptive power? predictive power? explanatory power? power of claimed authorship?

SLC said: Here's a question for Booby Byers. Does he believe that Joshua caused the Sun to stand still in the sky for a day, as claimed in the Book of Joshua? If so, how does he explain why nobody else in other civilizations such as Egypt and China noted this remarkable event?

DS said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Byers Given that you apparently want Genesis to be taught as science in public school science classes, can you tell me if you're also ok with teaching Hesiod's theogony, Vedic creationism, Zoroastrian theories of origins and the Gilgamesh theory of origins in said classes as well? If not, can you explain to me why Genesis is worthy of being taught as science, and Gilgamesh, say, isn't? What would be the basis for privileging Genesis over the others - descriptive power? predictive power? explanatory power? power of claimed authorship?

Actually, Byers refuses to say exactly what it is he wants taught. Apparently it has something to do with "origins" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. He refuses to provide a lesson plan, refuses to name even the strengths let alone the weaknesses of his so called "hypothesis". And yet he wants to throw out the US constitution and have everybody just go along with whatever his twisted sense of "justice" dictates. And this, even though he isn't even a US citizen! Of course, since he is a self proclaimed YEC, he doubtless what science teachers to teach that the earth is only thousands of years old, that "kinds" were specially created and have not changed since, that the Grand Canyon was formed by a world wide flood, and that all humans are descended from a single family that lived less than 5000 years ago. He must ignore all of the evidence that absolutely proves that none of these things are true. And he demands all of this just so that he can force everyone to believe exactly the same bat shit insane nonsense that he believes, for some unspecified reason. And of course no one has ever pointed out to him the error in his "logic". Just like all the evidence, if he ignores it all, for him it does not exist. I wonder if he thinks he becomes invisible when he closes his eyes?

toothful said: keep in mind that that is just a single cell...can you imagine building a complete common mammal with every bone, organ, fluid, neuron and capillary just the right size and quantity, and in just the right place?

toothful said: keep in mind that that is just a single cell...can you imagine building a complete common mammal with every bone, organ, fluid, neuron and capillary just the right size and quantity, and in just the right place?

toothful said: ... how do SETI scientists determine if the data, which they are receiving is intelligently designed information?

John Kwok said: The Dishonesty Institute is asking its readers to e-mail Governor Haslam. I would follow this advice of theirs: Contact Governor Bill Haslam now and urge him to sign HB 368 into law. bill.haslam@tn.gov

Dave Luckett said: The problem from a theological point of view, Tom, is not that this stopping of the sun is impossible. Miracles are, by definition, events that are impossible within the order of nature. So in order to perform them, God suspends the order of nature. So the Earth stopped rotating, and God suspended or modified all the natural laws that would make this a tad inconvenient for life on it. F=ma? Gone! Newton's Third Law? No longer applies! Implications for wind belts, weather, air movements, tides, momentum, movement of the oceans, structural integrity of the planet, you name it? All rescinded. You think God can't do this? Allow me to introduce you to my little friend, the word "omnipotent". Look, it's no more crazy than talking snakes or donkeys, and damn near mundane compared with fruit that you eat to know the difference between good and evil. Some theologians quibble over things like "uncovenanted miracles" when it turns out that stopping the sun is not one miracle, it's billions on end, but they're just party-poopers. Actually, for theologians, God walking in the Garden because He enjoyed the cool of the evening, or not knowing that Adam had eaten of the fruit until He saw that Adam had clothed himself - those are more of a problem. I am not making this up.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/kYQj4.Y6hsNHh2hA4cxjQS4Dobc-#0cdad said:

toothful said: keep in mind that that is just a single cell...can you imagine building a complete common mammal with every bone, organ, fluid, neuron and capillary just the right size and quantity, and in just the right place?

The troll thinks that arguing that a mammal is too complex to design is an argument for design. Idiot.

toothful said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/kYQj4.Y6hsNHh2hA4cxjQS4Dobc-#0cdad said:

toothful said: keep in mind that that is just a single cell...can you imagine building a complete common mammal with every bone, organ, fluid, neuron and capillary just the right size and quantity, and in just the right place?

The troll thinks that arguing that a mammal is too complex to design is an argument for design. Idiot.

no, i was hoping you would recognize the extreme amount of intelligence it would take to design and build such a thing.

hey y'all,

i suppose i will have to offer the solution to the problem i offered.

the fact is, SETI science cannot be explained apart from ID science. SETI scientists incorporate ID science as the MEANS for determining what may be a stream of intelligent information coming from beyond the boundary of earth (extra terrestrial). they are looking for the "signature" of an intelligent, thinking MIND - recognizable information - and they do not presume that they will be able to determine its source immediately or ever.

suppose a dump truck ran over the curb and spilled a pile of rocks onto the sidewalk and continued on. a bit later, you're taking a walk and come upon the scattered rocks in the middle of the sidewalk. how much time would you spend trying to make sense out of the chance, chaotic pattern? my guess is that you wouldn't give it much thought, but would merely glance at it, while walking around it, thinking,"what a stupid place to put a pile of rocks!"

now, if you were to stop and arrange some of the stones into a specific recognizable pattern of low probability, which spelled out, CLEAN UP THIS MESS, someone passing by later would consider the pile of scattered rocks to be a chance occurrence, but the organized pattern would clearly indicate to them that its source was an intelligent mind.

toothful said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/kYQj4.Y6hsNHh2hA4cxjQS4Dobc-#0cdad said:

toothful said: keep in mind that that is just a single cell...can you imagine building a complete common mammal with every bone, organ, fluid, neuron and capillary just the right size and quantity, and in just the right place?

The troll thinks that arguing that a mammal is too complex to design is an argument for design. Idiot.

no, i was hoping you would recognize the extreme amount of intelligence it would take to design and build such a thing.

toothful said: hey y'all, i suppose i will have to offer the solution to the problem i offered. the fact is, SETI science cannot be explained apart from ID science. SETI scientists incorporate ID science as the MEANS for determining what may be a stream of intelligent information coming from beyond the boundary of earth (extra terrestrial). they are looking for the "signature" of an intelligent, thinking MIND - recognizable information - and they do not presume that they will be able to determine its source immediately or ever. suppose a dump truck ran over the curb and spilled a pile of rocks onto the sidewalk and continued on. a bit later, you're taking a walk and come upon the scattered rocks in the middle of the sidewalk. how much time would you spend trying to make sense out of the chance, chaotic pattern? my guess is that you wouldn't give it much thought, but would merely glance at it, while walking around it, thinking,"what a stupid place to put a pile of rocks!" now, if you were to stop and arrange some of the stones into a specific recognizable pattern of low probability, which spelled out, CLEAN UP THIS MESS, someone passing by later would consider the pile of scattered rocks to be a chance occurrence, but the organized pattern would clearly indicate to them that its source was an intelligent mind.

Scott F said:

toothful said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/kYQj4.Y6hsNHh2hA4cxjQS4Dobc-#0cdad said:

toothful said: keep in mind that that is just a single cell...can you imagine building a complete common mammal with every bone, organ, fluid, neuron and capillary just the right size and quantity, and in just the right place?

The troll thinks that arguing that a mammal is too complex to design is an argument for design. Idiot.

no, i was hoping you would recognize the extreme amount of intelligence it would take to design and build such a thing.

It takes no intelligence whatsoever to build a mammal from raw ingredients. I have a cute puppy that is becoming an adult dog right before my eyes, and it required no intelligence on my part, and less on his. It is taking some time, though, but I haven't seen a single miracle happen. I've been watching for it too. Maybe you believe that it requires a miracle to place every cell and every molecule where it belongs to form an adult dog? OTOH, if someone were to take a pile of clay and form an adult dog directly, in a matter of minutes or days, without going through all of the puppy stages, then yes that would require a lot of intelligence, and quite a few miracles to boot. As it is, it only requires chemistry and time. And poop. Building an adult dog seems to require lot's of poop.

SETI is not trying to rewrite basic principles already established in science; it's merely searching for additional examples.

ID on the other hand, is trying to rewrite basic principles, for political, religious, or cultural reasons. It certainly is not an attempt to explain any consistently observed patterns of observations, which is the basic goal of anything that is even remotely scientific.

Paul Burnett said:

John Kwok said: The Dishonesty Institute is asking its readers to e-mail Governor Haslam. I would follow this advice of theirs: Contact Governor Bill Haslam now and urge him to sign HB 368 into law. bill.haslam@tn.gov

I emailed the governor and got a response! April 2, 2012 Dear Paul: Thank you for writing to me and sharing your thoughts and concerns. Listening to and learning from Tennesseans is very important to me, and I appreciate hearing from you. After careful review of your letter, I have forwarded it to my legislative staff for consideration. Your suggestions will be helpful as we develop our legislative and policy agenda. Again, thank you for taking the time to write. I look forward to working with you and all Tennesseans to make our great state an even better place to live, work, and raise a family. Warmest regards, Bill Haslam BH:mg cc: Leslie Hafner, Senior Advisor for Legislation And sure, it's probably a canned response, but still...it's a response. (I am really a Tennessean - my only connection is a very good friend is going to UT Knoxville.)

toothless the fool decreed:

Scott F said:

toothful said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/kYQj4.Y6hsNHh2hA4cxjQS4Dobc-#0cdad said:

toothful said: keep in mind that that is just a single cell...can you imagine building a complete common mammal with every bone, organ, fluid, neuron and capillary just the right size and quantity, and in just the right place?

The troll thinks that arguing that a mammal is too complex to design is an argument for design. Idiot.

no, i was hoping you would recognize the extreme amount of intelligence it would take to design and build such a thing.

It takes no intelligence whatsoever to build a mammal from raw ingredients. I have a cute puppy that is becoming an adult dog right before my eyes, and it required no intelligence on my part, and less on his. It is taking some time, though, but I haven't seen a single miracle happen. I've been watching for it too. Maybe you believe that it requires a miracle to place every cell and every molecule where it belongs to form an adult dog? OTOH, if someone were to take a pile of clay and form an adult dog directly, in a matter of minutes or days, without going through all of the puppy stages, then yes that would require a lot of intelligence, and quite a few miracles to boot. As it is, it only requires chemistry and time. And poop. Building an adult dog seems to require lot's of poop.

i guess you wouldn't recognize a miracle if you were holding it in your arms. all of nature is SUPERnatural in origin. it, up 'til now, has been shown experimentally that life only comes from life (Law of Biogenesis), and it is ABOVE and BEYOND the ability of natural processes and chance to produce. why not go with the scientific, empirical evidence?

it, up ’til now, has been shown experimentally that life only comes from life (Law of Biogenesis),

toothless the clueless creotard barfed: hey y'all, i suppose i will have to offer the solution to the problem i offered. the fact is, SETI science cannot be explained apart from ID science. SETI scientists incorporate ID science as the MEANS for determining what may be a stream of intelligent information coming from beyond the boundary of earth (extra terrestrial). they are looking for the "signature" of an intelligent, thinking MIND - recognizable information - and they do not presume that they will be able to determine its source immediately or ever. suppose a dump truck ran over the curb and spilled a pile of rocks onto the sidewalk and continued on. a bit later, you're taking a walk and come upon the scattered rocks in the middle of the sidewalk. how much time would you spend trying to make sense out of the chance, chaotic pattern? my guess is that you wouldn't give it much thought, but would merely glance at it, while walking around it, thinking,"what a stupid place to put a pile of rocks!" now, if you were to stop and arrange some of the stones into a specific recognizable pattern of low probability, which spelled out, CLEAN UP THIS MESS, someone passing by later would consider the pile of scattered rocks to be a chance occurrence, but the organized pattern would clearly indicate to them that its source was an intelligent mind.

here's a prediction,

harmful mutations will be the death and extinction of all evolutionary theories which depend upon mutations as their prime mover.

should you expose yourself to mutagens? if not why not, if that's how things evolve?

with the empirical evidence showing that mutations are harmful and cause a loss of information in the living cell, it would be easier to advocate DEvolution (as in DEgeneration), than evolution.

should you expose yourself to mutagens? if not why not, if that’s how things evolve?

toothful said: here's a prediction, harmful mutations will be the death and extinction of all evolutionary theories which depend upon mutations as their prime mover. should you expose yourself to mutagens? if not why not, if that's how things evolve? with the empirical evidence showing that mutations are harmful and cause a loss of information in the living cell, it would be easier to advocate DEvolution (as in DEgeneration), than evolution.

toothful said:

toothful said: no, i was hoping you would recognize the extreme amount of intelligence it would take to design and build such a thing.

Scott F said: It takes no intelligence whatsoever to build a mammal from raw ingredients. I have a cute puppy that is becoming an adult dog right before my eyes, and it required no intelligence on my part, and less on his. It is taking some time, though, but I haven't seen a single miracle happen. I've been watching for it too. Maybe you believe that it requires a miracle to place every cell and every molecule where it belongs to form an adult dog? OTOH, if someone were to take a pile of clay and form an adult dog directly, in a matter of minutes or days, without going through all of the puppy stages, then yes that would require a lot of intelligence, and quite a few miracles to boot. As it is, it only requires chemistry and time. And poop. Building an adult dog seems to require lot's of poop.

i guess you wouldn't recognize a miracle if you were holding it in your arms. all of nature is SUPERnatural in origin. it, up 'til now, has been shown experimentally that life only comes from life (Law of Biogenesis), and it is ABOVE and BEYOND the ability of natural processes and chance to produce. why not go with the scientific, empirical evidence?

toothful said: here's a prediction, harmful mutations will be the death and extinction of all evolutionary theories which depend upon mutations as their prime mover. should you expose yourself to mutagens? if not why not, if that's how things evolve? with the empirical evidence showing that mutations are harmful and cause a loss of information in the living cell, it would be easier to advocate DEvolution (as in DEgeneration), than evolution.

I emailed the governor and got a response!

— Paul Burnett

Here's a big difference: Whenever SETI scientists detect something that MIGHT be an alien signal (it has happened), they immediately try to prove that it ISN'T (the null hypothesis). They try to eliminate every other possibility for an apparently intelligent signal from deep space (that's how pulsars were discovered). They don't want to get caught in the embarrassing trap of "seeing" what isn't there because they really want to.

Now, Toothy, tell us what ID "scientists" do to PROVE THEMSELVES WRONG when they detect "intelligent design."

toothful said: here's a prediction, harmful mutations will be the death and extinction of all evolutionary theories which depend upon mutations as their prime mover.

should you expose yourself to mutagens? if not why not, if that's how things evolve?

with the empirical evidence showing that mutations are harmful and cause a loss of information in the living cell, it would be easier to advocate DEvolution (as in DEgeneration), than evolution.

Scott F said: (BTW, is this another example of the Gish Gallop? Jumping from one unsupported assertion to another, without bothering to support or defend any of them?)

Scott F said: But how about my blue eyes? Neither of my parents had blue eyes. My blue eyes are a mutation, compared to my parents.

Henry J said:

Scott F said: But how about my blue eyes? Neither of my parents had blue eyes. My blue eyes are a mutation, compared to my parents.

I thought blue eyes were caused by a recessive allele? (i.e., are you sure that both parents weren't carriers of the recessive?) Henry

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Byers I'm guessing that you're utterly unfamiliar with the history of science, and that you're unaware that creationists ( in the literal sense as you understand it, such as Newton ) spent hundreds of years doing actual science - in physics, chemistry, geology, biology, paleontology etc - and the end result was the current scientific world picture. Creationists who did actual science falsified the creationism that is dimly outlined in the bible, in a comprehensive and thoroughgoing way - they didn't set out to do this, and the process unfolded over the best part of 300-400 years, having engaged many of the finest minds in history working across diverse disciplines. Can you please explain how creationism can repeat this process and come to a different result? Also, do you think that alchemy should be taught in chemistry classes? Do you think that astrology should be taught in astronomy classes? If not, why not?

Here's a prediction, the troll will trot out every creationist argument ever made, never listen to a single answer presented to him, never learn anything, then declare victory.

I would call POE, but it's pretty hard to tell with the really ignorant ones.

Its off thread.

These are few subjects where creationism differs and all about processes and results not witnessed or repeatable.

The people of a nation should decide what is taught or censored in their schools. So by a democratic way. tHe people powerfully accept or allow historic islam as worthy for equal time. others are not worthy and so should be voted down .

There you go Robert, now you have exactly what you wanted.

Idiot For Jesus said: Its off thread. These are few subjects where creationism differs and all about processes and results not witnessed or repeatable. The people of a nation should decide what is taught or censored in their schools. So by a democratic way. tHe people powerfully accept or allow historic creationism as worthy for equal time. others are not worthy and so should be voted down .

DS said: Its off thread. These are few subjects where creationism differs and all about processes and results not witnessed or repeatable. The people of a nation should decide what is taught or censored in their schools. So by a democratic way. tHe people powerfully accept or allow historic islam as worthy for equal time. others are not worthy and so should be voted down . There you go Robert, now you have exactly what you wanted.

raven said:

personally knew of of one YEC that disputed the moon landings!

PolyKookery or Crank Magnetism is very common. Quite often they reject modern medicine and the Germ Theory of Disease for faith healing. And we all know how well that works. One of the more incoherent creationist trolls on Pandasthumb is an MD hater. I have no idea how close he has come to killing himself or others and no interest in finding out. When your beliefs aren't anchored in reality, anything and everything you want to be true is true. Astrology, demon theory of disease, homeopathy, telepathic vegetables, supply side economics, creationism, it is all the same and equally as valid.

toothful said: now, if you were to stop and arrange some of the stones into a specific recognizable pattern of low probability, which spelled out, CLEAN UP THIS MESS, someone passing by later would consider the pile of scattered rocks to be a chance occurrence, but the organized pattern would clearly indicate to them that its source was an intelligent mind.

Robert Byers

So, public education should be turned into a game of lifeboat?

Would you be happy if it was the popular will to teach only Galenic medicine, ayurveda and the theory of humours? Broadly speaking, preaching that we should teach things that we know are incorrect and fail to give useful results is going to be far less popular than you imagine; especially when we are currently living with the alternative.

What you seem to fail to understand is that you can't simply abstract evolutionary theory, cosmology and geology from the rest of science - as if these are all discrete elements that are replaceable, leaving other bits intact, to the extent that we can, for example, use nuclear physics to build atomic power plants, but can ignore the same physics in the case of radiometric dating that demonstrates a very old earth. Do you not understand that across a variety of disciplines, science is in a non-trivial sense holistic?

Seriously, do you accept that such things as nuclear power stations exist, and that they generate power?

Hey Stanton,

Here's your answer.

Contrary to what you(pl) believe here, most people are interested in a 'satisfying' explanation.

The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects.

At the end of the day, Darwinism fails to engage and energize people where it counts the most.

That's the simple reason why you need the courts and schools to promote it. It just ain't catching on half as fast as you think it should. btw, shrewd move to ride the back of government assistance to get yr prop out there on the cheap.

darwinism is tone deaf to be sure. Oh yeah, it matters alright if you are living in the 'real world' that you (pl) keep saying you understand.

SteveP

I think if you got out into the real world a tad more often, you'd find that a very wide range of people are perfectly satisfied with the theory of evolution - and this includes a whole lotta Christians. This is hardly surprising considering that pretty much everyone likes effective medicine, and disease and illness don't religiously discriminate.

The Christian creation story is the Jewish creation story, which in turn is a version of the Babylonian creation story as outlined in Gilgamesh; I presume that you're an educated person and are familiar with it. Again, as an educated person, you'll be well aware that significant Christian theologians, such as Origen and Augustine, were quite forthright in their views that Genesis was not a literal description of anything - and should not be taken as such. If I'm not mistaken, Origen explained the symbolism of Genesis in terms of mystic numerology. Theological fashions change; but no honest theologian in the future will EVER be able to re-assert geocentrism. Likewise deep time, the fossil record, evolution.

As to the courts, well, you should be dimly aware that in the early part of the last century, in some parts of the US at least, it was courts that prevented the teaching of evolution in public schools. These statutes were wisely struck down for the public benefit. If you wish to promote your particular understanding of literal biblical creation then the appropriate venue is Sunday School, not public school science classes.

As to the satisfaction that can be derived from god did it, six days, fixed species blah blah blah, end of story and nowt else to be learnt - well, just on aesthetic grounds evolution wins hands down.

The people of a nation should decide what is taught or censored in their schools.

SteveP. said: Hey Stanton, Here's your answer. Contrary to what you(pl) believe here, most people are interested in a 'satisfying' explanation. The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects. At the end of the day, Darwinism fails to engage and energize people where it counts the most. That's the simple reason why you need the courts and schools to promote it. It just ain't catching on half as fast as you think it should. btw, shrewd move to ride the back of government assistance to get yr prop out there on the cheap. darwinism is tone deaf to be sure. Oh yeah, it matters alright if you are living in the 'real world' that you (pl) keep saying you understand.

DS said: Here's a prediction, the troll will trot out every creationist argument ever made, never listen to a single answer presented to him, never learn anything, then declare victory. I would call POE, but it's pretty hard to tell with the really ignorant ones.

Hey SteveP.,

I've asked this about a zillion times and as far as I can recall, no ID advocate has ever even attempted to address it -- maybe you can be the first and become a luminary in the ID world!

We know that humans use evolutionary algorithms to design stuff. In fact, down the hall from my office, one of my colleagues has put up a few posters showing electrical circuits that were designed using evolutionary algorithms. So why couldn't ID's mysterious Designer Who Must Not Be Named use evolutionary algorithms to generate the modern biosphere from one or more primordial cells or proto-cells?

raven said:

personally knew of of one YEC that disputed the moon landings!

PolyKookery or Crank Magnetism is very common. Quite often they reject modern medicine and the Germ Theory of Disease for faith healing. And we all know how well that works. One of the more incoherent creationist trolls on Pandasthumb is an MD hater. I have no idea how close he has come to killing himself or others and no interest in finding out. When your beliefs aren't anchored in reality, anything and everything you want to be true is true. Astrology, demon theory of disease, homeopathy, telepathic vegetables, supply side economics, creationism, it is all the same and equally as valid.

SteveP. said: Hey Stanton, Here's your answer. Contrary to what you(pl) believe here, most people are interested in a 'satisfying' explanation. The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects. At the end of the day, Darwinism fails to engage and energize people where it counts the most. That's the simple reason why you need the courts and schools to promote it. It just ain't catching on half as fast as you think it should. btw, shrewd move to ride the back of government assistance to get yr prop out there on the cheap. darwinism is tone deaf to be sure. Oh yeah, it matters alright if you are living in the 'real world' that you (pl) keep saying you understand.

SteveP. said: Hey Stanton, Here's your answer. Contrary to what you(pl) believe here, most people are interested in a 'satisfying' explanation. The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects. At the end of the day, Darwinism fails to engage and energize people where it counts the most.

eric said:

SteveP. said: Hey Stanton, Here's your answer. Contrary to what you(pl) believe here, most people are interested in a 'satisfying' explanation. The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects. At the end of the day, Darwinism fails to engage and energize people where it counts the most.

Are you seriously advocating that HS Biology classes teach kids whatever explanations they find most emotionally satisfying?

The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects.

Tolkein's cosmogony is way more satisfying, and internally consistent--unlike Genesis.

harold said: Thanks, Steve P.

The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects.

For a long time now, you've kept up the outdated ruse of supporting ID for some reason other than being a religious creationist. Now you slipped up.

harold said: Thanks, Steve P.

The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects.

For a long time now, you've kept up the outdated ruse of supporting ID for some reason other than being a religious creationist. Now you slipped up. Sorry, the Constitution of the United States of America forbids the use of taxpayer money to favor one religious dogma at the expense of others. You lose.

Scott F said: Mixing of genetic information through meiosis and fertilization isn't exactly "mutation", per se, but it does lead to genetic differences between parent and child. How does one more accurately distinguish between the two?

Just Bob said: Tolkein's cosmogony is way more satisfying, and internally consistent--unlike Genesis.

Inter alia the Constitution does that. What it actually says, though, is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

The Supreme Court has held, ever since the question was specifically put to it, starting in 1948, that this must be read with the ancient Common Law precept that the State may do nothing save that which is laid down in law that it may do. If the Congress may not pass any law to establish - that is, use State power to favour - a religion, then it may not appropriate any money for this purpose, for there is no law allowing it; further, it may not spend any money meant to be used for other purposes on this purpose. The State may spend money on education; but this money must not be used to favour any religion or its doctrines. And, says the Supreme Court, the doctrine that the Earth and all life was created by the Word of God is necessarily a religious doctrine.

But this is merely the opinion of successive Supreme Court benches about what the First Amendment means; that is, what it necessarily implies. It is law, but it is law as interpreted by the Courts.

But is it possible that this interpretation could change? Could a future Supreme Court hold that creationism is not a specifically religious doctrine (the position of the DI), or that while the State may not directly favour a religion, and may not spend money directly on that religion, there is no specific Constitutional prohibition against the State allowing a religious doctrine to be taught in the schools which it funds?

Me, I'd be pressing for a further amendment to put the matter beyond argument.

toothful said: hey y'all, i suppose i will have to offer the solution to the problem i offered. the fact is, SETI science cannot be explained apart from ID science. SETI scientists incorporate ID science as the MEANS for determining what may be a stream of intelligent information coming from beyond the boundary of earth (extra terrestrial). they are looking for the "signature" of an intelligent, thinking MIND - recognizable information - and they do not presume that they will be able to determine its source immediately or ever. suppose a dump truck ran over the curb and spilled a pile of rocks onto the sidewalk and continued on. a bit later, you're taking a walk and come upon the scattered rocks in the middle of the sidewalk. how much time would you spend trying to make sense out of the chance, chaotic pattern? my guess is that you wouldn't give it much thought, but would merely glance at it, while walking around it, thinking,"what a stupid place to put a pile of rocks!" now, if you were to stop and arrange some of the stones into a specific recognizable pattern of low probability, which spelled out, CLEAN UP THIS MESS, someone passing by later would consider the pile of scattered rocks to be a chance occurrence, but the organized pattern would clearly indicate to them that its source was an intelligent mind.

Scott F said:

toothful said:

toothful said: no, i was hoping you would recognize the extreme amount of intelligence it would take to design and build such a thing.

Scott F said: It takes no intelligence whatsoever to build a mammal from raw ingredients. I have a cute puppy that is becoming an adult dog right before my eyes, and it required no intelligence on my part, and less on his. It is taking some time, though, but I haven't seen a single miracle happen. I've been watching for it too. Maybe you believe that it requires a miracle to place every cell and every molecule where it belongs to form an adult dog? OTOH, if someone were to take a pile of clay and form an adult dog directly, in a matter of minutes or days, without going through all of the puppy stages, then yes that would require a lot of intelligence, and quite a few miracles to boot. As it is, it only requires chemistry and time. And poop. Building an adult dog seems to require lot's of poop.

i guess you wouldn't recognize a miracle if you were holding it in your arms. all of nature is SUPERnatural in origin. it, up 'til now, has been shown experimentally that life only comes from life (Law of Biogenesis), and it is ABOVE and BEYOND the ability of natural processes and chance to produce. why not go with the scientific, empirical evidence?

You're mixing your metaphors. You're using two different meanings of the word "miracle" in the same sentence. The puppy may be "a wonder; a marvel", but it is not "an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause". I said it takes no miracle to create an adult mammal from conception. Yet, you appear to claim that the puppy I'm holding is a "miracle". I admit that it's pretty amazing (and squirmy). But you claim it is a miracle. I watched the puppy the whole time (well, from birth, anyway), and I saw no "miracle" happen. Please identify when, where, and how in the last 4 months this "miracle" occurred. All I saw happening was chemistry. If I apply your science if ID, I see a lot of poop. If I look at the poop using your science of ID, it tells me that chemistry was happening. We know where poop comes from. We know how it is made. We know (in a general sense) what is happening to make the puppy, to make skin and fur and eyes. It does not "surpass all known human or natural powers." Poop does not tell me that a "miracle" has occurred. Perhaps you have some other evidence for this "miracle" that no one saw happen, and which left no discernible tracks? The Bible doesn't say that God created a puppy and a large pile of poop. Now a true "miracle" would be the puppy without the pile of poop. But that's not what we see. Or, perhaps your "science of ID" is sufficient to look at any process in the universe and claim that every process in the universe is caused by intelligence? After all, you just said that "all of nature is SUPERnatural". So, if all of nature was intelligently designed, and ID is the science of identifying what is intelligently designed, then what use is it? That's a tautology. It's like you have defined a science to identify liquid water that is wet.

Scott F said:

toothful said: here's a prediction, harmful mutations will be the death and extinction of all evolutionary theories which depend upon mutations as their prime mover. should you expose yourself to mutagens? if not why not, if that's how things evolve? with the empirical evidence showing that mutations are harmful and cause a loss of information in the living cell, it would be easier to advocate DEvolution (as in DEgeneration), than evolution.

Hmm... Well, there is another of your tautologies. Yes, harmful mutations are indeed harmful. No question there. But after we agree that harmful mutations are harmful, you then jump to the false claim that all mutations are harmful. But how about my blue eyes? Neither of my parents had blue eyes. My blue eyes are a mutation, compared to my parents. Are my blue eyes "harmful"? Will it cause my death? Will my blue eyes cause the death of the Theory of Evolution? Are my blue eyes a "loss of information" compared to my parents? Given that women seem to really like my blue eyes, I'm guessing that they're going to be an evolutionary advantage in sexual selection, allowing me to pass on my blue-eyes mutation to lots of my kids, compared to those boring brown-eyed fellows who can't seem to get a date to save their genes. What do you think? (BTW, is this another example of the Gish Gallop? Jumping from one unsupported assertion to another, without bothering to support or defend any of them?)

Helena Constantine said: Isn't it more likely that your blue eyes are the result of recessive genes in your parents combining, rather than a new mutation duplicating the original mutation that led to blue eyes?

Helena Constantine said: Isn't it more likely that your blue eyes are the result of recessive genes in your parents combining, rather than a new mutation duplicating the original mutation that led to blue eyes?

toothful said: the fact is, SETI science cannot be explained apart from ID science.

SETI scientists incorporate ID science as the MEANS for determining what may be a stream of intelligent information coming from beyond the boundary of earth (extra terrestrial). they are looking for the "signature" of an intelligent, thinking MIND - recognizable information - and they do not presume that they will be able to determine its source immediately or ever.

now, if you were to stop and arrange some of the stones into a specific recognizable pattern of low probability, which spelled out, CLEAN UP THIS MESS, someone passing by later would consider the pile of scattered rocks to be a chance occurrence, but the organized pattern would clearly indicate to them that its source was an intelligent mind.

Just Bob said:

Helena Constantine said: Isn't it more likely that your blue eyes are the result of recessive genes in your parents combining, rather than a new mutation duplicating the original mutation that led to blue eyes?

Which inspires me, a nonscientist, to query the real guys (women included) here: Are there certain specific mutations that for some reason happen over and over again? I don't mean a major genetic mess-up, like extra chromosomes, but a single mutation (maybe that's called a point mutation). Are some spots in the genome just more fragile than others, thus allowing the same kind of mutation to show up in unrelated people?

Just Bob said:

Helena Constantine said: Isn't it more likely that your blue eyes are the result of recessive genes in your parents combining, rather than a new mutation duplicating the original mutation that led to blue eyes?

Which inspires me, a nonscientist, to query the real guys (women included) here: Are there certain specific mutations that for some reason happen over and over again? I don't mean a major genetic mess-up, like extra chromosomes, but a single mutation (maybe that's called a point mutation). Are some spots in the genome just more fragile than others, thus allowing the same kind of mutation to show up in unrelated people?

Helena Constantine said: Ironically, in your examples, both sets of rocks are the result of intelligent deign--surely you don't think a dump truck is a natural object?

Each individual human cell has 3 billion or so base pairs. However, only a small fraction of those are related to gene expression at all, and only a fraction of genes are expressed in every nucleated cell.

SteveP. the delusional jackass American rug merchant residing in Taiwan barked:

raven said:

personally knew of of one YEC that disputed the moon landings!

PolyKookery or Crank Magnetism is very common. Quite often they reject modern medicine and the Germ Theory of Disease for faith healing. And we all know how well that works. One of the more incoherent creationist trolls on Pandasthumb is an MD hater. I have no idea how close he has come to killing himself or others and no interest in finding out. When your beliefs aren't anchored in reality, anything and everything you want to be true is true. Astrology, demon theory of disease, homeopathy, telepathic vegetables, supply side economics, creationism, it is all the same and equally as valid.

More gibberish from PT's own xian basher. U gotta pity the fool that 'knows' no gods exist. i mean shit, outta sight, outta mind right? That works soooooooooo well in the real world. Rave on, enlightened one.

bbennett1968 said: You really aren't that bright, are you?

Just Bob said: Which inspires me, a nonscientist, to query the real guys (women included) here: Are there certain specific mutations that for some reason happen over and over again? I don't mean a major genetic mess-up, like extra chromosomes, but a single mutation (maybe that's called a point mutation). Are some spots in the genome just more fragile than others, thus allowing the same kind of mutation to show up in unrelated people?

SteveP. said: Hey Stanton, Here's your answer. Contrary to what you(pl) believe here, most people are interested in a 'satisfying' explanation. The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects.

I get the feeling that it’s kind of like a mixture of two chemically reactive gases or liquids. Mix the two, and they form a third gas, but not completely, resulting in a mixture of all three gases. Yet, it isn’t a “stable” mixture. The molecules are constantly splitting and reforming, even though the overall ratios remain constant.

— Scott F

Yup, there you have it. Steve P. admits creationism is a story.

— bigdakine

That sounds like equilibrium. One reason that many engineers (Salem hypothesis) even non-biologist scientists fall for anti-evolution arguments (the “it’s all running downhill” nonsense) is that most of what we learn in P-chem involves gases and equilibrium.

TomS said:

Helena Constantine said: Ironically, in your examples, both sets of rocks are the result of intelligent deign--surely you don't think a dump truck is a natural object?

Are not all things creatures of God?

Frank J said:

Yup, there you have it. Steve P. admits creationism is a story.

— bigdakine

Not to defend his trolling in any way, but he said "Christian creation story." BTW, shouldn't it be the Jewish creation story, being Old Testament? And unless he changed his mind in the last year or so, he doesn't take any of rhe common, mutually-contradictory (OE, YE, geocentric, etc.) literal interpretations literally. But here's another thing that drives me nuts - and feeds the trolls even outside of our direct replies. If we want to include ID in "creationism" we can't equate "creationism" with the "creation stories." Certainly the ID scam indrictly promotes them, and probably more efficiently than promoting them directly, and risking alerting fence-sitters to the contradictions. "Creationism," if it includes ID, is not science or a story, but a strategy to promote doubt of evolution, and exploit public misconceptions of the nature of science.

Helena Constantine said: Thy also insist the serpent is the devil (an entity completely unknown in the Hebrew bible).

Helena Constantine said:

Frank J said:

Yup, there you have it. Steve P. admits creationism is a story.

— bigdakine

Not to defend his trolling in any way, but he said "Christian creation story." BTW, shouldn't it be the Jewish creation story, being Old Testament? And unless he changed his mind in the last year or so, he doesn't take any of rhe common, mutually-contradictory (OE, YE, geocentric, etc.) literal interpretations literally. But here's another thing that drives me nuts - and feeds the trolls even outside of our direct replies. If we want to include ID in "creationism" we can't equate "creationism" with the "creation stories." Certainly the ID scam indrictly promotes them, and probably more efficiently than promoting them directly, and risking alerting fence-sitters to the contradictions. "Creationism," if it includes ID, is not science or a story, but a strategy to promote doubt of evolution, and exploit public misconceptions of the nature of science.

When Christians read it, its Christian. "Let us create man in our own image" etc. refers to the trinity, for instance. Thy also insist the serpent is the devil (an entity completely unknown in the Hebrew bible).

The whole talking snake business is just the most transparent of "Just So" stories.

"Grandpa, why don't snakes have any legs?"

"Well, let's see now, hmm... a long time ago..."

"How the Snake Lost Its Legs" is part of the collection that includes "Why Girls Are Afraid of Snakes," "Why It Hurts To Have a Baby," and "Why We Have To Work for a Living."

Kipling's are much better told.

I think if you got out into the real world a tad more often, you'd find that a very wide range of people are perfectly satisfied with the theory of evolution

This is hardly surprising considering that pretty much everyone likes effective medicine, and disease and illness don't religiously discriminate.

Again, as an educated person, you'll be well aware that significant Christian theologians, such as Origen and Augustine, were quite forthright in their views that Genesis was not a literal description of anything - and should not be taken as such.

If you wish to promote your particular understanding of literal biblical creation then the appropriate venue is Sunday School, not public school science classes.

As to the satisfaction that can be derived from god did it, six days, fixed species blah blah blah, end of story and nowt else to be learnt - well, just on aesthetic grounds evolution wins hands down.

bbennett1968 said:

SteveP. said: Hey Stanton, Here's your answer. Contrary to what you(pl) believe here, most people are interested in a 'satisfying' explanation. The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects. At the end of the day, Darwinism fails to engage and energize people where it counts the most. That's the simple reason why you need the courts and schools to promote it. It just ain't catching on half as fast as you think it should. btw, shrewd move to ride the back of government assistance to get yr prop out there on the cheap. darwinism is tone deaf to be sure. Oh yeah, it matters alright if you are living in the 'real world' that you (pl) keep saying you understand.

Thanks for dropping by and confirming that fallacious rasoning (in this case argumentum ad populum) is about all creationists have to offer. Well that, and lies. Your standard is how "energized" people are about a given idea = whether it is true or not? The German people once got pretty "energized" by the proposition that Jews were subhuman and needed to be eliminated. Did that "energy" make their anti-Semitic ideas true Steve? And if the courts had ruled repeatedly that teaching creationism was constitutional and public schools were using my tax dollars to teach your religion to my children as fact, would you be here crying that creationism must be a weak idea, if it needed courts and the schools to force it on us? Or are you just a rank hypocrite? You really aren't that bright, are you?

SWT said: Hey SteveP., I've asked this about a zillion times and as far as I can recall, no ID advocate has ever even attempted to address it -- maybe you can be the first and become a luminary in the ID world! We know that humans use evolutionary algorithms to design stuff. In fact, down the hall from my office, one of my colleagues has put up a few posters showing electrical circuits that were designed using evolutionary algorithms. So why couldn't ID's mysterious Designer Who Must Not Be Named use evolutionary algorithms to generate the modern biosphere from one or more primordial cells or proto-cells?

SteveP. said: SWT, Whoever said He didn't do it. The whole point is that you(pl) actually believe it all just up and came to be on its own, one wee step at a time, no gods needed. Show me the money! Who's livin' in the real world now people?

SteveP. said: The numnut Bennett has got it backwards. YOU are using God believing tax dollars to insinuate a humanisitic, secular, atheistic worldview in the classroom. Get your own @#$% venue to play those subliminal mind games with young students.

SteveP. said: One of several Masked Pandas says:

I think if you got out into the real world a tad more often, you'd find that a very wide range of people are perfectly satisfied with the theory of evolution

You presume erroneously that I am not living in the real world. Truth is a much wider range of people are perfectly satisfied with a creation story as they should be. This is not an assumption. Rather than arm chair philosophizing, I have actually been to the many countries in Asia like India, China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia where the greater part of humanity lives and saw and heard for myself what people believe. I can assure you evolution is the last thing on their mind.

A masked Panda continues:

This is hardly surprising considering that pretty much everyone likes effective medicine, and disease and illness don't religiously discriminate.

This presumes unguided, undirected processes are responsible for effective medicine. I think it just could be you(pl) that is not living in the real world.

If you wish to promote your particular understanding of literal biblical creation then the appropriate venue is Sunday School, not public school science classes.

I don't wish to promote literal biblical creation in science class. I do wish to prevent atheism from taking advantage of a secular education system to promote its agenda of trying to create a wedge between people and their faith by inserting language into science text books that clearly favors a humanistic, atheistic worldview.

You(pl) have brought this issue upon yourselves by giving fundamentalist christians a reason to even the playing field. As I have always advocated, take out the skewed language in biology textbooks, and the controversy is dead. Insist on keeping the language in and fundamentalist christians in your face will continue.

As to the satisfaction that can be derived from god did it, six days, fixed species blah blah blah, end of story and nowt else to be learnt - well, just on aesthetic grounds evolution wins hands down.

Again, you presume too much. But to be sure, ID is making it more and more clear that evolution is 'aesthetically' less and less appealing. I mean how convoluted and twisted must the evolutionary explanations be to cover all your bases?

In 'the real world', the simplicity and clarity of a creation story 'wins hands down'.

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: Hey Stanton, Here's your answer. Contrary to what you(pl) believe here, most people are interested in a 'satisfying' explanation. The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects. At the end of the day, Darwinism fails to engage and energize people where it counts the most. That's the simple reason why you need the courts and schools to promote it. It just ain't catching on half as fast as you think it should. btw, shrewd move to ride the back of government assistance to get yr prop out there on the cheap. darwinism is tone deaf to be sure. Oh yeah, it matters alright if you are living in the 'real world' that you (pl) keep saying you understand.

And yet, you fail to explain how Creationism is science, you fail to explain how Creationism is supposed to be better than science, you fail to explain how teaching Creationism, instead of science, in a science classroom, does not violate the separation of Church and State as described in the 1st Amendment, and you fail to explain how Creationism explains anything. But, this is expected from a malicious idiot who thinks he knows more about science than all the scientists in the whole wide world, like yourself.

Hey, Stanton

Explain to me how 'shit happens' explains anything. Thats what darwinism is at its root. See, shit happened but we can tell you wonderful stories about what happened afterwards.

Its just friggin' plausible deniability all the way down.

I'll take God's word over your stupendously vacuous metaphysics any day of the week.

bigdakine said:

SteveP. said: Hey Stanton, Here's your answer. Contrary to what you(pl) believe here, most people are interested in a 'satisfying' explanation. The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects.

Yup, there you have it. Steve P. admits creationism is a story. Evolution is a science. Couldn't have said it better myself.

SteveP. said: I did say keep atheism out. Even playing field.

Steve P

Effective medicine is the product of an accurate understanding of biological systems; creation mythologies have zero impact upon this activity. Quite simply, whether one believes that there is a primum mobile, or one cleaves to a literalist reading of Gilgamesh, or an allegorical interpretation of Genesis is irrelevant to questions of medical efficacy or science in general. When you can point to a corpus of scientific knowledge that is dependent on Gilgamesh or Genesis, and that can produce actual results in the actual world that we all inhabit then, by all means, import it into the classroom. Belief in a prime mover is perfectly fine - but why is it relevant to naturalistic explanations of living systems that describe the whats, the hows and the whys? Why is it relevant to the teaching of science in public schools, given that science is neutral and indifferent to extra-natural explanations?

Having lived and travelled extensively in Africa and Asia, I can tell you that most people are just trying to get through the day or the week, they're not obsessed with debates over origins; what they do want, however, is for their kids to get a decent education and for their healthcare to be up to the task.

I'd be really interested if you would perhaps grace us with some examples of the language in high school biology textbooks that you find so offensive. Seriously, give us some instances of the skewed language and the textbooks that they come from. What language inserted into biology textbooks would appease you? Seriously, it shouldn't be difficult for you to give us some examples.

It's getting on a bit since I was at school - but in spite of a serious C of E ethos, somehow the science teaching staff, many of whom were devout Christians, managed to get through their duties - which was to, you know, teach us the scientific basics - without ever importing god, or atheism for that matter, into the classroom, for the simple reason that it was not relevant to the topic at hand. None of my school science teachers, whether religious or not, ever had a problem with evolutionary theory - the evidence for an old earth is extensive, voluminous and well-tested.

Frankly, I get the sense that you're getting all bent out of shape because science is being taught in science classes in school.

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: I did say keep atheism out. Even playing field.

This is why we know you never completed high school. You have no idea what is taught in science. You get your information from your favorite science haters and other high school dropouts.

Helena Constantine said:

TomS said:

Helena Constantine said: Ironically, in your examples, both sets of rocks are the result of intelligent deign--surely you don't think a dump truck is a natural object?

Are not all things creatures of God?

Another unfalsifiable supposition.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Steve P Effective medicine is the product of an accurate understanding of biological systems; creation mythologies have zero impact upon this activity. Quite simply, whether one believes that there is a primum mobile, or one cleaves to a literalist reading of Gilgamesh, or an allegorical interpretation of Genesis is irrelevant to questions of medical efficacy or science in general. When you can point to a corpus of scientific knowledge that is dependent on Gilgamesh or Genesis, and that can produce actual results in the actual world that we all inhabit then, by all means, import it into the classroom. Belief in a prime mover is perfectly fine - but why is it relevant to naturalistic explanations of living systems that describe the whats, the hows and the whys? Why is it relevant to the teaching of science in public schools, given that science is neutral and indifferent to extra-natural explanations? Having lived and travelled extensively in Africa and Asia, I can tell you that most people are just trying to get through the day or the week, they're not obsessed with debates over origins; what they do want, however, is for their kids to get a decent education and for their healthcare to be up to the task. I'd be really interested if you would perhaps grace us with some examples of the language in high school biology textbooks that you find so offensive. Seriously, give us some instances of the skewed language and the textbooks that they come from. What language inserted into biology textbooks would appease you? Seriously, it shouldn't be difficult for you to give us some examples. It's getting on a bit since I was at school - but in spite of a serious C of E ethos, somehow the science teaching staff, many of whom were devout Christians, managed to get through their duties - which was to, you know, teach us the scientific basics - without ever importing god, or atheism for that matter, into the classroom, for the simple reason that it was not relevant to the topic at hand. None of my school science teachers, whether religious or not, ever had a problem with evolutionary theory - the evidence for an old earth is extensive, voluminous and well-tested. Frankly, I get the sense that you're getting all bent out of shape because science is being taught in science classes in school.

harold said: Frank J.

That sounds like equilibrium. One reason that many engineers (Salem hypothesis) even non-biologist scientists fall for anti-evolution arguments (the “it’s all running downhill” nonsense) is that most of what we learn in P-chem involves gases and equilibrium.

???? I had to learn quite a bit about gases myself, since a bio degree required gen chem and for some insane reason I took extra physical chemistry. I must have missed the part that suggested evolution denial.

When Christians read it, its Christian.

— Helena Constantine

Steve P

"inserting language into science textbooks that clearly favours a humanistic, atheistic worldview" - give us some examples of what is currently taught in science classes that offends you.

"take out the skewed language in biology textbooks" - give us examples of what you view as the skewed language in said textbooks.

As far as I can see, scientists, whether atheist or theist, are interested in promoting the teaching of science in their classrooms; and no amount of ranting about replacing religion with science is going to alter the inescapable fact that science is, you know, science, and not religion, of which Christianity is only a subset.

Meanwhile, it appears that the governor of Tennessee has signed the bill. Get some popcorn, sit back, and wait for the 1st Amendment lawsuits to begin.

SteveP. said: You think Coyne and Myers are disinterested in promoting their atheism in the science classroom. Don't be naive. These types of folk are chompin' at the bit to bash religion. Oh, yeah. They won't do it as a formal part of the science curriculum. But you think they won't bash religion within earshot of student between classes and after school? Heck they probably deride religion directly in the classroom.

None of that shit should be put up with by christian taxpayers, which happen to be in the majority. As long as there are these types of characters raving on about how bad religion is, I am all for the fundamentalist' full court press.

SteveP. said: Hey, Stanton Explain to me how 'shit happens' explains anything. Thats what darwinism is at its root. See, shit happened but we can tell you wonderful stories about what happened afterwards. Its just friggin' plausible deniability all the way down. I'll take God's word over your stupendously vacuous metaphysics any day of the week.

eric said: (SteveP is) basically arguing that because someone you don't like voices their opinion in a legal manner, you think fundies should be allowed to illegally add religion to HS science textbooks. That's stupid and ridiculous. Even if you were right about atheism appearing in textbooks, the courts have said its illegal to add a religious perspective to counterbalance an illegal promotion of atheism. If some text is illegally promoting atheism, the legal and proper solution is to remove that promotion, that is all.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Steve P "inserting language into science textbooks that clearly favours a humanistic, atheistic worldview" - give us some examples of what is currently taught in science classes that offends you. "take out the skewed language in biology textbooks" - give us examples of what you view as the skewed language in said textbooks. As far as I can see, scientists, whether atheist or theist, are interested in promoting the teaching of science in their classrooms; and no amount of ranting about replacing religion with science is going to alter the inescapable fact that science is, you know, science, and not religion, of which Christianity is only a subset.

If anything I bet that P-chem helped you better appreciate evolution.

apokryltaros said: The problem is that, when taught correctly (and without interference from Christian fundamentalists), science education does not promote anything, not atheism or Creationism. That is what makes Christian fundamentalists upset: that science isn't promoting their preferred flavor of Christianity:

eric said: Maybe. I think most want to carve out some exceptional treatment when it comes to evolution (and maybe the big bang theory); they are okay with non-promotion in other areas.

“inserting language into science textbooks that clearly favours a humanistic, atheistic worldview” - give us some examples of what is currently taught in science classes that offends you.

— A Masked Panda (UAn0)

SteveP. said: The numnut Bennett has got it backwards. YOU are using God believing tax dollars to insinuate a humanisitic, secular, atheistic worldview in the classroom. Get your own @#$% venue to play those subliminal mind games with young students.

SteveP. said: I never said teach creationism in the classroom. I did say keep atheism out. Even playing field. But that is not what you want, is it? You wanna make sure creationism stays out so you have free reign to inculcate your atheism into pliable minds.

dalehusband said:

SteveP. said: The numnut Bennett has got it backwards. YOU are using God believing tax dollars to insinuate a humanisitic, secular, atheistic worldview in the classroom. Get your own @#$% venue to play those subliminal mind games with young students.

That is a flat-out lie. Evolution is based on science, and does not depend on any atheistic ideology for it's justification. And tax dollars have no religion. Creationism is a fraud. Always was, always will be and we do not condone the teaching of fraud in schools.

SteveP. said: Actually, MP I have never had any qualms about teaching science in the classroom. I also am not interested in the creation story being taught in the science class. What I am interested in is calling all of you out on your disengenuousness. you (pl) keep wailing on how creationists are so dishonest. But really, you are all two sides of the same coin. There is no honesty here about what is happening. You think Coyne and Myers are disinterested in promoting their atheism in the science classroom. Don't be naive. These types of folk are chompin' at the bit to bash religion. Oh, yeah. They won't do it as a formal part of the science curriculum. But you think they won't bash religion within earshot of student between classes and after school? Heck they probably deride religion directly in the classroom. Their whole agenda is getting religion outta peoples minds. Just ask Dawkins. None of that shit should be put up with by christian taxpayers, which happen to be in the majority. As long as there are these types of characters raving on about how bad religion is, I am all for the fundamentalist' full court press. To be sure, there are a heck of a lot positive things about religion that science has no answer to. Just ask Father Corapi. Stop trying to replace religion with science, and that fundamentalist monkey on you back will start scratching that itch instead on screaming in your inner ear.

SteveP. said: you (pl) keep wailing on how creationists are so dishonest. But really, you are all two sides of the same coin. There is no honesty here about what is happening.

SteveP. the deranged creotard American expatriate residing in Taiwan crowed: Take some Metamusil, Stanton. You're running at the mouth. I never said teach creationism in the classroom. I did say keep atheism out. Even playing field. But that is not what you want, is it? You wanna make sure creationism stays out so you have free reign to inculcate your atheism into pliable minds. No go, schmo.

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: Hey Stanton, Here's your answer. Contrary to what you(pl) believe here, most people are interested in a 'satisfying' explanation. The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects. At the end of the day, Darwinism fails to engage and energize people where it counts the most. That's the simple reason why you need the courts and schools to promote it. It just ain't catching on half as fast as you think it should. btw, shrewd move to ride the back of government assistance to get yr prop out there on the cheap. darwinism is tone deaf to be sure. Oh yeah, it matters alright if you are living in the 'real world' that you (pl) keep saying you understand.

And yet, you fail to explain how Creationism is science, you fail to explain how Creationism is supposed to be better than science, you fail to explain how teaching Creationism, instead of science, in a science classroom, does not violate the separation of Church and State as described in the 1st Amendment, and you fail to explain how Creationism explains anything. But, this is expected from a malicious idiot who thinks he knows more about science than all the scientists in the whole wide world, like yourself.

apokryltaros said:

dalehusband said:

SteveP. said: The numnut Bennett has got it backwards. YOU are using God believing tax dollars to insinuate a humanisitic, secular, atheistic worldview in the classroom. Get your own @#$% venue to play those subliminal mind games with young students.

That is a flat-out lie. Evolution is based on science, and does not depend on any atheistic ideology for it's justification. And tax dollars have no religion. Creationism is a fraud. Always was, always will be and we do not condone the teaching of fraud in schools.

But we have to condone teaching fraud in schools if it's a Fraud for Jesus! SteveP wants it so, don't you see? [/sarcasm]

dalehusband said:

SteveP. said: YOU are using God believing tax dollars to insinuate a humanisitic, secular, atheistic worldview in the classroom.

That is a flat-out lie. Evolution is based on science, and does not depend on any atheistic ideology for it's justification. And tax dollars have no religion. Creationism is a fraud. Always was, always will be and we do not condone the teaching of fraud in schools.

SteveP. said: SWT, Whoever said He didn't do it. The whole point is that you(pl) actually believe it all just up and came to be on its own, one wee step at a time, no gods needed. Show me the money! Who's livin' in the real world now people?

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: Hey, Stanton Explain to me how 'shit happens' explains anything. Thats what darwinism is at its root. See, shit happened but we can tell you wonderful stories about what happened afterwards. Its just friggin' plausible deniability all the way down. I'll take God's word over your stupendously vacuous metaphysics any day of the week.

Evolutionary Biology is about "descent with modification" Your claim that "darwinism" is just "vacuous metaphysics" about "shit happens" is a very stupid strawman that betrays your obvious hatred of science and learning.

apokryltaros said:

eric said: (SteveP is) basically arguing that because someone you don't like voices their opinion in a legal manner, you think fundies should be allowed to illegally add religion to HS science textbooks. That's stupid and ridiculous. Even if you were right about atheism appearing in textbooks, the courts have said its illegal to add a religious perspective to counterbalance an illegal promotion of atheism. If some text is illegally promoting atheism, the legal and proper solution is to remove that promotion, that is all.

The problem is that, when taught correctly (and without interference from Christian fundamentalists), science education does not promote anything, not atheism or Creationism. That is what makes Christian fundamentalists upset: that science isn't promoting their preferred flavor of Christianity: hence their nonstop lying that science allegedly promotes atheism, devil worship, bad manners and hatred of God. But SteveP is too stupid to care about this. He's too busy trying to insult and bully us into agreeing with his demonstrably wrong idea that we must insert religious perspective to counterbalance the alleged atheistic perspectives lurking in science education.

SteveP. said: You're starting to sound more and more like Elzinga. Start a club. Naw. There's no strawman. This is the core of your argument. Life started by a lucky confluence of chemicals bathed in just the right 'energy well', and poof, here we go. Then once kicked in gear, more strokes of luck. Poof! Lookie there, a cell. More poof! Lookie here, a multli-celled organism. Only intellectually challenged and/or religion hating folks go for this darwinian crap.

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: Hey, Stanton Explain to me how 'shit happens' explains anything. Thats what darwinism is at its root. See, shit happened but we can tell you wonderful stories about what happened afterwards. Its just friggin' plausible deniability all the way down. I'll take God's word over your stupendously vacuous metaphysics any day of the week.

Evolutionary Biology is about "descent with modification" Your claim that "darwinism" is just "vacuous metaphysics" about "shit happens" is a very stupid strawman that betrays your obvious hatred of science and learning.

SteveP. said: You have reading comprehension issues or are just plain lying.

I clearly stated that I am not in favor of teaching creationism in the classroom. Do you need in in bold type or what?

Furthermore, I stated clearly that I am against atheists using the vacuum resulting from a naked public square to promote their ideas through the education system. It is more than clear that this has and is happening.

Again even playing field. If religion must be kept out of school, then atheism/humanism/secularism must also be kept out. Not too hard to understand.

So, rather than continue insulting me and everyone else who won't mindlessly agree with you, SteveP, why don't you give us an example of atheists using science education to brainwash children?

Or at least explain to us why we must trust your opinion of science when you refuse to be bothered to understand what Evolution really is?

SteveP. said: Life started by a lucky confluence of chemicals bathed in just the right 'energy well', and poof, here we go. Then once kicked in gear, more strokes of luck. Poof! Lookie there, a cell. More poof! Lookie here, a multli-celled organism. Only intellectually challenged and/or religion hating folks go for this darwinian crap.

SteveP. said: Life started by a lucky confluence of chemicals bathed in just the right 'energy well', and poof, here we go.

SteveP. said: If religion must be kept out of school, then atheism/humanism/secularism must also be kept out.

DS said:

toothful said: keep in mind that that is just a single cell...can you imagine building a complete common mammal with every bone, organ, fluid, neuron and capillary just the right size and quantity, and in just the right place?

hey y,all if someone does build a single cell, will you admit that evolution is real and that no gods are required? if someone does succeed in building a mammal, will you admit that mammals evolved and no gods were required? didn't think so

DS said:

toothful said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/kYQj4.Y6hsNHh2hA4cxjQS4Dobc-#0cdad said:

toothful said: keep in mind that that is just a single cell...can you imagine building a complete common mammal with every bone, organ, fluid, neuron and capillary just the right size and quantity, and in just the right place?

The troll thinks that arguing that a mammal is too complex to design is an argument for design. Idiot.

no, i was hoping you would recognize the extreme amount of intelligence it would take to design and build such a thing.

We were hoping that you would recognize the extreme lack of intelligence that it takes to say such things. Look dude, cumulative selection can produce complex structures. This is not an argument against evolution or an argument for intelligent design.

John said:

toothless the fool decreed:

Scott F said:

toothful said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/kYQj4.Y6hsNHh2hA4cxjQS4Dobc-#0cdad said:

toothful said: keep in mind that that is just a single cell...can you imagine building a complete common mammal with every bone, organ, fluid, neuron and capillary just the right size and quantity, and in just the right place?

The troll thinks that arguing that a mammal is too complex to design is an argument for design. Idiot.

no, i was hoping you would recognize the extreme amount of intelligence it would take to design and build such a thing.

It takes no intelligence whatsoever to build a mammal from raw ingredients. I have a cute puppy that is becoming an adult dog right before my eyes, and it required no intelligence on my part, and less on his. It is taking some time, though, but I haven't seen a single miracle happen. I've been watching for it too. Maybe you believe that it requires a miracle to place every cell and every molecule where it belongs to form an adult dog? OTOH, if someone were to take a pile of clay and form an adult dog directly, in a matter of minutes or days, without going through all of the puppy stages, then yes that would require a lot of intelligence, and quite a few miracles to boot. As it is, it only requires chemistry and time. And poop. Building an adult dog seems to require lot's of poop.

i guess you wouldn't recognize a miracle if you were holding it in your arms. all of nature is SUPERnatural in origin. it, up 'til now, has been shown experimentally that life only comes from life (Law of Biogenesis), and it is ABOVE and BEYOND the ability of natural processes and chance to produce. why not go with the scientific, empirical evidence?

That's a crock of S**T toothless. Nature is not "SUPERnatural in origin", and if it was, it would be by a "Creator" who opted to work under natural law.

Henry J said:

it, up ’til now, has been shown experimentally that life only comes from life (Law of Biogenesis),

It has been concluded that modern cellular life comes only from earlier cells. That does not rule out early cells coming from something that was almost cell-like, and those coming from something slightly less cell-like, etc.

Henry J said: Some mutations are harmful, some are neutral. Though of course harmful is quite often relative to the environment.

should you expose yourself to mutagens? if not why not, if that’s how things evolve?

The reason for not doing something like that incredibly stupid suggestion is that some mutations are harmful. (The word "cancer" comes to mind here for some reason.) With a low mutation rate, a large fraction of offspring will be produced without harmful mutations. With a high mutation rate, that fraction goes down.

Matt G said: Meanwhile, it appears that the governor of Tennessee has signed the bill. Get some popcorn, sit back, and wait for the 1st Amendment lawsuits to begin.

apokryltaros said:

toothful said: here's a prediction, harmful mutations will be the death and extinction of all evolutionary theories which depend upon mutations as their prime mover.

Do you always say stupid things about topics you have no desire to understand? It's quite obvious that you are not aware that there are beneficial and neutral mutations. That, and what gave you the stupid idea that geneticists don't know anything about describing or discussing harmful mutations? Some moronic Creationist website? What do harmful mutations say about an "Intelligent Designer"? That the Designer is either incompetent for allowing harmful mutations occur, or that he's evil for deliberately allowing them to occur?

should you expose yourself to mutagens? if not why not, if that's how things evolve?

We're already exposed to mutagens in the environment. That, and things "evolve" by passing down heritable traits to their offspring. If a mutation prevents or hinders an organism's ability to reproduce, then that particular lineage is unlikely to evolve.

with the empirical evidence showing that mutations are harmful and cause a loss of information in the living cell, it would be easier to advocate DEvolution (as in DEgeneration), than evolution.

So, do you think bacteria gaining the ability to pump out and or metabolize antibiotics is a "loss of information"? What about the ability of insects and rats to resist pesticides? Is becoming blind in order to adapt to living in a lightless cave "DEvolution" (sic), even though having sight in a lightless environment is a waste of energy? Or at least, could you explain to us why we have to assume that you know more about Evolution and Biology than all of the biologists in the world put together? Even when you make very stupid claims that betray your total ignorance of science?

harold said: Thanks, Steve P.

The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects.

For a long time now, you've kept up the outdated ruse of supporting ID for some reason other than being a religious creationist. Now you slipped up. Sorry, the Constitution of the United States of America forbids the use of taxpayer money to favor one religious dogma at the expense of others. You lose.

Helena Constantine said:

toothful said: hey y'all, i suppose i will have to offer the solution to the problem i offered. the fact is, SETI science cannot be explained apart from ID science. SETI scientists incorporate ID science as the MEANS for determining what may be a stream of intelligent information coming from beyond the boundary of earth (extra terrestrial). they are looking for the "signature" of an intelligent, thinking MIND - recognizable information - and they do not presume that they will be able to determine its source immediately or ever. suppose a dump truck ran over the curb and spilled a pile of rocks onto the sidewalk and continued on. a bit later, you're taking a walk and come upon the scattered rocks in the middle of the sidewalk. how much time would you spend trying to make sense out of the chance, chaotic pattern? my guess is that you wouldn't give it much thought, but would merely glance at it, while walking around it, thinking,"what a stupid place to put a pile of rocks!" now, if you were to stop and arrange some of the stones into a specific recognizable pattern of low probability, which spelled out, CLEAN UP THIS MESS, someone passing by later would consider the pile of scattered rocks to be a chance occurrence, but the organized pattern would clearly indicate to them that its source was an intelligent mind.

Ironically, in your examples, both sets of rocks are the result of intelligent deign--surely you don't think a dump truck is a natural object?

toothful said:

harold said: Thanks, Steve P.

The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects.

For a long time now, you've kept up the outdated ruse of supporting ID for some reason other than being a religious creationist. Now you slipped up. Sorry, the Constitution of the United States of America forbids the use of taxpayer money to favor one religious dogma at the expense of others. You lose.

hey you, check out the declaration of independence and you'll see that you lose....you have NO inalienable rights! all atheists (not saying you are one - don't know) and naturalistic evolutionists are at the mercy of whomever is in power during there stint in life. could mean slavery for them, with no recourse. did you notice what americans should do if those in gov't become destructive of our inalienable rights?

toothful said: would you site some examples of truly beneficial mutations? mutations that actually added some new and beneficial info to the cell for its improvement.

apokryltaros said: So, what's the point of bringing up this non-sequitor, besides flaunting your bigotry?

toothful said:

apokryltaros said:

toothful said: here's a prediction, harmful mutations will be the death and extinction of all evolutionary theories which depend upon mutations as their prime mover.

Do you always say stupid things about topics you have no desire to understand? It's quite obvious that you are not aware that there are beneficial and neutral mutations. That, and what gave you the stupid idea that geneticists don't know anything about describing or discussing harmful mutations? Some moronic Creationist website? What do harmful mutations say about an "Intelligent Designer"? That the Designer is either incompetent for allowing harmful mutations occur, or that he's evil for deliberately allowing them to occur?

should you expose yourself to mutagens? if not why not, if that's how things evolve?

We're already exposed to mutagens in the environment. That, and things "evolve" by passing down heritable traits to their offspring. If a mutation prevents or hinders an organism's ability to reproduce, then that particular lineage is unlikely to evolve.

with the empirical evidence showing that mutations are harmful and cause a loss of information in the living cell, it would be easier to advocate DEvolution (as in DEgeneration), than evolution.

So, do you think bacteria gaining the ability to pump out and or metabolize antibiotics is a "loss of information"? What about the ability of insects and rats to resist pesticides? Is becoming blind in order to adapt to living in a lightless cave "DEvolution" (sic), even though having sight in a lightless environment is a waste of energy? Or at least, could you explain to us why we have to assume that you know more about Evolution and Biology than all of the biologists in the world put together? Even when you make very stupid claims that betray your total ignorance of science?

those bacteria may survive in an artificial environment of antibiotics without competition, but the mutation that allows them that, injures the cell so that it cannot metabolize food as well in the wild and will be out competed. put the blind fish back into a lighted environment, and "see" how well it does escaping sighted predators. the rats and insects had to already have some resistance to the pesticides or they would be dead, and it only makes since that they would continue to reproduce others with the same resistance. is there evidence that their resistance was the result of a mutation? does it cause something more dangerous to the health of the critters? like the sickle cell mutation in humans that protects some from malaria?

toothful said:

Henry J said: Some mutations are harmful, some are neutral. Though of course harmful is quite often relative to the environment.

should you expose yourself to mutagens? if not why not, if that’s how things evolve?

The reason for not doing something like that incredibly stupid suggestion is that some mutations are harmful. (The word "cancer" comes to mind here for some reason.) With a low mutation rate, a large fraction of offspring will be produced without harmful mutations. With a high mutation rate, that fraction goes down.

would you site some examples of truly beneficial mutations? mutations that actually added some new and beneficial info to the cell for its improvement.

apokryltaros said:

toothful said:

harold said: Thanks, Steve P.

The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects.

For a long time now, you've kept up the outdated ruse of supporting ID for some reason other than being a religious creationist. Now you slipped up. Sorry, the Constitution of the United States of America forbids the use of taxpayer money to favor one religious dogma at the expense of others. You lose.

hey you, check out the declaration of independence and you'll see that you lose....you have NO inalienable rights! all atheists (not saying you are one - don't know) and naturalistic evolutionists are at the mercy of whomever is in power during there stint in life. could mean slavery for them, with no recourse. did you notice what americans should do if those in gov't become destructive of our inalienable rights?

As according to the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, the US government is forbidden by law from enslaving or stripping rights of its citizens because they belong or don't belong to a religion. So, what's the point of bringing up this non-sequitor, besides flaunting your bigotry?

co said:

toothful said: would you site some examples of truly beneficial mutations? mutations that actually added some new and beneficial info to the cell for its improvement.

First define "truly beneficial mutation". Then "info". Then we'll talk.

toothful said:

apokryltaros said:

toothful said:

harold said: Thanks, Steve P.

The christian creation story is simply more satisfying in many respects.

For a long time now, you've kept up the outdated ruse of supporting ID for some reason other than being a religious creationist. Now you slipped up. Sorry, the Constitution of the United States of America forbids the use of taxpayer money to favor one religious dogma at the expense of others. You lose.

hey you, check out the declaration of independence and you'll see that you lose....you have NO inalienable rights! all atheists (not saying you are one - don't know) and naturalistic evolutionists are at the mercy of whomever is in power during there stint in life. could mean slavery for them, with no recourse. did you notice what americans should do if those in gov't become destructive of our inalienable rights?

As according to the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, the US government is forbidden by law from enslaving or stripping rights of its citizens because they belong or don't belong to a religion. So, what's the point of bringing up this non-sequitor, besides flaunting your bigotry?

anyone of any race can be enslaved. if you have no inalienable right to "liberty" or life you certainly aren't free!

toothful said:

Helena Constantine said:

toothful said: suppose a dump truck ran over the curb and spilled a pile of rocks onto the sidewalk and continued on. a bit later, you're taking a walk and come upon the scattered rocks in the middle of the sidewalk. how much time would you spend trying to make sense out of the chance, chaotic pattern? my guess is that you wouldn't give it much thought, but would merely glance at it, while walking around it, thinking,"what a stupid place to put a pile of rocks!" now, if you were to stop and arrange some of the stones into a specific recognizable pattern of low probability, which spelled out, CLEAN UP THIS MESS, someone passing by later would consider the pile of scattered rocks to be a chance occurrence, but the organized pattern would clearly indicate to them that its source was an intelligent mind.

Ironically, in your examples, both sets of rocks are the result of intelligent deign--surely you don't think a dump truck is a natural object?

the rocks falling from it did what comes naturally - chaos with no order.

hey y'all,

science is the search for the knowledge of the truth - no matter where the evidence leads.
it is not, as some have perverted the definition to be, the search for naturalistic explanations...which is the religion of naturalism or pagan pantheism (check it out).

whatever your world view is, that's your religion.
is yours naturalism or supernaturalism?

by the way, all of science is based upon FAITH. the "belief" that the laws of physics (including chemistry) will continue faithfully as they have.

toothful said: hey y'all, science is the search for the knowledge of the truth - no matter where the evidence leads. it is not, as some have perverted the definition to be, the search for naturalistic explanations...which is the religion of naturalism or pagan pantheism (check it out). whatever your world view is, that's your religion. is yours naturalism or supernaturalism? by the way, all of science is based upon FAITH. the "belief" that the laws of physics (including chemistry) will continue faithfully as they have.

apokryltaros said:

co said:

toothful said: would you site some examples of truly beneficial mutations? mutations that actually added some new and beneficial info to the cell for its improvement.

First define "truly beneficial mutation". Then "info". Then we'll talk.

Most likely, toothful's definitions of "truly beneficial mutation" and "info" revolve around comicbook mutant superpowers and or magical omnipotence.

toothful said: hey y'all, science is the search for the knowledge of the truth - no matter where the evidence leads.

it is not, as some have perverted the definition to be, the search for naturalistic explanations...which is the religion of naturalism or pagan pantheism (check it out).

whatever your world view is, that's your religion. is yours naturalism or supernaturalism?

by the way, all of science is based upon FAITH. the "belief" that the laws of physics (including chemistry) will continue faithfully as they have.

toothful said: you aren't aware of all the coded information within the DNA? a truly beneficial mutation is one that would add NEW information (something original and additional) to the gene pool - not just a mistake (error) to the present codes, which is what all mutations are - that would lead to a new and improved critter with no negative side effects.

SWT said:

toothful said: hey y'all, science is the search for the knowledge of the truth - no matter where the evidence leads. it is not, as some have perverted the definition to be, the search for naturalistic explanations...which is the religion of naturalism or pagan pantheism (check it out). whatever your world view is, that's your religion. is yours naturalism or supernaturalism? by the way, all of science is based upon FAITH. the "belief" that the laws of physics (including chemistry) will continue faithfully as they have.

hey toothful, I'm a practicing scientist and a practicing Christian (my ordination is in the Presbyterian Church (USA)). Based on the quoted material above, I can say with a high degree of certainty that you are either completely ignorant of the nature of science or running a character that is being deliberately obtuse. That said, I'll ask anyhow: 1) How old is the Earth? What leads you to this conclusion? 2) How old is the universe? What leads you to this conclusion? 3) What is the best available explanation for the observed diversity of life? What leads you to this explanation?

dalehusband said:

toothful said: hey y'all, science is the search for the knowledge of the truth - no matter where the evidence leads.

That is exactly right.

it is not, as some have perverted the definition to be, the search for naturalistic explanations...which is the religion of naturalism or pagan pantheism (check it out).

Outright lie. The reason science settles for naturalistic explanations is because all the investigations scientists have ever done have not uncovered a SINGLE case in which supernatural causes were able to explain anything. Claims to the contrary have usually been exposed as fraudulant.

whatever your world view is, that's your religion. is yours naturalism or supernaturalism?

whatever your world view is, that's your religion. is yours bigotry or non-bigotry?

by the way, all of science is based upon FAITH. the "belief" that the laws of physics (including chemistry) will continue faithfully as they have.

Bull$#it. That's not faith, that's rational and provisional acceptance of what knowledge we can gain through empirical means. You are as arrogant and dishonest as all the other Creationist bigots who come though here. You provide great entertainment for a while, but that's it.

dalehusband said:

toothful said: you aren't aware of all the coded information within the DNA? a truly beneficial mutation is one that would add NEW information (something original and additional) to the gene pool - not just a mistake (error) to the present codes, which is what all mutations are - that would lead to a new and improved critter with no negative side effects.

DNA is not a book to be read, idiot. You definitions stink worse than a dead skunk on a desert highway in a summer afternoon.

toothful said: i noticed you didn't debunk anything i stated. i can't tell you how old either are. i wasn't there at the beginning. all i know, is that light and time can do some strange things in the quantum realm (Doppler effect for red and blue shift is a supposition), and catastrophes took the wind out of uniformitarianism.

i would say that the diversity of life is supernatural because natural processes and chance cannot produce it.

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. the delusional creotard lying American residing in Taiwan barked: You're starting to sound more and more like Elzinga. Start a club. Naw. There's no strawman. This is the core of your argument. Life started by a lucky confluence of chemicals bathed in just the right 'energy well', and poof, here we go. Then once kicked in gear, more strokes of luck. Poof! Lookie there, a cell. More poof! Lookie here, a multli-celled organism. Only intellectually challenged and/or religion hating folks go for this darwinian crap.

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: Hey, Stanton Explain to me how 'shit happens' explains anything. Thats what darwinism is at its root. See, shit happened but we can tell you wonderful stories about what happened afterwards. Its just friggin' plausible deniability all the way down. I'll take God's word over your stupendously vacuous metaphysics any day of the week.

Evolutionary Biology is about "descent with modification" Your claim that "darwinism" is just "vacuous metaphysics" about "shit happens" is a very stupid strawman that betrays your obvious hatred of science and learning.

Except that now you're putting forth a very stupid strawman of Abiogenesis, and not Evolution. And only Creationists and other science-deniers assume that that is "darwinism."

toothful said: by the way, all of science is based upon FAITH. the “belief” that the laws of physics (including chemistry) will continue faithfully as they have.

dalehusband said: Bull$#it. That's not faith, that's rational and provisional acceptance of what knowledge we can gain through empirical means.

you don't know if they will change, unless you are omniscient.

toothful said:

dalehusband said:

toothful said: you aren't aware of all the coded information within the DNA? a truly beneficial mutation is one that would add NEW information (something original and additional) to the gene pool - not just a mistake (error) to the present codes, which is what all mutations are - that would lead to a new and improved critter with no negative side effects.

DNA is not a book to be read, idiot. You definitions stink worse than a dead skunk on a desert highway in a summer afternoon.

the cell does a pretty good job of reading ALL the info contained in it, as it constructs a human being from the CODED blueprints within the DNA of the single, fertilized egg. technology infinitely above ours.

toothless the clueless creotard barfed: i would say that the diversity of life is supernatural because natural processes and chance cannot produce it.

toothful said: wasn't it evolutionists who called creationists bigots for teaching one and only one theory of origins before they entered the public schools?

toothful said:

dalehusband said:

toothful said: you aren't aware of all the coded information within the DNA? a truly beneficial mutation is one that would add NEW information (something original and additional) to the gene pool - not just a mistake (error) to the present codes, which is what all mutations are - that would lead to a new and improved critter with no negative side effects.

DNA is not a book to be read, idiot. You definitions stink worse than a dead skunk on a desert highway in a summer afternoon.

the cell does a pretty good job of reading ALL the info contained in it, as it constructs a human being from the CODED blueprints within the DNA of the single, fertilized egg. technology infinitely above ours.

harold said: For the record, I think both major US political parties stink as far as respecting constitutional rights, but I suspect that what you would like to see is substantially worse.

apokryltaros said:

harold said: For the record, I think both major US political parties stink as far as respecting constitutional rights, but I suspect that what you would like to see is substantially worse.

I mean, what purpose would toothless want to bring up the idea of enslaving atheists other than to show that he's a bigot?

toothful said:

Henry J said: Some mutations are harmful, some are neutral. Though of course harmful is quite often relative to the environment.

should you expose yourself to mutagens? if not why not, if that’s how things evolve?

The reason for not doing something like that incredibly stupid suggestion is that some mutations are harmful. (The word "cancer" comes to mind here for some reason.) With a low mutation rate, a large fraction of offspring will be produced without harmful mutations. With a high mutation rate, that fraction goes down.

would you site some examples of truly beneficial mutations? mutations that actually added some new and beneficial info to the cell for its improvement.

toothful said: hey y'all, science is the search for the knowledge of the truth - no matter where the evidence leads.

it is not, as some have perverted the definition to be, the search for naturalistic explanations...which is the religion of naturalism or pagan pantheism (check it out).

whatever your world view is, that's your religion. is yours naturalism or supernaturalism?

by the way, all of science is based upon FAITH. the "belief" that the laws of physics (including chemistry) will continue faithfully as they have.

toothful said: i can't tell you how old either are. i wasn't there at the beginning.

....catastrophes took the wind out of uniformitarianism.

i would say that the diversity of life is supernatural because natural processes and chance cannot produce it.

Oh, and the Declaration of Independence is NOT US law. The United States did not even exist until 13 years later. The laws of the US begin with the Constitution. If there is anything in the Declaration that is now incorporated into US law, it isn't law because of the Declaration, but because it was later established by the Constitution or legislation. The Declaration is ONLY an important historical document, like the Gettysburg Address.

Oh, yeah, and that thing above Ctrl on your keyboard? Adults use it now and then.

harold said:

toothful said:

dalehusband said:

toothful said: you aren't aware of all the coded information within the DNA? a truly beneficial mutation is one that would add NEW information (something original and additional) to the gene pool - not just a mistake (error) to the present codes, which is what all mutations are - that would lead to a new and improved critter with no negative side effects.

DNA is not a book to be read, idiot. You definitions stink worse than a dead skunk on a desert highway in a summer afternoon.

the cell does a pretty good job of reading ALL the info contained in it, as it constructs a human being from the CODED blueprints within the DNA of the single, fertilized egg. technology infinitely above ours.

Well, then, no need for the designer here. Cells function without ongoing supernatural input. Your issue seems to be where the first cell came from. That's not a question for the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution deals with living cells and viruses. The scientific study of the origin of life is called "abiogenesis". It's an interesting and valuable field but no definitive model of the origin of fully modern cells exists yet. You can put your "designer" in that gap for now. For the record, I think both major US political parties stink as far as respecting constitutional rights, but I suspect that what would like to see is substantially worse.

toothless the cluess creotard barked: hey y'all, science is the search for the knowledge of the truth - no matter where the evidence leads. it is not, as some have perverted the definition to be, the search for naturalistic explanations...which is the religion of naturalism or pagan pantheism (check it out). whatever your world view is, that's your religion. is yours naturalism or supernaturalism? by the way, all of science is based upon FAITH. the "belief" that the laws of physics (including chemistry) will continue faithfully as they have.

Just Bob said: Oh, and the Declaration of Independence is NOT US law. The United States did not even exist until 13 years later. The laws of the US begin with the Constitution. If there is anything in the Declaration that is now incorporated into US law, it isn't law because of the Declaration, but because it was later established by the Constitution or legislation. The Declaration is ONLY an important historical document, like the Gettysburg Address. Oh, yeah, and that thing above Ctrl on your keyboard? Adults use it now and then.

And so, as predicted. ten pages later toothless has learned absolutely nothing. The Gish gallop continues in full stride. As the antihero rides away into the sunset in a cloud of ignorance, let's wave a not so fond farewell.

SWT said: I think the laws of the United States began with final ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781. You main point about the role of the Declaration of Independence still stands, of course.

SWT said:

Just Bob said: Oh, and the Declaration of Independence is NOT US law. The United States did not even exist until 13 years later. The laws of the US begin with the Constitution. If there is anything in the Declaration that is now incorporated into US law, it isn't law because of the Declaration, but because it was later established by the Constitution or legislation. The Declaration is ONLY an important historical document, like the Gettysburg Address. Oh, yeah, and that thing above Ctrl on your keyboard? Adults use it now and then.

I think the laws of the United States began with final ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781. You main point about the role of the Declaration of Independence still stands, of course.

Just Bob said:

SWT said: I think the laws of the United States began with final ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781. You main point about the role of the Declaration of Independence still stands, of course.

IANAhistorian or political scientist, but I believe the Articles only had the force of law up until the ratification of the Constitution, which supplanted any previous laws. Any provisions of the Articles that were enumerated in the Constitution then became, or continued to be, US law, but only because they were empowered by the Constitution. The same could be said of many features of English law that we adopted. The Declaration, however, was never a "law" in any sense. IANAH, so I welcome correction.

Just Bob said:

SWT said: I think the laws of the United States began with final ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781. You main point about the role of the Declaration of Independence still stands, of course.

IANAhistorian or political scientist, but I believe the Articles only had the force of law up until the ratification of the Constitution, which supplanted any previous laws. Any provisions of the Articles that were enumerated in the Constitution then became, or continued to be, US law, but only because they were empowered by the Constitution. The same could be said of many features of English law that we adopted. The Declaration, however, was never a "law" in any sense. IANAH, so I welcome correction.

I'm not sure that TFUL is saying anything to get excited about. If he wants to say that he doesn't buy evolution because it crosses his personal belief system -- well, that's clearly a true statement, I wouldn't think of disputing it, or even consider it very interesting.

If he wants to define science as a "religion", he can cook up definitions in any way that pleases him. I must admit it seems odd to declare that "science is a religion" as if that made it a REALLY bad thing. "Science is a RELIGION?! The OUTRAGE! How could you INSULT it so?!"

Of course by my definition it's not, it's a practical endeavor, I have no more or less regard for it than, say, the construction industry. That's not a slam, I grew up in a construction family. TFUL will certainly insist that science really is a religion whether anyone else cares to recognize the fact or not -- but I would have to think somebody could just as insistently define the construction industry as a religion if they had some motive for doing so.

Alas, TFUL goes off the end of the bridge because, after having his personal dislike of evolution and his definition of science as a religion shrugged off as inconsequential, he will then have to insist, as all his "kind" do, that his beliefs are actually supported by science.

Whether the sciences are right or not, they obviously don't, the scientific community overwhelmingly (with a tiny fringe exception) endorses evolution. More fundamentally, so to speak, TFUL must then claim, totally unconvincingly, that he has a comprehension of the scientific issues when he has previously declared he despises science and is obviously proud to be ignorant of it.

This is the real core of creationist confusion: not that they reject evolution -- one could call that ignorant but it's not really important by itself -- but they have to twist themselves into pretzels to assert, entirely unconvincingly, that science backs them up, while simultaneously insisting that science knows nothing.

I can see some reasons why they try to say science is on their side while having nothing good to say about it -- but
to the extent I can, I just doesn't seem to justify the depths of lunacy involved.

Cheers -- MrG

MrG -

Okay, I know you know this, but "science is a religion, too !!!!111!!1!" is a legal and political strategy statement. Nobody really thinks that science is a religion.

You have to remember that the goal of evolution denialists is to either get creationism IN to public schools, or, equally good, to get evolution and any other science they don't like OUT. I first became aware of political creationism when the Kansas School Board of 1999 tried to kick evolution OUT of the schools. There was no effort to put creationism in, no court case, and that incident was ended when the creationists lost school board elections. (Actually, it was slightly worse, they couldn't even win the Republican primaries to the school board elections. In Kansas.)

The game being played with the "science is a religion" schtick is this -

"If science is a religion, and religion isn't allowed in schools, you have to get rid of the science. If science is a religion and you allow science in schools, you have to allow 'other religion' to be fair, therefore you have to allow fundamentalist preaching to a captive audience of taxpayer's children, regardless of their parents' wishes, too".

harold:

Of course I know that, but it still remains amusing that proclaiming "science is a religion" is expressed as *such* an insult. "A RELIGION?! I am shocked! Shocked!"

Again, if TFUL wants to claim that science is a religion, I'll humor it. The courts shot that one down in the 1990s -- wotwozit, check NCSE, oh yeah, PELOZA V. CAPISTRANO SCHOOL DISTRICT, 1994 -- and so it's just running on momentum now.

Was I talking to you once about my JFK assassination document? I finally finished the damn thing. 28 chapters of wrestling with rubbish. I had SUCH a headache when I was done -- living on painkillers and seltzer tablets. "Never
again."

MrG

Was I talking to you once about my JFK assassination document? I finally finished the damn thing. 28 chapters of wrestling with rubbish. I had SUCH a headache when I was done – living on painkillers and seltzer tablets. “Never again.”

harold said: That's pretty admirable.

SteveP. said: Again even playing field. If religion must be kept out of school, then atheism/humanism/secularism must also be kept out. Not too hard to understand.

toothful said:

SWT said:

toothful said: hey y'all, science is the search for the knowledge of the truth - no matter where the evidence leads. it is not, as some have perverted the definition to be, the search for naturalistic explanations...which is the religion of naturalism or pagan pantheism (check it out). whatever your world view is, that's your religion. is yours naturalism or supernaturalism? by the way, all of science is based upon FAITH. the "belief" that the laws of physics (including chemistry) will continue faithfully as they have.

hey toothful, I'm a practicing scientist and a practicing Christian (my ordination is in the Presbyterian Church (USA)). Based on the quoted material above, I can say with a high degree of certainty that you are either completely ignorant of the nature of science or running a character that is being deliberately obtuse. That said, I'll ask anyhow: 1) How old is the Earth? What leads you to this conclusion? 2) How old is the universe? What leads you to this conclusion? 3) What is the best available explanation for the observed diversity of life? What leads you to this explanation?

i noticed you didn't debunk anything i stated.

i can't tell you how old either are. i wasn't there at the beginning.

all i know, is that light and time can do some strange things in the quantum realm

(Doppler effect for red and blue shift is a supposition),

and catastrophes took the wind out of uniformitarianism.

i would say that the diversity of life is supernatural because natural processes and chance cannot produce it.

"Doppler effect for red and blue shift is a supposition"

I REALLY suggest you try that on the judge to beat your next traffic ticket, when the officer used a DOPPLER radar or laser speed gun.

Do you have any clue how many things work nowadays using Doppler shifts of various EM waves? Let alone the absolute dependability of the speed of light. Know why we use all those devices? Didn't think so. It's because they're many times more precise that older measuring devices.

We have watched you – right here on PT – failing at every concept in science; and you do it repeatedly without ever checking your misconceptions and misrepresentations. You can’t even do basic math; and you continue to be pissed off at the people here who have exposed you. Instead of correcting your misconceptions and misrepresentations, you return time after time repeating the same crap.

You think people like Henry Morris, William Dembski, Granville Sewell, David L. Abel are gurus of a new science. You have no bullshit detector when it comes to their dishonesty; you just swallow their crap without question.

SteveP. the delusional American creotard residing in Taiwan barfed: Why should I put credence in yours, Myers, or Coynes opionions over folks like Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Robert Marks, David Abel, and Scott Minnoch, who are competent scientists in their fields? Getting clearer and clearer that the bullshit's on your side, not mine. I'll say it again. Man designs. Man is a product of nature. Nature designs. "Deny design, deny yourself"

SteveP. said: Why should I put credence in yours, Myers, or Coynes opionions over folks like Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Robert Marks, David Abel, and Scott Minnoch, who are competent scientists in their fields?

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. the delusional creotard whined: Why should I put credence in yours, Myers, or Coynes opionions over folks like Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Robert Marks, David Abel, and Scott Minnoch, who are competent scientists in their fields?

Because you haven’t read any of their “papers;” especially those of Abel, Sewell, Dembski & Marks. You are unable to detect bullshit. You can’t understand the math, you don’t know any science, you don’t know what is being calculated, and you can’t make any assessment of the validity, let alone the correctness of any of their calculations and claims. It makes no difference how many times we point you to scientific concepts – even doing the math for you – you still come back after a few weeks off just as ignorant as ever. You don't even make the effort. You are no longer capable of learning. You never took a science course in your entire life, and you have no clue what is taught in any science course. All you have is your seething hatred of people who have successfully acquired a familiarity with science. And all you can do is taunt, mock, and project. You have nothing.

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: Why should I put credence in yours, Myers, or Coynes opionions over folks like Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Robert Marks, David Abel, and Scott Minnoch, who are competent scientists in their fields?

Because you haven’t read any of their “papers;” especially those of Abel, Sewell, Dembski & Marks. You are unable to detect bullshit. You can’t understand the math, you don’t know any science, you don’t know what is being calculated, and you can’t make any assessment of the validity, let alone the correctness of any of their calculations and claims. It makes no difference how many times we point you to scientific concepts – even doing the math for you – you still come back after a few weeks off just as ignorant as ever. You don't even make the effort. You are no longer capable of learning. You never took a science course in your entire life, and you have no clue what is taught in any science course. All you have is your seething hatred of people who have successfully acquired a familiarity with science. And all you can do is taunt, mock, and project. You have nothing.

Even if you don't know squat about science, you can still notice that the number of scientists who seriously dispute the current theory of evolution can be counted on your fingers, and every single one of them happens to be of a certain religious sect (whereas all the others are of EVERY OTHER persuasion), AND that that particular religious sect teaches doctrines incompatible with the theory of evolution.

Nor is it particuarly difficult to notice that those who point to these few creationist scientists are THEMSELVES creationists. Everyone else points to the actual science. Even the veriest dunce can see that for members of that sect, this is a strictly religious issue, and science is a smoke screen.

(And here's where Mike seems to miss the target. He keeps talking about scientific understandings, scientific education, math and calculations, published papers, and the like. These are IRRELEVANT. What we have here is a religious schism, over religious doctrine. Axe, Marks, Minnoch, these are intelligent and educated people, but they are not trying to do science. They are doing religion. Period. It may be dressed up as science, but it is done NOT to make scientific discoveries, but to support that sect's doctrines.)

Flint said: Even if you don't know squat about science, you can still notice that the number of scientists who seriously dispute the current theory of evolution can be counted on your fingers, and every single one of them happens to be of a certain religious sect (whereas all the others are of EVERY OTHER persuasion), AND that that particular religious sect teaches doctrines incompatible with the theory of evolution. Nor is it particuarly difficult to notice that those who point to these few creationist scientists are THEMSELVES creationists. Everyone else points to the actual science. Even the veriest dunce can see that for members of that sect, this is a strictly religious issue, and science is a smoke screen. (And here's where Mike seems to miss the target. He keeps talking about scientific understandings, scientific education, math and calculations, published papers, and the like. These are IRRELEVANT. What we have here is a religious schism, over religious doctrine. Axe, Marks, Minnoch, these are intelligent and educated people, but they are not trying to do science. They are doing religion. Period. It may be dressed up as science, but it is done NOT to make scientific discoveries, but to support that sect's doctrines.)

Right. But all Steve has to do is accept the word of a few charlatans and presto, he doesn't have to learn anything, he doesn't have to read any papers, he doesn't have to do any research. All he has to do is ignore everything that all of the real scientists have learned in the past one hundred and fifty years and he can maintain his delusions. And he wonders why no one is fooled by his ignorance.

benjamin.cutler said: If by Hebrew bible you mean the Torah, then yes, Satan (the Devil) is completely unknown in the Torah. The Tanakh (what is usually meant by "the Hebrew Bible") mentions Satan several times, however in most instances Satan simply means an adversary, however there are a few instances of the term (cf. 1 Chronicles 21:1, Job 1-2) that likely influenced what would later develop into the Devil during the Second Temple Period (cf. Wisdom 2:24). Of course it is interesting to note that there is absolutely no indication in the text that the serpent is anything other than a serpent. Many early Jewish traditions did not identify the serpent with any supernatural being, but as symbolic of something else (i.e. sexual desire). That many YECs (who tend to be Evangelical Fundamentalists) insist the scriptures aught to be interpreted literally at all times is amusing given that they adhere to the early Christian traditions regarding symbolic meaning of the serpent (Evangelical Fundamentalists reject many early Christian traditions, instead adhering to a radical "Sola Scriptura"), even as they reject traditions regarding the literal meaning of Genesis (i.e. St. Augustine).

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: ...When you can point to a corpus of scientific knowledge that is dependent on Gilgamesh or Genesis, and that can produce actual results in the actual world that we all inhabit then, by all means, import it into the classroom. ...

Right. But all Steve has to do is accept the word of a few charlatans and presto, he doesn’t have to learn anything, he doesn’t have to read any papers, he doesn’t have to do any research. All he has to do is ignore everything that all of the real scientists have learned in the past one hundred and fifty years and he can maintain his delusions. And he wonders why no one is fooled by his ignorance.

"The Ancient Greek philosopher Anaxiamander (611-547 B.C.) and the Roman philosopher Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) coined the concept that all living things were related and that they had changed over time. The classical science of their time was observational rather than experimental. Another ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle developed his Scala Naturae, or Ladder of Life, to explain his concept of the advancement of living things from inanimate matter to plants, then animals and finally man. This concept of man as the "crown of creation" still plagues modern evolutionary biologists (See Gould, 1989, for a more detailed discussion). "

dalehusband said:

SteveP. said: I never said teach creationism in the classroom. I did say keep atheism out. Even playing field. But that is not what you want, is it? You wanna make sure creationism stays out so you have free reign to inculcate your atheism into pliable minds.

Please provide some specific examples of atheism being advocated in high school biology textbooks. If you do not, then we know you lied, like most creationist who come here do.

Helena, one very minor caveat. The word "satan" is found in the Torah. Numbers 22:32, where the word is used of God's messenger sent to obstruct Balaam's journey.

The various OT, NT and early Christian references plainly demonstrate that the word changed meaning. A satan who was actually an agent of God becomes an advocate who challenges humanity on God's instruction, who becomes an adversary of human beings, who becomes an adversary of God, and ultimately the antithesis of God.

Why, if "evolution" didn't mean something else altogether, I'd be tempted to say that the meaning of the word "Satan" evolved!

Yet, in fact what we observe in reality is that Man IS the crown of creation. Not one single organism even comes close to what Man does and can do.

(And here’s where Mike seems to miss the target. He keeps talking about scientific understandings, scientific education, math and calculations, published papers, and the like. These are IRRELEVANT. What we have here is a religious schism, over religious doctrine. Axe, Marks, Minnoch, these are intelligent and educated people, but they are not trying to do science. They are doing religion. Period. It may be dressed up as science, but it is done NOT to make scientific discoveries, but to support that sect’s doctrines.)

SteveP. said: How does the Theory of Evolution consider whether man is 'the crown of creation' or not? It must necessarily be silent on the matter.

Inserting this line adds nothing to the discussion except to press the philosophical point that science knows better than religion what man's 'place' is; that man is merely one of several branches on a tree. btw, this bringing man down close to other primates is clearly a position held by humanists/atheists. Yet, in fact what we observe in reality is that Man IS the crown of creation. Not one single organism even comes close to what Man does and can do. Over to you.

SteveP is a guy who thinks he's the crown of creation, and he's accusing one who doesn't think that of hubris!

As Monsieur Le Blanc used to remark, "What cheese!"

Flint said: (And here's where Mike seems to miss the target. He keeps talking about scientific understandings, scientific education, math and calculations, published papers, and the like. These are IRRELEVANT. What we have here is a religious schism, over religious doctrine. Axe, Marks, Minnoch, these are intelligent and educated people, but they are not trying to do science. They are doing religion. Period. It may be dressed up as science, but it is done NOT to make scientific discoveries, but to support that sect's doctrines.)

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: Why should I put credence in yours, Myers, or Coynes opionions over folks like Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Robert Marks, David Abel, and Scott Minnoch, who are competent scientists in their fields?

Because you haven’t read any of their “papers;” especially those of Abel, Sewell, Dembski & Marks. You are unable to detect bullshit. You can’t understand the math, you don’t know any science, you don’t know what is being calculated, and you can’t make any assessment of the validity, let alone the correctness of any of their calculations and claims. It makes no difference how many times we point you to scientific concepts – even doing the math for you – you still come back after a few weeks off just as ignorant as ever. You don't even make the effort. You are no longer capable of learning. You never took a science course in your entire life, and you have no clue what is taught in any science course. All you have is your seething hatred of people who have successfully acquired a familiarity with science. And all you can do is taunt, mock, and project. You have nothing.

SteveP. said: That's why I keep saying science is in a funk. Too many atheists playing in the living room. They dun wanno go where there is no material to be found. They don't wanna delve into their own minds.

Dave Luckett said: SteveP is a guy who thinks he's the crown of creation, and he's accusing one who doesn't think that of hubris! As Monsieur Le Blanc used to remark, "What cheese!"

SteveP. said: Poor Mike, always trying to turn the tables. Taunts and mocking, that's your area of expertise. I have never been the aggressor in any discussion but always defending against your(pl) mocking tone against other posters. Its an old rhetorical trick you (pl) play to the hilt. Ridicule first, then when the counter punch lands, claim the other hit first. So predictable and infantile. For any lack of understanding of the concepts either they or you discuss, I do the same at PT posters do here, I defer to the ones in the know. So the question remains, who are the ones in the know?: Axe, Abel, Marks, Behe, Minnock, Dembski, Gauger, etc? or Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Carroll, Elzinga, Matzke, etc?

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: That's why I keep saying science is in a funk. Too many atheists playing in the living room. They dun wanno go where there is no material to be found. They don't wanna delve into their own minds.

Yes, you keep saying this; and it reveals that you have absolutely no clue about what is going on in the world of science. You just don’t get it.

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: Poor Mike, always trying to turn the tables. Taunts and mocking, that's your area of expertise. I have never been the aggressor in any discussion but always defending against your(pl) mocking tone against other posters. Its an old rhetorical trick you (pl) play to the hilt. Ridicule first, then when the counter punch lands, claim the other hit first. So predictable and infantile. For any lack of understanding of the concepts either they or you discuss, I do the same at PT posters do here, I defer to the ones in the know. So the question remains, who are the ones in the know?: Axe, Abel, Marks, Behe, Minnock, Dembski, Gauger, etc? or Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Carroll, Elzinga, Matzke, etc?

It appears that the only thing you have learned here is projection. You have never demonstrated any understanding of anything; not even the pseudo-science of your heroes.

SteveP. said: Oh, I get it alright. You are repetitive, bring nothing new to the table. We need new ideas, new concepts, new thinking. Can't teach an ........... ah you know the rest.

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: That's why I keep saying science is in a funk. Too many atheists playing in the living room. They dun wanno go where there is no material to be found. They don't wanna delve into their own minds.

Yes, you keep saying this; and it reveals that you have absolutely no clue about what is going on in the world of science. You just don’t get it.

SteveP. said: More evasion from Elzinga. I'll ask again: So the question remains, who are the ones in the know?: Axe, Abel, Marks, Behe, Minnock, Dembski, Gauger, etc? or Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Carroll, Elzinga, Matzke, etc?

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: Poor Mike, always trying to turn the tables. Taunts and mocking, that's your area of expertise. I have never been the aggressor in any discussion but always defending against your(pl) mocking tone against other posters. Its an old rhetorical trick you (pl) play to the hilt. Ridicule first, then when the counter punch lands, claim the other hit first. So predictable and infantile. For any lack of understanding of the concepts either they or you discuss, I do the same at PT posters do here, I defer to the ones in the know. So the question remains, who are the ones in the know?: Axe, Abel, Marks, Behe, Minnock, Dembski, Gauger, etc? or Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Carroll, Elzinga, Matzke, etc?

It appears that the only thing you have learned here is projection. You have never demonstrated any understanding of anything; not even the pseudo-science of your heroes.

SteveP said: Yet, in fact what we observe in reality is that Man IS the crown of creation.

Tenncrain said:

SteveP. said: Life started by a lucky confluence of chemicals bathed in just the right 'energy well', and poof, here we go.

Life from non-life is outside the realm of biological evolution. You need to direct your critizism to fields like abiogeneisis, panspermia, exogenesis. Biological evolution only deals with already existing life.

Dave, you need to follow along.

The hubris comment was in response to flint's post.

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: More evasion from Elzinga. I'll ask again: So the question remains, who are the ones in the know?: Axe, Abel, Marks, Behe, Minnock, Dembski, Gauger, etc? or Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Carroll, Elzinga, Matzke, etc?

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: Poor Mike, always trying to turn the tables. Taunts and mocking, that's your area of expertise. I have never been the aggressor in any discussion but always defending against your(pl) mocking tone against other posters. Its an old rhetorical trick you (pl) play to the hilt. Ridicule first, then when the counter punch lands, claim the other hit first. So predictable and infantile. For any lack of understanding of the concepts either they or you discuss, I do the same at PT posters do here, I defer to the ones in the know. So the question remains, who are the ones in the know?: Axe, Abel, Marks, Behe, Minnock, Dembski, Gauger, etc? or Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Carroll, Elzinga, Matzke, etc?

It appears that the only thing you have learned here is projection. You have never demonstrated any understanding of anything; not even the pseudo-science of your heroes.

If Dembski and Behe are in the know, then how come they have never explained to anyone how to quantitatively or qualitatively define "Intelligent Design"? If you think they are in the know, then how come you have never been able to define Intelligent Design to us other than to set up stupid strawmen caricatures of "darwinism" and insult us for not being science-hating bobbleheads like you and your heroes?

SteveP. said: Notice how Stanton picks on Dembski and Behe, the usual whipping posts. Curiously, why not pick on Axe or Gauger? Or Marks for that matter? Hmmmm.

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: More evasion from Elzinga. I'll ask again: So the question remains, who are the ones in the know?: Axe, Abel, Marks, Behe, Minnock, Dembski, Gauger, etc? or Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Carroll, Elzinga, Matzke, etc?

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: Poor Mike, always trying to turn the tables. Taunts and mocking, that's your area of expertise. I have never been the aggressor in any discussion but always defending against your(pl) mocking tone against other posters. Its an old rhetorical trick you (pl) play to the hilt. Ridicule first, then when the counter punch lands, claim the other hit first. So predictable and infantile. For any lack of understanding of the concepts either they or you discuss, I do the same at PT posters do here, I defer to the ones in the know. So the question remains, who are the ones in the know?: Axe, Abel, Marks, Behe, Minnock, Dembski, Gauger, etc? or Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Carroll, Elzinga, Matzke, etc?

It appears that the only thing you have learned here is projection. You have never demonstrated any understanding of anything; not even the pseudo-science of your heroes.

If Dembski and Behe are in the know, then how come they have never explained to anyone how to quantitatively or qualitatively define "Intelligent Design"? If you think they are in the know, then how come you have never been able to define Intelligent Design to us other than to set up stupid strawmen caricatures of "darwinism" and insult us for not being science-hating bobbleheads like you and your heroes?

SteveP

Quite how an online biology text aimed at first year college students satisfies my request for examples from high school science textbooks that are used in high school science classes escapes me.

That said, you actually seem to agree with the observation being made, which is a perfectly sensible one.

That homo sapiens is a primate closely related to other primates is a well-attested scientific fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, regardless of their philosophical, religious or spiritual attitudes, have little difficutly in accepting. Whilst we are indeed fortunate that we happen to be the dominant species on this planet, there is nothing immutable about this, for the simple reason that time ain't stopped. Any intelligent dinosaur in the late Cretaceous might have made the same observation.

Helena Constantine

Fair point. Personally, I'm very excited about the accelerating rate of scientific discovery coming from Qu'ranic analysts via their artful manipulation of Arabic philology and linguistics. I believe the boffins in Saudi and Egypt are going to crack the warp drive problem any day now.

SteveP. said: This is Dale Husband's ace-in-the-hole. He wants to play 'Catch me if you can'. OK, I'll play. This is one easy example found in an online biology textbook: http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookintro.html An excerpt from the introduction:

"The Ancient Greek philosopher Anaxiamander (611-547 B.C.) and the Roman philosopher Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) coined the concept that all living things were related and that they had changed over time. The classical science of their time was observational rather than experimental. Another ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle developed his Scala Naturae, or Ladder of Life, to explain his concept of the advancement of living things from inanimate matter to plants, then animals and finally man. This concept of man as the "crown of creation" still plagues modern evolutionary biologists (See Gould, 1989, for a more detailed discussion). "

How does the Theory of Evolution consider whether man is 'the crown of creation' or not? It must necessarily be silent on the matter. Inserting this line adds nothing to the discussion except to press the philosophical point that science knows better than religion what man's 'place' is; that man is merely one of several branches on a tree. btw, this bringing man down close to other primates is clearly a position held by humanists/atheists. Yet, in fact what we observe in reality is that Man IS the crown of creation. Not one single organism even comes close to what Man does and can do. Over to you.

dalehusband said:

SteveP. said: I never said teach creationism in the classroom. I did say keep atheism out. Even playing field. But that is not what you want, is it? You wanna make sure creationism stays out so you have free reign to inculcate your atheism into pliable minds.

Please provide some specific examples of atheism being advocated in high school biology textbooks. If you do not, then we know you lied, like most creationist who come here do.

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: Why should I put credence in yours, Myers, or Coynes opionions over folks like Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Robert Marks, David Abel, and Scott Minnoch, who are competent scientists in their fields?

Strongly seconded. But now we know exactly why. For quite some time he tried to play the "intelligent design isn't religion" card. Now he's come out as just another right wing authoritarian creationist fundamentalist. Post-modern non-Jesus-like reality denying authoritarian fundamentalism appears to be a magnet for certain personality disorders. The good news is, that's causing it to shrink. Because you haven’t read any of their “papers;” especially those of Abel, Sewell, Dembski & Marks. You are unable to detect bullshit. You can’t understand the math, you don’t know any science, you don’t know what is being calculated, and you can’t make any assessment of the validity, let alone the correctness of any of their calculations and claims. It makes no difference how many times we point you to scientific concepts – even doing the math for you – you still come back after a few weeks off just as ignorant as ever. You don't even make the effort. You are no longer capable of learning. You never took a science course in your entire life, and you have no clue what is taught in any science course. All you have is your seething hatred of people who have successfully acquired a familiarity with science. And all you can do is taunt, mock, and project. You have nothing.

A Masked Panda said: Personally, I'm very excited about the accelerating rate of scientific discovery coming from Qu'ranic analysts via their artful manipulation of Arabic philology and linguistics. I believe the boffins in Saudi and Egypt are going to crack the warp drive problem any day now.

For any lack of understanding of the concepts either they or you discuss, I do the same at PT posters do here, I defer to the ones in the know. So the question remains, who are the ones in the know?: Axe, Abel, Marks, Behe, Minnock, Dembski, Gauger, etc? or Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Carroll, Elzinga, Matzke, etc?

SteveP. the delusional American creotard in Taiwan barfed: Yet, in fact what we observe in reality is that Man IS the crown of creation. Not one single organism even comes close to what Man does and can do.

SteveP. the clueless American creotard in Taiwan crowed: Axe, Minnoch, Marks, Behe, etc are in fact doing science first and consider the philosophical implications later. They are not afraid of the consequences of their studies. Whereas atheists have to make studied denials. It ain't so! Its doesn't have to be so! Who said so?!

SteveP. said: Notice how Stanton picks on Dembski and Behe, the usual whipping posts. Curiously, why not pick on Axe or Gauger? Or Marks for that matter?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Fair point. Personally, I'm very excited about the accelerating rate of scientific discovery coming from Qu'ranic analysts via their artful manipulation of Arabic philology and linguistics. I believe the boffins in Saudi and Egypt are going to crack the warp drive problem any day now.

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: (And here's where Mike seems to miss the target. He keeps talking about scientific understandings, scientific education, math and calculations, published papers, and the like. These are IRRELEVANT. What we have here is a religious schism, over religious doctrine. Axe, Marks, Minnoch, these are intelligent and educated people, but they are not trying to do science. They are doing religion. Period. It may be dressed up as science, but it is done NOT to make scientific discoveries, but to support that sect's doctrines.)

I’m sorry Flint, but I don’t agree that most of these ID/creationists really understand science.You are saying that their creationism prohibits them from being True Scientists?

Only a very few of them might, but I seriously doubt that most of the ID/creationists really understand scientific concepts even though they have obtained degrees. All of the sycophants working for Ken Ham have atrocious understandings of even the most basic concepts. Their excuse; dogma first, then break everything else to fit.

But breaking everything else means that none of it is derived from the study of the real universe; their bent and broken concepts no longer apply. It is not clear that any of these people who wanted those letters after their names, and want to be called “doctor,” ever took the time to understand what they were breaking. They rationalized their misconceptions continuously as they went through their studies.

Many of these celebrity wannabes learned to keep their heads down, to memorize, to answer what they perceived their examiners wanted, and to never place themselves in a position where their knowledge is really tested. They can do this by becoming a drone in a busy advising professor’s research group. You can even find videos in which people like Georgia Purdom and Jason Lisle are giving advice to young people in their churches.

Please provide some specific examples of atheism being advocated in high school biology textbooks. If you do not, then we know you lied, like most creationist who come here do.

SteveP. said: This is Dale Husband's ace-in-the-hole. He wants to play 'Catch me if you can'. OK, I'll play. This is one easy example found in an online biology textbook: http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookintro.html An excerpt from the introduction:

"The Ancient Greek philosopher Anaxiamander (611-547 B.C.) and the Roman philosopher Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) coined the concept that all living things were related and that they had changed over time. The classical science of their time was observational rather than experimental. Another ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle developed his Scala Naturae, or Ladder of Life, to explain his concept of the advancement of living things from inanimate matter to plants, then animals and finally man. This concept of man as the "crown of creation" still plagues modern evolutionary biologists (See Gould, 1989, for a more detailed discussion). "

How does the Theory of Evolution consider whether man is 'the crown of creation' or not? It must necessarily be silent on the matter. Inserting this line adds nothing to the discussion except to press the philosophical point that science knows better than religion what man's 'place' is; that man is merely one of several branches on a tree. btw, this bringing man down close to other primates is clearly a position held by humanists/atheists. Yet, in fact what we observe in reality is that Man IS the crown of creation. Not one single organism even comes close to what Man does and can do. Over to you.

SteveP. said: Modern science was created by those same kind of people you decry as doing religion dressed up as science. Modern science was the Church's answer to the charlatan's of the day. It was meant to show that the world was a discoverable place, amenable to rational study, and not the product of whimsy or magic.

It is modern atheism that is trying to turn this on its head and declare that since Man can discover new knowledge via the scientific method, there is no need of a God; that religion is in the way. What irony!

Axe, Minnoch, Marks, Behe, etc are in fact doing science first and consider the philosophical implications later. They are not afraid of the consequences of their studies. Whereas atheists have to make studied denials. It ain't so! Its doesn't have to be so! Who said so?!

That's why I keep saying science is in a funk. Too many atheists playing in the living room. They dun wanno go where there is no material to be found. They don't wanna delve into their own minds. Its high time these atheist squatters got their eviction notice. Heck, they are now demanding homesteading rights. Then, and only then, can science go to the next step.

Flint said: I guess I'll take your word for it that it's pretty simple to fake your way to a PhD at even the best schools. How one goes about sleazing a thesis past an advisor, past the necessary research, past the oral defense, etc, is beyond me. But if you say so...

YOU are all hung up about science, you think it MATTERS, you think if these bozos would only LEARN science, they’d know better. But learning science simply does not lead to religious conversion to a new faith. And THAT’s what we’re talking about here. You care about science so strongly you think others should too – exactly as they think you should drop this evolution crap and embrace Jesus (their version). Science cannot produce Religious Truth, and that’s the ONLY thing these people crave. Not knowledge, not understanding, not accuracy, not correct models. Unless you address that craving, your critique is irrelevant, meaningless, and worthless.

Mike Elzinga said: So I believe we are in agreement about the sectarian motives. Where we appear to disagree, if I understand your point, is about the nature of their honesty and whether they really understand scientific concepts. I don’t believe they are being honest in any sense of the word, and I don’t believe they really understand scientific concepts. They could easily come to appreciate their concocted misconceptions were it not for the fact that they consciously bend and break concepts to justify dogma to themselves and to their intimidated followers. They then weave their way through the educational processes in order to avoid open confrontation. They have had more than enough feedback over the decades to know they are misrepresenting science. They consciously foment hatred of the secular scientific world with their repeated demonizing of the very science from which they obtain their “authority.” They know what they are doing; but they do it anyway. They give up the ability to do productive research in exchange for the celebrity they gain within their sectarian subcultures. They can no longer do even the research which they did as drones under supervision in a research group; but now they write opinions and sectarian apologetics with an air of authority they have stolen from the science community. But they are NOT spokesmen for the sciences they deliberately set out to avoid learning. And, yes, I agree that there are a couple of exceptions; but they are not the rule. And I am not talking about those sectarian beliefs that seek a deep understanding of science and makes peace with this understanding.

SteveP. said:

We have watched you – right here on PT – failing at every concept in science; and you do it repeatedly without ever checking your misconceptions and misrepresentations. You can’t even do basic math; and you continue to be pissed off at the people here who have exposed you. Instead of correcting your misconceptions and misrepresentations, you return time after time repeating the same crap.

Elzinga NOBODY took your 'little' test. Not even your fellow PT travellers. Guess they can't do basic math either. shit, the only one who engaged you was SWT. So SWT gets a cookie and the rest of us go to the back of the bus, right? To be sure, the only one thing that i may be pissed about is your (pl) being two-faced.

You think people like Henry Morris, William Dembski, Granville Sewell, David L. Abel are gurus of a new science. You have no bullshit detector when it comes to their dishonesty; you just swallow their crap without question.

Why should I put credence in yours, Myers, or Coynes opionions over folks like Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Robert Marks, David Abel, and Scott Minnoch, who are competent scientists in their fields? Getting clearer and clearer that the bullshit's on your side, not mine. I'll say it again. Man designs. Man is a product of nature. Nature designs. "Deny design, deny yourself"

"What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals — and yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?" Hamlet Act 2 scene 2, William Shakespeare.

SteveP. said: Elzinga NOBODY took your 'little' test. Not even your fellow PT travellers. Guess they can't do basic math either. shit, the only one who engaged you was SWT. So SWT gets a cookie and the rest of us go to the back of the bus, right?

co said: I haven't seen a creationist yet who could count microstates correctly, and figure out how to pass to the canonical ensemble or apply Liouville's Theorem. That's a shame, and yet they all lie and claim this amazing knowledge of physics and the SLOT.

SWT said:

co said: I haven't seen a creationist yet who could count microstates correctly, and figure out how to pass to the canonical ensemble or apply Liouville's Theorem. That's a shame, and yet they all lie and claim this amazing knowledge of physics and the SLOT.

The creationist misunderstanding of the second law is more basic than this. I don't recall a creationist here ever posting the proper measure for spontaneity in systems that are not isolated; they uniformly talk about entropy rather than free energy as a criterion for spontaneity. No statistical mechanics is needed to understand this, just a willingness to learn.

John said:

SWT said:

co said: I haven't seen a creationist yet who could count microstates correctly, and figure out how to pass to the canonical ensemble or apply Liouville's Theorem. That's a shame, and yet they all lie and claim this amazing knowledge of physics and the SLOT.

The creationist misunderstanding of the second law is more basic than this. I don't recall a creationist here ever posting the proper measure for spontaneity in systems that are not isolated; they uniformly talk about entropy rather than free energy as a criterion for spontaneity. No statistical mechanics is needed to understand this, just a willingness to learn.

Even more fundamentally than this is that creationists seem incapable of understanding that the Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to closed systems incapable of renewing their energy sources, in stark contrast with open systems that can, like living organisms.

apokryltaros said: If it was true that the 2nd Law somehow prevented evolution from occurring, then all living organisms would be unable to reproduce or grow.

apokryltaros said: If it was true that the 2nd Law somehow prevented evolution from occurring, then all living organisms would be unable to reproduce or grow.

harold said:

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: Why should I put credence in yours, Myers, or Coynes opionions over folks like Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Robert Marks, David Abel, and Scott Minnoch, who are competent scientists in their fields?

Strongly seconded. But now we know exactly why. For quite some time he tried to play the "intelligent design isn't religion" card. Now he's come out as just another right wing authoritarian creationist fundamentalist. Post-modern non-Jesus-like reality denying authoritarian fundamentalism appears to be a magnet for certain personality disorders. The good news is, that's causing it to shrink. Because you haven’t read any of their “papers;” especially those of Abel, Sewell, Dembski & Marks. You are unable to detect bullshit. You can’t understand the math, you don’t know any science, you don’t know what is being calculated, and you can’t make any assessment of the validity, let alone the correctness of any of their calculations and claims. It makes no difference how many times we point you to scientific concepts – even doing the math for you – you still come back after a few weeks off just as ignorant as ever. You don't even make the effort. You are no longer capable of learning. You never took a science course in your entire life, and you have no clue what is taught in any science course. All you have is your seething hatred of people who have successfully acquired a familiarity with science. And all you can do is taunt, mock, and project. You have nothing.

Strongly seconded. But now we know exactly why. For quite some time he tried to play the "intelligent design isn't religion" card. Now he's come out as just another right wing authoritarian creationist fundamentalist. Post-modern non-Jesus-like reality denying authoritarian fundamentalism appears to be a magnet for certain personality disorders. The good news is, that's causing it to shrink.

SteveP. said: Intelligent design isn't religious just like evolutionary biology isn't atheism. Just as PZ and Jerry. they know what I am talkin' about. In other words, evolutionary biologist just so happen to be mostly atheists just as intelligent design proponents just happen to believe in the God. Nothing fancy.

SWT said:

toothful said: i noticed you didn't debunk anything i stated. i can't tell you how old either are. i wasn't there at the beginning. all i know, is that light and time can do some strange things in the quantum realm (Doppler effect for red and blue shift is a supposition), and catastrophes took the wind out of uniformitarianism.

OK, we've established that you either don't understand physics or your a physics denier.

i would say that the diversity of life is supernatural because natural processes and chance cannot produce it.

And why do you say that natural processes cannot cause biological diversification? Do you have any evidence for this or just your personal incredulity?

toothless the clueless creotard moaned:

SWT said:

toothful said: i noticed you didn't debunk anything i stated. i can't tell you how old either are. i wasn't there at the beginning. all i know, is that light and time can do some strange things in the quantum realm (Doppler effect for red and blue shift is a supposition), and catastrophes took the wind out of uniformitarianism.

OK, we've established that you either don't understand physics or your a physics denier.

i would say that the diversity of life is supernatural because natural processes and chance cannot produce it.

And why do you say that natural processes cannot cause biological diversification? Do you have any evidence for this or just your personal incredulity?

"variation among species" is a natural process, but any small change is LIMITED to the information contained in the gene pool of the cell. it is also HORIZONTAL change (not Darwinism), and BI-DIRECTIONAL (back and forth), which is basically stasis. it does not produce a new, improved, novel creature of higher complexity (vertical change). it cannot produce the diversity of life we see on earth. it, too, is a conservative process. it allows a critter to adapt to SLOW changes in its environment without eliminating it, but if the change in the environment is too rapid, or if the critter has reached the limits of its ability to adapt, it will become extinct. this is ALL that Darwin saw, and the rest of his theory was based on IMAGINATION, as he himself admitted. they have now called this variation among species MICRO-evolution, just so Darwinists can say that "evolution" is a fact, but they can't say Darwinism is, because it's not.\ if "variation among species" was all that was taught in the public classroom, there would be no problem. everything else about evolution is speculation.

apokryltaros said:

toothful said: wasn't it evolutionists who called creationists bigots for teaching one and only one theory of origins before they entered the public schools?

No. "Evolutionists" (sic) challenged creationists in court that creationists were teaching religious propaganda in place of science in science classrooms. As such, teaching Creationism in public schools in place of science is illegal in the United States. Not that you care. All you care about is ridiculing us for not sharing your bigotry and Stupidity For Jesus.

John said:

toothless the clueless creotard moaned:

SWT said:

toothful said: i noticed you didn't debunk anything i stated. i can't tell you how old either are. i wasn't there at the beginning. all i know, is that light and time can do some strange things in the quantum realm (Doppler effect for red and blue shift is a supposition), and catastrophes took the wind out of uniformitarianism.

OK, we've established that you either don't understand physics or your a physics denier.

i would say that the diversity of life is supernatural because natural processes and chance cannot produce it.

And why do you say that natural processes cannot cause biological diversification? Do you have any evidence for this or just your personal incredulity?

"variation among species" is a natural process, but any small change is LIMITED to the information contained in the gene pool of the cell. it is also HORIZONTAL change (not Darwinism), and BI-DIRECTIONAL (back and forth), which is basically stasis. it does not produce a new, improved, novel creature of higher complexity (vertical change). it cannot produce the diversity of life we see on earth. it, too, is a conservative process. it allows a critter to adapt to SLOW changes in its environment without eliminating it, but if the change in the environment is too rapid, or if the critter has reached the limits of its ability to adapt, it will become extinct. this is ALL that Darwin saw, and the rest of his theory was based on IMAGINATION, as he himself admitted. they have now called this variation among species MICRO-evolution, just so Darwinists can say that "evolution" is a fact, but they can't say Darwinism is, because it's not.\ if "variation among species" was all that was taught in the public classroom, there would be no problem. everything else about evolution is speculation.

Check out the Lenski team's work at MSU (Michigan State University) on measuring Natural Selection in the E. coli bacterium. If my memory is right - and I believe Dawkins referred to this in his "The Greatest Show of Earth: The Evidence for Evolution", John Endler measured Natural Selection in the wild in populations of Trinidad guppies. Both of these demonstrate just how wrong you are, clueless Toothless.

Tenncrain said:

toothful said: hey y'all, science is the search for the knowledge of the truth - no matter where the evidence leads.

Science is simply incapable of finding "truth" outside of the natural world. If anything, science can only try to gather tentative (again, tentative) facts/theories/laws to approach the truth, but science does not pretend to arrive at absolute truth. Science findings are always tentative as facts/theories/laws are always subject to revision or even rejection if new evidence if found.

it is not, as some have perverted the definition to be, the search for naturalistic explanations...which is the religion of naturalism or pagan pantheism (check it out).

Learn the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Philosophical naturalism (which is unscientific) says there is absolutely no existence beyond the material world. Methodological naturalism is what is part of science (used by scientists that are both theists and non-theists). According to methodological naturalism, anything that might be outside the natural world is scientifically untestable. Thus, methodological naturalism does not comment one way or the other on matters outside of naturalism. Methodological naturalism does not say supernaturalism is right or wrong, just untestable.

whatever your world view is, that's your religion. is yours naturalism or supernaturalism?

Methodological naturalism is not a worldview (unlike philosophical naturalism). Methodological naturalism is just that, a method, a method of doing science. It's used by Christians/theists like Keith Miller (geologist at Kansas State), Ken Miller (biologist at Brown), Frances Collins, etc, etc.

by the way, all of science is based upon FAITH. the "belief" that the laws of physics (including chemistry) will continue faithfully as they have.

Science is mainly based on testable physical evidence. However, since science is unable to provide absolute proof/truth, a hint of faith is inherent with all science. But the supernatural requires total faith as it is untestable by science. There is nothing wrong with having faith in the supernatural. However, theists that accept and even pioneer mainstream science don't blur together the supernatural and science.

toothful said:

Tenncrain said:

toothful said: hey y'all, science is the search for the knowledge of the truth - no matter where the evidence leads.

Science is simply incapable of finding "truth" outside of the natural world. If anything, science can only try to gather tentative (again, tentative) facts/theories/laws to approach the truth, but science does not pretend to arrive at absolute truth. Science findings are always tentative as facts/theories/laws are always subject to revision or even rejection if new evidence if found.

it is not, as some have perverted the definition to be, the search for naturalistic explanations...which is the religion of naturalism or pagan pantheism (check it out).

Learn the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Philosophical naturalism (which is unscientific) says there is absolutely no existence beyond the material world. Methodological naturalism is what is part of science (used by scientists that are both theists and non-theists). According to methodological naturalism, anything that might be outside the natural world is scientifically untestable. Thus, methodological naturalism does not comment one way or the other on matters outside of naturalism. Methodological naturalism does not say supernaturalism is right or wrong, just untestable.

whatever your world view is, that's your religion. is yours naturalism or supernaturalism?

Methodological naturalism is not a worldview (unlike philosophical naturalism). Methodological naturalism is just that, a method, a method of doing science. It's used by Christians/theists like Keith Miller (geologist at Kansas State), Ken Miller (biologist at Brown), Frances Collins, etc, etc.

by the way, all of science is based upon FAITH. the "belief" that the laws of physics (including chemistry) will continue faithfully as they have.

Science is mainly based on testable physical evidence. However, since science is unable to provide absolute proof/truth, a hint of faith is inherent with all science. But the supernatural requires total faith as it is untestable by science. There is nothing wrong with having faith in the supernatural. However, theists that accept and even pioneer mainstream science don't blur together the supernatural and science.

what is the experimental, observational proof of evolutionism? how can it be falsified in a laboratory? if it has failed to produce irreducibly complex structures of low probability, it has been falsified. that is why adherents of evolutionism fear ID in the classroom.

toothful obviously doesn't read the responses he gets. That's because he prefers to remain ignorant.

Lenski's team demonstrated evolution in the lab. A new species of yeast, capable of living in a different environment, resulted. Speciation has been observed in the field about twenty times. Ring species, which could not exist without speciation, are common enough to have an entire literature to themselves.

Of course, what toothful thinks would be evidence would only be video footage of a lizard laying an egg and having it hatch out as a bird, or a mouse. It's no good telling him that that isn't how it works, and no evolutionary biologist thinks that happens - he knows what he thinks.

Invincible ignorance buttresses his misrepresentations. He thinks scientists think bacteria don't evolve! He thinks the theory of evolution is a religion! He thinks that "irreducibly complex structures of low probability" can't evolve, despite the existence of a large literature showing exactly how they can, and do, evolve.

He also thinks that ID is feared - and in that, there's a tiny grain of truth. Anyone who thinks children should be taught known facts supporting uncontroversial theory, and not religious dogma, fears the result of doing the latter while neglecting the former. It's another blow against science, another step back towards the dark, and another step towards the fundamentalist Protestant theocracy the religious right faunches after. Anyone with a grain of sense fears that.

Well, it's not going to happen. Not on our watch.

TomS said:

apokryltaros said: If it was true that the 2nd Law somehow prevented evolution from occurring, then all living organisms would be unable to reproduce or grow.

Indeed. But, moreover, let us assume that there were some process in the world of life which violated the laws of thermodynamics. Intelligent design would be ruled out as a solution. After all, the laws of thermodynamics were discovered in the 19th century because of the limitations imposed on the abilities of the very clever engineers in intelligently designing engines. This brings to mind the famous synthesis of urea by Wohler as evidence for the unity of organic and inorganic chemistry. Did anyone suggest as a response that Wohler intelligently designed urea?

toothful said:

TomS said:

apokryltaros said: If it was true that the 2nd Law somehow prevented evolution from occurring, then all living organisms would be unable to reproduce or grow.

Indeed. But, moreover, let us assume that there were some process in the world of life which violated the laws of thermodynamics. Intelligent design would be ruled out as a solution. After all, the laws of thermodynamics were discovered in the 19th century because of the limitations imposed on the abilities of the very clever engineers in intelligently designing engines. This brings to mind the famous synthesis of urea by Wohler as evidence for the unity of organic and inorganic chemistry. Did anyone suggest as a response that Wohler intelligently designed urea?

hey you two, you can't beat the 2nd law of "hot stuff". a living system, has the ability of "shifting" entropy for a while by "expending great quantities of energy"(entopy) elsewhere, but it eventually cannot keep up or wears out and it DIES. that is the 2nd law! if you can produce a perpetual motion machine, then you will have some support for evolutionism. p.s. a sufficient energy source is not enough to produce or support life without the non-living or living thing possessing the information, factories and machinery to put it to work building something while fighting off the effects of entropy. maybe you're not aware that the entire universe is running down (entropy) towards a "heat death" - useless particles of heat energy incapable of doing any work.

Dave Luckett said: toothful obviously doesn't read the responses he gets. That's because he prefers to remain ignorant. Lenski's team demonstrated evolution in the lab. A new species of yeast, capable of living in a different environment, resulted. Speciation has been observed in the field about twenty times. Ring species, which could not exist without speciation, are common enough to have an entire literature to themselves. Of course, what toothful thinks would be evidence would only be video footage of a lizard laying an egg and having it hatch out as a bird, or a mouse. It's no good telling him that that isn't how it works, and no evolutionary biologist thinks that happens - he knows what he thinks. Invincible ignorance buttresses his misrepresentations. He thinks scientists think bacteria don't evolve! He thinks the theory of evolution is a religion! He thinks that "irreducibly complex structures of low probability" can't evolve, despite the existence of a large literature showing exactly how they can, and do, evolve. He also thinks that ID is feared - and in that, there's a tiny grain of truth. Anyone who thinks children should be taught known facts supporting uncontroversial theory, and not religious dogma, fears the result of doing the latter while neglecting the former. It's another blow against science, another step back towards the dark, and another step towards the fundamentalist Protestant theocracy the religious right faunches after. Anyone with a grain of sense fears that. Well, it's not going to happen. Not on our watch.

moron babbled: you're just talking "variation among species". where's your evidence of totally "NEW" and "DIFFERENT" critters evolving? yeast remain yeast; finches remain finches; fruit flies remain fruit flies; moths remain moths; fish remain fish; dogs remain dogs; cats remain cats; etc.)

moron babbled: what is the experimental, observational proof of evolutionism? how can it be falsified in a laboratory? if it has failed to produce irreducibly complex structures of low probability, it has been falsified.

that is why adherents of evolutionism fear ID in the classroom.

toothful said:

toothful said:

Tenncrain said:

toothful said: hey y'all, science is the search for the knowledge of the truth - no matter where the evidence leads.

Science is simply incapable of finding "truth" outside of the natural world. If anything, science can only try to gather tentative (again, tentative) facts/theories/laws to approach the truth, but science does not pretend to arrive at absolute truth. Science findings are always tentative as facts/theories/laws are always subject to revision or even rejection if new evidence if found.

it is not, as some have perverted the definition to be, the search for naturalistic explanations...which is the religion of naturalism or pagan pantheism (check it out).

Learn the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Philosophical naturalism (which is unscientific) says there is absolutely no existence beyond the material world. Methodological naturalism is what is part of science (used by scientists that are both theists and non-theists). According to methodological naturalism, anything that might be outside the natural world is scientifically untestable. Thus, methodological naturalism does not comment one way or the other on matters outside of naturalism. Methodological naturalism does not say supernaturalism is right or wrong, just untestable.

whatever your world view is, that's your religion. is yours naturalism or supernaturalism?

Methodological naturalism is not a worldview (unlike philosophical naturalism). Methodological naturalism is just that, a method, a method of doing science. It's used by Christians/theists like Keith Miller (geologist at Kansas State), Ken Miller (biologist at Brown), Frances Collins, etc, etc.

by the way, all of science is based upon FAITH. the "belief" that the laws of physics (including chemistry) will continue faithfully as they have.

Science is mainly based on testable physical evidence. However, since science is unable to provide absolute proof/truth, a hint of faith is inherent with all science. But the supernatural requires total faith as it is untestable by science. There is nothing wrong with having faith in the supernatural. However, theists that accept and even pioneer mainstream science don't blur together the supernatural and science.

what is the experimental, observational proof of evolutionism? how can it be falsified in a laboratory? if it has failed to produce irreducibly complex structures of low probability, it has been falsified. that is why adherents of evolutionism fear ID in the classroom.

p.s.: it HAS been observed in nature and in the laboratory that natural processes are incapable of producing and/or vertically evolving (Darwinism/evolutionism - "belief" in Darwinian evolution) life. therefore, it is above and beyond (super) the ability of nature (natural) to produce.

Dave Luckett said: toothful obviously doesn't read the responses he gets. That's because he prefers to remain ignorant. Lenski's team demonstrated evolution in the lab. A new species of yeast, capable of living in a different environment, resulted. Speciation has been observed in the field about twenty times. Ring species, which could not exist without speciation, are common enough to have an entire literature to themselves. Of course, what toothful thinks would be evidence would only be video footage of a lizard laying an egg and having it hatch out as a bird, or a mouse. It's no good telling him that that isn't how it works, and no evolutionary biologist thinks that happens - he knows what he thinks. Invincible ignorance buttresses his misrepresentations. He thinks scientists think bacteria don't evolve! He thinks the theory of evolution is a religion! He thinks that "irreducibly complex structures of low probability" can't evolve, despite the existence of a large literature showing exactly how they can, and do, evolve. He also thinks that ID is feared - and in that, there's a tiny grain of truth. Anyone who thinks children should be taught known facts supporting uncontroversial theory, and not religious dogma, fears the result of doing the latter while neglecting the former. It's another blow against science, another step back towards the dark, and another step towards the fundamentalist Protestant theocracy the religious right faunches after. Anyone with a grain of sense fears that. Well, it's not going to happen. Not on our watch.

SteveP. said: toothful, You'll never get them to admit it. They are stuck on 'extrapolation is king'. Bacteria, like the rest of life is running as fast as it can just to stay in place. But then our PT friends will tell you that is what evolution is. They have this penchant for doing what they accuse us of doing, moving the goalposts as it suits them. You see, evolution has to be dynamic, regardless of the evidence, if its going to replace special creation. It has to do what God does, without being God of course. It has to display intelligence without being intelligent; like Man designing but nature (the author of Man in their eyes) not designing. For them ,Man designing just so happens to be an emergent property of complexity. Never mind trying to pin them down on what emergence is. They need volumes to define it. A real neat trick.

SteveP. said: There are 20+ definitions of species. Of course there's gonna be speciation. A rigged game if I ever saw one. Evolution thrives on it.

co said:

toothful said:

TomS said:

apokryltaros said: If it was true that the 2nd Law somehow prevented evolution from occurring, then all living organisms would be unable to reproduce or grow.

Indeed. But, moreover, let us assume that there were some process in the world of life which violated the laws of thermodynamics. Intelligent design would be ruled out as a solution. After all, the laws of thermodynamics were discovered in the 19th century because of the limitations imposed on the abilities of the very clever engineers in intelligently designing engines. This brings to mind the famous synthesis of urea by Wohler as evidence for the unity of organic and inorganic chemistry. Did anyone suggest as a response that Wohler intelligently designed urea?

hey you two, you can't beat the 2nd law of "hot stuff". a living system, has the ability of "shifting" entropy for a while by "expending great quantities of energy"(entopy) elsewhere, but it eventually cannot keep up or wears out and it DIES. that is the 2nd law! if you can produce a perpetual motion machine, then you will have some support for evolutionism. p.s. a sufficient energy source is not enough to produce or support life without the non-living or living thing possessing the information, factories and machinery to put it to work building something while fighting off the effects of entropy. maybe you're not aware that the entire universe is running down (entropy) towards a "heat death" - useless particles of heat energy incapable of doing any work.

Oh, good. Yet another clueless idiot arguing from ignorance, and using big words as though it knows what they mean. "Fighting off the effects of entropy"? Really? "Particles of heat energy"? Really? Ban.

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: There are 20+ definitions of species. Of course there's gonna be speciation. A rigged game if I ever saw one. Evolution thrives on it.

Whine, whine, whine, that's all you do: whine about how unfair Evolution is because you have no desire to understand or learn anything. That, and insult and belittle us because we don't swallow your bullshit. Why is it that the Creationists' term of "kind" is useless in comparison with the definitions of "species"? Why is it that Intelligent Design proponents can't propose a superior alternative definition? Oh, wait, it's because they aren't even trying.

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: toothful, You'll never get them to admit it. They are stuck on 'extrapolation is king'. Bacteria, like the rest of life is running as fast as it can just to stay in place. But then our PT friends will tell you that is what evolution is. They have this penchant for doing what they accuse us of doing, moving the goalposts as it suits them. You see, evolution has to be dynamic, regardless of the evidence, if its going to replace special creation. It has to do what God does, without being God of course. It has to display intelligence without being intelligent; like Man designing but nature (the author of Man in their eyes) not designing. For them ,Man designing just so happens to be an emergent property of complexity. Never mind trying to pin them down on what emergence is. They need volumes to define it. A real neat trick.

So where is the evidence to support your claim, SteveP? Oh, wait, you once told us that you're not obligated to support your own inane claims. You just keep demanding that we swallow your Bullshit For God without question.

There are "20+ definitions of species". Of course there’s gonna be speciation.

yeast remain yeast; finches remain finches; fruit flies remain fruit flies; moths remain moths; fish remain fish; dogs remain dogs; cats remain cats; etc.

SteveP says: If you’d use your eyes and brains, you’d see that nothing has changed for millions of years.

toothful said: you're just talking "variation among species". where's your evidence of totally "NEW" and "DIFFERENT" critters evolving? yeast remain yeast; finches remain finches; fruit flies remain fruit flies; moths remain moths; fish remain fish; dogs remain dogs; cats remain cats; etc.)

Dave Luckett said: Hang on. Here's SteveP saying:

There are "20+ definitions of species". Of course there’s gonna be speciation.

Eh? So the fact that "species" is an operationally defined word, one that denotes a "fuzzy" concept - that doesn't tell you anything? Of course species boundaries are not hard, fast bright lines. Of course definition is imprecise, exactly for that reason - on closer inspection, the species are not necessarily absolutely distinct. That's exactly what the theory of evolution predicts - and it's exactly what separate creation does not predict. So, in a breathtaking display of intractible adherence to falsehood, SteveP states that not even demonstrated speciation is enough for him. And, performing the same service for his intractible ignorance, toothful tells us:

yeast remain yeast; finches remain finches; fruit flies remain fruit flies; moths remain moths; fish remain fish; dogs remain dogs; cats remain cats; etc.

as if these were species, not (mostly) higher taxa, up to the class level, or even beyond. I wonder if he lumped "fish" all together, to attempt to exclude the cichlid studies that demonstrate multiple radiation of species to the level of genera in African lakes? I actually don't think so, because I doubt very much that toothful is aware of that research. So, does he think that "fish" are all one "kind"? Apparently so, from his inclusion of them as one sort of animal that would have to change into some other sort, right before his eyes, to demonstrate evolution. That's the level of intractible ignorance being purveyed here.

harold said: Steve P. is a near perfect illustration of the angry/frightened authoritarian mind.

For any lack of understanding of the concepts either they or you discuss, I do the same at PT posters do here, I defer to the ones in the know. So the question remains, who are the ones in the know?: Axe, Abel, Marks, Behe, Minnock, Dembski, Gauger, etc? or Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Carroll, Elzinga, Matzke, etc?

Except at the most concrete level, he can't grasp the concepts of objective observation, logical inference, and experimental testing. To him, all discussions are merely a contest of will between dueling arbitrary authorities. Needless to say, I had never heard of any of the people he names here when I first began to learn about the multiple lines of converging evidence that support common descent and biological evolution. Also, of course, I had plenty of exposure to Christian YEC, and to people who were devout Christians and also science supporters, even before I started learning about evolution. All Steve P. would have to do to convince me would be to explain his position clearly and provide some evidence for it that is at least as strong as the evidence for biological evolution (neither of which he ever even tries to do). However, Steve P. isn't interested in convincing. He can't be convinced by evidence or logic, so he projects that feature onto others.

SteveP. said: Here and there, Harold styles himself the premier analyst of the creationist mind.

Yet...evolution is this gargantuan blob of rationalizations being crushed under the weight of its own hedge bets. What else could it be, trying to cover all the bases without ever being wrong.

Try analyzing your side. It won't hurt. Well, maybe.

SteveP. said: If co would just read some of the biology textbooks, that's exactly what is claimed. Living systems fight off the effect of entropy by continually importing energy from the sun. Just like the guy who keeps putting gas in his car so he can go to work every day. Now co is gonna ask what textbook, right?

SteveP. said: If co would just read some of the biology textbooks, that's exactly what is claimed. Living systems fight off the effect of entropy by continually importing energy from the sun. Just like the guy who keeps putting gas in his car so he can go to work every day. Now co is gonna ask what textbook, right?

toothless said: "evolutionism" IS a religious belief system.

toothless the clueless creotard whined: strange that you would use bacteria as an example of evolution, when most scientists believe it has remained in stasis for over a billion years.

SteveP. the delusional Taiwan-residing American IDiot decreed: Here and there, Harold styles himself the premier analyst of the creationist mind. Yet...evolution is this gargantuan blob of rationalizations being crushed under the weight of its own hedge bets. What else could it be, trying to cover all the bases without ever being wrong. Try analyzing your side. It won't hurt. Well, maybe.

harold said: Steve P. is a near perfect illustration of the angry/frightened authoritarian mind.

For any lack of understanding of the concepts either they or you discuss, I do the same at PT posters do here, I defer to the ones in the know. So the question remains, who are the ones in the know?: Axe, Abel, Marks, Behe, Minnock, Dembski, Gauger, etc? or Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Carroll, Elzinga, Matzke, etc?

Except at the most concrete level, he can't grasp the concepts of objective observation, logical inference, and experimental testing. To him, all discussions are merely a contest of will between dueling arbitrary authorities. Needless to say, I had never heard of any of the people he names here when I first began to learn about the multiple lines of converging evidence that support common descent and biological evolution. Also, of course, I had plenty of exposure to Christian YEC, and to people who were devout Christians and also science supporters, even before I started learning about evolution. All Steve P. would have to do to convince me would be to explain his position clearly and provide some evidence for it that is at least as strong as the evidence for biological evolution (neither of which he ever even tries to do). However, Steve P. isn't interested in convincing. He can't be convinced by evidence or logic, so he projects that feature onto others.

toothless the clueless creotard whined: strange that you would use bacteria as an example of evolution, when most scientists believe it has remained in stasis for over a billion years.

"Species" isn't a better explanation than "kind", because neither of them are explanations. They're nouns, Stevie. Just nouns. Names of things.

"Species" has a number of possible definitions in biology, it's true, but all those definitions refer to actual observed conditions, like interfertility, specific degree of gene transfer, morphology, DNA difference. "Kind", on the other hand, means something like "general category" with no reference to what is being categorised.

And evolution explains the fuzzy boundaries between close species, but fiat creation does not. Which was the point.

John said:

SteveP. the delusional American creotard in Taiwan barfed: Yet, in fact what we observe in reality is that Man IS the crown of creation.

Actually, humanity is rather poorly "designed" anatomically, etc.

...and you'll understand why if you ever read Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body".

SteveP. said: Living systems fight off the effect of entropy by continually importing energy from the sun.

SteveP. said: Ha. Its the other way around. Why are you not proposing a definition of species that is superior to the idea of kinds. If evolution is a better explanation, then the definition of species ought to be an improvement on kinds. Remember, it is evolution that seeks to supplant special creation as a superior narrative. Yet, it isnt. Who would of thought? but there it is. In Mike Elzinga's words, "you have nothing".

SteveP. said: If you'd use your eyes and brains, you'd see that nothing has changed for millions of years.

Tenncrain said: Shubin's book is indeed excellent. I understand Shubin is cordial about answering questions (feel free to email him at the Univ of Chicago). Ken Miller's 'Only A Theory' is also very insightful. So is 'The Language Of Life' by Frances Collins. Both books address the boatload of pseudogenes discovered in various genomes and how this is yet another line of evidence for common decent among species.

Scott F said: Millions of years ago, there were dinosaurs. Now there aren't.

John said: I've met Shubin and he's quite pleasant (I haven't e-mailed him, but am surprised that he would have time to write back, given his duties at both the Field Museum and the University of Chicago.). I haven't read Collins' book. Ken's book I am very familiar with and agree with your assessment of it.

toothful said: what is the experimental, observational proof of evolutionism?

how can it be falsified in a laboratory?

if it has failed to produce irreducibly complex structures of low probability, it has been falsified.

that is why adherents of evolutionism fear ID in the classroom.

Tenncrain said:

John said: I've met Shubin and he's quite pleasant (I haven't e-mailed him, but am surprised that he would have time to write back, given his duties at both the Field Museum and the University of Chicago.). I haven't read Collins' book. Ken's book I am very familiar with and agree with your assessment of it.

It was mentioned on another message board that Shubin emailed back a reply. Perhaps Shubin is similar to Ken Miller; I once emailed Ken thanking him for his books among other things. I wasn't expecting a reply, but about a month later he graciously replied back. About two months later, I asked Ken some science questions and he replied the next day; it probably helped that it was early January and between semesters at Brown. Ken once did a speech in Nashville TN at a science teachers convention. I would have loved to have seen Ken, but unfortunately that was during a very busy period at work.

Great. Just passed without the governor's signature. There's a major future legal bill for the taxpayer's of Tennessee.

Imaging if this goes to the Supreme Court. Imagine if the conservative court upholds it. Raise your hand if you'll decide to move your family and scientific research to Europe.

"In the case of chemical energy, the eight carbon atoms in a single molecule of gasoline have a much more orderly arrangement than do the carbon atoms of the eight separate randomly moving molecules of carbon dioxide and the nine molecules of water that are formed when the gasoline burns. The same is true for the glycogen molecules stored in a runner's muscles, which are converted from highly organized chains of sugar molecules into simpler water and carbon dioxide as they are used by the muscles. This tendency toward loss of complexity, orderliness, and useful energy - and the concurrent increase in randomness, disorder, and less useful energy - is called entropy. To counteract entropy, energy must be infused into the system from an outside source. When the eminent Yale scientist Evelyn Hutchinson stated, "Disorder spreads through the universe, and life alone battles against it," he made an eloquent reference to entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Fortunately, Earth is a closed system, for life as we know it depends on a constant infusion of energy from a source that is 93 millions miles away - the sun."

co said:

SteveP. said: If co would just read some of the biology textbooks, that's exactly what is claimed. Living systems fight off the effect of entropy by continually importing energy from the sun. Just like the guy who keeps putting gas in his car so he can go to work every day. Now co is gonna ask what textbook, right?

Yes. Which textbook, SteveP? I want to know because I want to avoid it like the plague in teaching biophysics. It's _wrong_. There is no "fighting off entropy". Entropy is locally paraconserved, and living systems had better see it increase all the time, or they're in that unfortunate (for them) state called "dead". You can't even get that correct. If you've read textbooks (biology or not) which claim what you just did, PLEASE tell us which ones, OK? Do us and the people we teach a big favor (and yourself, too).

You have to ask 'If Man figured out a way to harness energy through the use of a combustible engine, then how did early simple life figure out how to harness the light of the sun to keep from going extinct in fast fashion'.

Man had an idea, but from a darwinian perspective, life doesn't have ideas; only fortunate circumstances.

Ideas are over-rated then I guess.

SteveP. said: Here ya go. Biology Life on Earth Chapter 6, p.99 Excerpt: "In the case of chemical energy, the eight carbon atoms in a single molecule of gasoline have a much more orderly arrangement than do the carbon atoms of the eight separate randomly moving molecules of carbon dioxide and the nine molecules of water that are formed when the gasoline burns. The same is true for the glycogen molecules stored in a runner's muscles, which are converted from highly organized chains of sugar molecules into simpler water and carbon dioxide as they are used by the muscles. This tendency toward loss of complexity, orderliness, and useful energy - and the concurrent increase in randomness, disorder, and less useful energy - is called entropy. To counteract entropy, energy must be infused into the system from an outside source.

Fortunately, Earth is a closed system, for life as we know it depends on a constant infusion of energy from a source that is 93 millions miles away - the sun."

When the eminent Yale scientist Evelyn Hutchinson stated, "Disorder spreads through the universe, and life alone battles against it," he made an eloquent reference to entropy and the second law of thermodynamics.

and also said: You have to ask ‘If Man figured out a way to harness energy through the use of a combustible engine, then how did early simple life figure out how to harness the light of the sun to keep from going extinct in fast fashion’. Man had an idea, but from a darwinian perspective, life doesn’t have ideas; only fortunate circumstances. Ideas are over-rated then I guess.

SteveP. said: Here ya go. Biology Life on Earth Chapter 6, p.99 Excerpt: "In the case of chemical energy, the eight carbon atoms in a single molecule of gasoline have a much more orderly arrangement than do the carbon atoms of the eight separate randomly moving molecules of carbon dioxide and the nine molecules of water that are formed when the gasoline burns."

SteveP. said: You have to ask 'If Man figured out a way to harness energy through the use of a combustible engine...

SteveP. said: Here ya go. Biology Life on Earth Chapter 6, p.99 Excerpt:

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: Here ya go. Biology Life on Earth Chapter 6, p.99 Excerpt:

All you have done is what all ID/creationists do; you scour the literature to find statements that reinforce your own misconceptions and misrepresentations. You then hold these up as “authority” by using words such as “eminent” enhance the “authority of the quote-mine. But what you ID/creationists never do – and can NEVER EVER do – is actually understand concepts and be able to vet the literature from which you quote-mine. In other words, SteveP, you comprehend nothing, you don’t want to comprehend anything, and you want to waste the time of others by prattling repeatedly a bunch of crap you don’t understand. That quote you chose is one of the misconceptions that the physics community has been battling since the 1970s when ID/creationists spread these memes everywhere. You know nothing of the history of any of this; and you could not recognize a misconception or a misrepresentation if it hit you in the face with a steel I-beam. You seek only to find reinforcement for the misconceptions you already have and refuse to correct. You still haven’t learned anything. You don’t even try.

Elzinga,

It is your opinion that there is a misconception. After battling this supposed misconception for so many years, it never dawned on you that just maybe the misconception is on your part.

Even Dave Lovell skates right by the crux of the matter. Says life no more has to figure out how to harness light than fire has to figure out where to send smoke.

See, no explanations needed. It just does. Move along now.

If this is it, then God wins hands down.

SteveP. said: After battling this supposed misconception for so many years, it never dawned on you that just maybe the misconception is on your part.

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: After battling this supposed misconception for so many years, it never dawned on you that just maybe the misconception is on your part.

No; it simply demonstrates that IDiots like yourself are so full of bigotry and blind, ignorant hatred that you continue to try to force others to be as ignorant as you are. You belong to that class of street hoodlums who would beat up smart kids heading home from school with books under their arms. We have seen lots of people like you over the years; you aren’t original. You really like to moon people who understand things, don’t you. We have demonstrated repeatedly here on PT that you simply cannot compute entropy. You not only don’t know the equations, you can’t even do the math when the equations are given to you. You have never taught thermodynamics or used thermodynamics concepts in research EVER. You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. Your mooning and your copycat accusations of projection by people here are also an attempt to piss people off. There is no such thing as “battling entropy.” You are no longer capable of learning anything.

Time to boot Stevie to the bathroom wall. He is off his meds again.

So, SteveP, tell us again why we have to assume that you know more about science than actual scientists? Or, why we are not allowed to point out that you say very stupid things with every single post you make?

SteveP. said: And I am sure you have said that to the authors of that textbook as well.

I wonder if "battling entropy" is just a silly way of saying consuming nutrients (or photosynthesizing, depending on type of organism).

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: And I am sure you have said that to the authors of that textbook as well.

George Evelyn Hutchinson died in 1991. He was writing during the height of the ID/creationist attacks and sloppy popularizations. But you wouldn’t know anything about all that history; history which I lived through and which you have never taken the time to learn. You are apparently incapable of leaning history as well. But we have already determined that you are not capable of learning anything. You only probe to find ways to piss people off. You never outgrew your petulant preadolescence.

Thanks for stating the book, SteveP. It actually is an inoffensive enough statement. Of course, it doesn't help your position whatsoever; it's rather like quoting a bit of _Alice_In_Wonderland_ to learn about caterpillars.

SteveP. said: Elzinga, For starters, Hutchinson was not an author of the book. He was 'quoted' in the book. Second, you're rationalizing. You have to make it fit your preconceived notions that there is no dichotomy between life and non-life. Yet, that is exactly what we obverse, a glaring dichotomy. You (pl) are trying to do an end run around this observation by thinking we don't need to find an answer to the question of why there is a dichotomy if there is no question. So you need to repeat to yourself and others ad nauseum that there is no dichotomy. That's philosophy, not science.

What, you mean you weren't having fun just now at my expense?

You really do need that vacation.

co said: Thanks for stating the book, SteveP. It actually is an inoffensive enough statement. Of course, it doesn't help your position whatsoever; it's rather like quoting a bit of _Alice_In_Wonderland_ to learn about caterpillars.

SteveP. said: Yeah, and the kicker is its in a friggin' university textbook. You guys got your work cut out for you, cleaning up that horrid mess of misunderstandings, misapprehensions, misconceptions, misreadings, misapplications. Here's a marketing tip. Call your pedagogical clean up campaign "Mis-sing in action: How not to explain scientific concepts".

co said: Thanks for stating the book, SteveP. It actually is an inoffensive enough statement. Of course, it doesn't help your position whatsoever; it's rather like quoting a bit of _Alice_In_Wonderland_ to learn about caterpillars.

SteveP. said: Elzinga, It is your opinion that there is a misconception. After battling this supposed misconception for so many years, it never dawned on you that just maybe the misconception is on your part. Even Dave Lovell skates right by the crux of the matter. Says life no more has to figure out how to harness light than fire has to figure out where to send smoke. See, no explanations needed. It just does. Move along now. If this is it, then God wins hands down.

SteveP. said: Yeah, and the kicker is its in a friggin' university textbook. You guys got your work cut out for you, cleaning up that horrid mess of misunderstandings, misapprehensions, misconceptions, misreadings, misapplications. Here's a marketing tip. Call your pedagogical clean up campaign "Mis-sing in action: How not to explain scientific concepts".

co said: Thanks for stating the book, SteveP. It actually is an inoffensive enough statement. Of course, it doesn't help your position whatsoever; it's rather like quoting a bit of _Alice_In_Wonderland_ to learn about caterpillars.

Stevie is trapped in his teleological thinking. To him, no other explanations are needed or desirable or even understandable. He absolutely must see god in everything. Everything must be intelligent. Every thing must evolve itself. That is the only way he can make any sense of the world, at least without actually learning any real science. It wouldn't be so bad if he would at least have the decency to admit that he really doesn't understand anything and that others understand far more than he ever will. It would be even nicer if he would realize that no one is going to fall for his dark ages mentality. HIs impotent rage is solely attributable to his own ignorance and lack of understanding.

The fact that Stevie tries to defend his ignorance on a thread about an anti evolution bill is just one more piece of evidence that even he thinks the bill is designed to subvert science. Sadly, he seems to be just fine with that.

SteveP. the delusional American in Taiwan creotard barfed: Elzinga, For starters, Hutchinson was not an author of the book. He was 'quoted' in the book. Second, you're rationalizing. You have to make it fit your preconceived notions that there is no dichotomy between life and non-life. Yet, that is exactly what we obverse, a glaring dichotomy. You (pl) are trying to do an end run around this observation by thinking we don't need to find an answer to the question of why there is a dichotomy if there is no question. So you need to repeat to yourself and others ad nauseum that there is no dichotomy. That's philosophy, not science.

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: And I am sure you have said that to the authors of that textbook as well.

George Evelyn Hutchinson died in 1991. He was writing during the height of the ID/creationist attacks and sloppy popularizations. But you wouldn’t know anything about all that history; history which I lived through and which you have never taken the time to learn. You are apparently incapable of leaning history as well. But we have already determined that you are not capable of learning anything. You only probe to find ways to piss people off. You never outgrew your petulant preadolescence.

SteveP. the delusional American in Taiwan creotard barked: What, you mean you weren't having fun just now at my expense? You really do need that vacation.