Speaking of Answers in Genesis ...

So YEC is proven to be wrong and is no wise correct in questions of origins. it cannot be using geology since it never happened and it uses no biological investigations. so multiple lines of independent evidence show that YEC is YUC. yet student will just believe it if they are teaching it without question.

(end parody of brain dead creationist dribble just thought I would say it first this time before you know who verbally vomits all over the thread and refuses to look at the evidence again this way i cannot be accused of feeding the troll)

We don't even have to look at Clovis Culture. We've got SN1987A, which puts creation back to at least 170,000 BC. YECs can only "explain" it by dragging out nonsense about Star Trek-like "space warps", gravity wells and bizarre changes in the speed of light, none of which they attempt to verify or reconcile with other physical observations.

Oh well, just more evidence to be explained away by the evils of "ungodly scientists" and their commitment to "materialism" (IOW, the demand for evidence).

Nothing really different from what the DI (more specifically, the CSC) does in order to disregard the evidence.

Glen Davidson

I can only think of about 20 things that totally discredit YEC beliefs. The fact that there's not one or two, but at least 20 unique TYPES of evidence from at least four major fields of study that discredit it.

YECs can complain and whine and pick on one little piece as much as they like. But they simply cannot discredit fundamental processes that totally destroy them. They having nothing but a pathetically old myth that was stolen from even older cultures than themselves.

ogremk5 said: YECs can complain and whine and pick on one little piece as much as they like. But they simply cannot discredit fundamental processes that totally destroy them. They having nothing but a pathetically old myth that was stolen from even older cultures than themselves.

Why the infatuation with YEC, Richard?

Could it just be that slapping YEC silly is a much cleaner pasttime?

I mean, getting your(pl) noses bloodied by that lying ID isn't all that much fun now, is it?

SteveP. said: Why the infatuation with YEC, Richard? Could it just be that slapping YEC silly is a much cleaner pasttime? I mean, getting your(pl) noses bloodied by that lying ID isn't all that much fun now, is it?

Or, SteveP, if you don't consider yourself to be a moronic hypocrite, perhaps you could explain to us why we are not allowed to criticize Young Earth Creationists for making stupid lies about science, or why we are not permitted to point out that Young Earth Creationists make fools out of themselves everytime they talk?

Or is this question far too much to ask of from a lying idiot like yourself?

Because the YECs are actually more of a threat to rational thought and a free country than people like SteveP. As far as anyone can make out - Steve himself won't say - he's a kinda sorta pantheistic Gaeaist with the notion that Mind exists in everything and that this directs things, through immaterial fields of, y'know, consciousness, man.

Compared to the more typical YEC stance - which is along the lines of Byers' "The USA was founded as a Protestant theocracy and that's what we want to get back to right now" - Steve's vaguely new age burble is mere harmless fruitcakery. The fundamentalists not only want a State which consists of a church - their church - they are prepared to do whatever it takes to get it. They're organised, they tithe, they're vocal, and there's tens of millions of them. Steve, by comparison, is an impotent loon.

SteveP. said: Why the infatuation with YEC, Richard?

The bible puts down clear boundaries to ages of man.
The Indians only arrived in the americas about 1700 BC or so.

How in the world would anyone know when ancient peoples arrived anywhere?
It could only be from some dating of some stuff they had on them or kicked!
so its just a faith in some dating thing which by definition could not be verified.
surely.

Without the faith in the dating method there is no way to know what gone people did and when relative to moving about.
aIG is not wrong.
they simply say the bible is true and the man made concept of unverifiable dating tricks is not true.
Creationists have no problem with the public on issues like this.
The public understand ancient things only are known by remaining evidence.
Dating tricks is not proven.

Radiocarbon dates, in this case, because we are speaking of events less than 20 thousand years ago, well within the radiocarbon range. We are not speaking of one such date, but of dozens, of human remains, campfire ashes, coprolites and of bones from animals killed with stone spearheads.

Radiocarbon dates are as proven as science can be, when used professionally and honestly. Byers, of course, doesn't believe it. This is because Byers is a fool and a crank.

The public understand ancient things only are known by remaining evidence. Dating tricks is not proven.

Oh, but because Byers is a fool and a crank, and will simply deny radiocarbon dating, I will note that radiocarbon dates are strongly backed up by tree-ring, varve and ice-core dating, three different lines of evidence that provide cross-checks. Occasionally carbon in the form of ash is found in ice cores, or tree roots in lake varves. Where this happens, and a cross-check can be done, the dating methods tally neatly.

Radiocarbon dating relies on nothing less than basic nuclear physics. It can be used incorrectly, of course. Sampling errors can occur - that is, the date has to be of the actual sample, not of something else; contamination of samples has to be carefully avoided; the reservoir effect is well-understood to give wrong values due to the carbon in the sample being old at the time the sample was created. However, when used correctly, it is absolutely consistent and statistically reliable for dates between 500 and 50 000 years. Byers will go into denial, out of ignorance, prejudice and blind faith. This is because Byers is a fool and a crank.

Robert Byers said: The Indians only arrived in the americas about 1700 BC or so.

How in the world would anyone know when ancient peoples arrived anywhere?

aIG is not wrong.

Robert Byers said: The bible puts down clear boundaries to ages of man. The Indians only arrived in the americas about 1700 BC or so. How in the world would anyone know when ancient peoples arrived anywhere? It could only be from some dating of some stuff they had on them or kicked! so its just a faith in some dating thing which by definition could not be verified. surely. Without the faith in the dating method there is no way to know what gone people did and when relative to moving about. aIG is not wrong. they simply say the bible is true and the man made concept of unverifiable dating tricks is not true. Creationists have no problem with the public on issues like this. The public understand ancient things only are known by remaining evidence. Dating tricks is not proven.

Thanks for the link Paul.

Unfortunately Robert doesn't have the guts to look at the evidence and couldn't understand it if he tried. He is just trying to prove that willful ignorance cannot be overcome by any amount of evidence, logic or reasoning. Of course, we already knew that. How he can explain the almost perfect correlation between the archaeological evidence and the genetic evidence in the mitochondrial DNA sequences I don't know. My guess is that he won;t even try, since mitochondria has more than four letters. Why he thinks that ignorance is an argument or that it will fool those who knows about such things is questionable.

Robert Byers, walking self-refutation

Just like your mum knows when you've come home late and left early - it's the messy bed and unwashed cup that you leave behind that constitute the traces of your presence. Likewise archaeology - a tad more sophisticated perhaps, but the basics are the same.

SteveP. said: Why the infatuation with YEC, Richard? Could it just be that slapping YEC silly is a much cleaner pasttime? I mean, getting your(pl) noses bloodied by that lying ID isn't all that much fun now, is it?

Because the YECs are actually more of a threat to rational thought and a free country than people like SteveP. As far as anyone can make out - Steve himself won’t say - he’s a kinda sorta pantheistic Gaeaist with the notion that Mind exists in everything and that this directs things, through immaterial fields of, y’know, consciousness, man.

Paul Burnett said:

Robert Byers said: The Indians only arrived in the americas about 1700 BC or so.

Just a few hundred years after Noah's Flood in 2348 BC? Can you even realize how flamingly ignorant that statement is? Meanwhile, in the actual world, humans crossed the Bering Land Bridge between 15,000 and 17,000 years ago.

How in the world would anyone know when ancient peoples arrived anywhere?

TomS said: Does anyone have an approximation for the population growth in various regions of the world based on the assumption that there were exactly 8 people in 2348 BC? How many people were around to build the Indus Valley civilization? How about to build the Pyramids of Egypt? How many people took place in the migration to the Americas some 600 years after the Flood? The Bible tells us about the number of people who were involved in the Exodus, some time about 1500 BC (or, according to some, 1200 BC).

Scott F said:

TomS said: Does anyone have an approximation for the population growth in various regions of the world based on the assumption that there were exactly 8 people in 2348 BC? How many people were around to build the Indus Valley civilization? How about to build the Pyramids of Egypt? How many people took place in the migration to the Americas some 600 years after the Flood? The Bible tells us about the number of people who were involved in the Exodus, some time about 1500 BC (or, according to some, 1200 BC).

I recently did some rough back-of-the-envelope calculations. Starting with 8 people (4 women), and based on the need for a 10,000 man dedicated work force to build the Pyramids and a 50% child mortality rate (not uncommon for the time), I estimated that it would have required something like every fertile woman to bear 8 live children every year for 20 years of her life time (ages 15 to 35) in order to achieve the requisite population to support the major Egyptian works built within 150 years of the Flood. And that's just for Egypt. That doesn't even count the Indus Valley, or Mesopotamia, or China, or anywhere else. Just Egypt. (My numbers and assumptions may be a bit off, but they're probably within the ball park.) The people of Noah's family not only had lifespans of many hundreds of years, they also bred like rabbits.

SWT said:

Scott F said: I recently did some rough back-of-the-envelope calculations. Starting with 8 people (4 women), and based on the need for a 10,000 man dedicated work force to build the Pyramids and a 50% child mortality rate (not uncommon for the time), I estimated that it would have required something like every fertile woman to bear 8 live children every year for 20 years of her life time (ages 15 to 35) in order to achieve the requisite population to support the major Egyptian works built within 150 years of the Flood. And that's just for Egypt. That doesn't even count the Indus Valley, or Mesopotamia, or China, or anywhere else. Just Egypt. (My numbers and assumptions may be a bit off, but they're probably within the ball park.) The people of Noah's family not only had lifespans of many hundreds of years, they also bred like rabbits.

Oh, be fair. The Bible doesn't say that Noah's sons had only one wife each unless it's implied by something in the original Hebrew.

Here's what was written on a poster at the Sixth International Conference on Creationism: ....

* how well have done at building the Creation Model? * if we are honest, by looking at the current status of the Creation Model, the answer would have to be “poorly”! —we do not yet have a unified cosmological model —even nearly five decades after The Genesis Flood we still have no comprehensive model of earth history explaining the geologic (strata and fossil) record that includes general agreement on Creation Week rocks, pre-Flood/Flood and Flood/post-Flood boundaries —we are even still arguing about the nature of the geologic record, whether there really are rock sequences that can be traced across continents and correlated between continents! —we still don’t have a complete understanding of radiometric dates (e.g. concordant dates, meteorite dates), RATE notwithstanding.

TomS said:

SWT said: Oh, be fair. The Bible doesn't say that Noah's sons had only one wife each unless it's implied by something in the original Hebrew.

1 Peter 3:20 says that there were eight people.

TomS said: 1 Peter 3:20 says that there were eight people.

It turns my stomach to admit it, but I have to agree with Steve P. that this obsession with YEC is unwarranted. And I will add "counterproductive," which makes Steve happy, and me not.

Granted "scientific" YEC has more fun arguments to refute than OEC and ID, so it's hard to resist in that respect. But when the question is worded unequivocally, only ~20% of the public insists that the Earth (& Universe) are that young. That's only half of those who believe that humans were created in their present form in the last 10,000 years. And even some of them might merely think that that souls were implanted in descendants of soul-free ancestors. Besides, most of the rank-and-file take it "on faith" and backpedal when shown evidence. Only fraction of a % of the public actively promote "scientific" YEC, and most of them are being replaced by the "don't ask, don't tell what happened when" scam artists.

Certainly we should not ignore YEC, but it must be put in context of the much bigger problem, the "big tent" strategy. On this thread alone, 2 trolls are tag-teaming you, while running from their own fatal differences. Shooting fish in a barrel is not that easy when they multiply faster than you can shoot them. May I recommend, instead of "shooting," slowly adding "ethanol to the water"? ;-)

DS said:

TomS said: 1 Peter 3:20 says that there were eight people.

Was he there?

It turns my stomach to admit it, but I have to agree with Steve P. that this obsession with YEC is unwarranted. And I will add “counterproductive,” which makes Steve happy, and me not.

SWT said:

DS said:

TomS said: 1 Peter 3:20 says that there were eight people.

Was he there?

I was sorely tempted to use that response; I now regret my restraint.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, but because Byers is a fool and a crank, and will simply deny radiocarbon dating, I will note that radiocarbon dates are strongly backed up by tree-ring, varve and ice-core dating, three different lines of evidence that provide cross-checks. Occasionally carbon in the form of ash is found in ice cores, or tree roots in lake varves. Where this happens, and a cross-check can be done, the dating methods tally neatly. Radiocarbon dating relies on nothing less than basic nuclear physics. It can be used incorrectly, of course. Sampling errors can occur - that is, the date has to be of the actual sample, not of something else; contamination of samples has to be carefully avoided; the reservoir effect is well-understood to give wrong values due to the carbon in the sample being old at the time the sample was created. However, when used correctly, it is absolutely consistent and statistically reliable for dates between 500 and 50 000 years. Byers will go into denial, out of ignorance, prejudice and blind faith. This is because Byers is a fool and a crank.

One non-trivial effect of the modern intelligent design movement has been to provide intellectual cover for flat-out creationists. They mouth the ID terminology–irreducible complexity, for example, as Freshwater did in a lesson plan–but use the same tired material that Henry Morris and Ken Ham have pushed for decades.

— Richard B. Hoppe

Richard B. Hoppe said: Frank J wrote

It turns my stomach to admit it, but I have to agree with Steve P. that this obsession with YEC is unwarranted. And I will add “counterproductive,” which makes Steve happy, and me not.

You wouldn't if your school district had just blown $920K on account of a YEC teacher who used AIG, among creationist propaganda mills, as one of his sources. In fact, some of his stuff was even less sophisticated than AIG's crap. And it was in the public school here, in middle school science classes. One non-trivial effect of the modern intelligent design movement has been to provide intellectual cover for flat-out creationists. They mouth the ID terminology--irreducible complexity, for example, as Freshwater did in a lesson plan--but use the same tired material that Henry Morris and Ken Ham have pushed for decades. The other interesting thing about the linked site in the OP is that it's a 'progressive' Christian channel. To be blunt, anytime one has the chance to reinforce a schism between YECs and more moderate Christians one should take it. Isolate the whackaloon fringe and make their co-religionists in the more liberal wings of Christianity face up to the loons under their umbrella.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Frank J wrote

It turns my stomach to admit it, but I have to agree with Steve P. that this obsession with YEC is unwarranted. And I will add “counterproductive,” which makes Steve happy, and me not.

You wouldn't if your school district had just blown $920K on account of a YEC teacher who used AIG, among creationist propaganda mills, as one of his sources. In fact, some of his stuff was even less sophisticated than AIG's crap. And it was in the public school here, in middle school science classes. One non-trivial effect of the modern intelligent design movement has been to provide intellectual cover for flat-out creationists. They mouth the ID terminology--irreducible complexity, for example, as Freshwater did in a lesson plan--but use the same tired material that Henry Morris and Ken Ham have pushed for decades. The other interesting thing about the linked site in the OP is that it's a 'progressive' Christian channel. To be blunt, anytime one has the chance to reinforce a schism between YECs and more moderate Christians one should take it. Isolate the whackaloon fringe and make their co-religionists in the more liberal wings of Christianity face up to the loons under their umbrella.

SteveP. said: See Richard, the problem you have on your hands is not coming to terms with the fact that these people you keep wailing on do pay taxes. In fact, they are responsible for a majority piece of the tax pie. Why should any of them sit back and take the shit anti-religious folks throw at them? If atheists want to no gods in class, they should get their own schools.

See Richard, the problem you have on your hands is not coming to terms with the fact that these people you keep wailing on do pay taxes. In fact, they are responsible for a majority piece of the tax pie. Why should any of them sit back and take the shit anti-Islamic folks throw at them? If Christians want no Allah in class, they should get their own schools. Why don't you do a survey and find out how many kids in a public classroom live in religious families? Do a cross-section of the country; rural, suburban, and urban areas; high, middle, and low income neighborhoods. You know Muslims breed like crazy. Tell you what, when you finish crunching the numbers, lets do some horse trading . All the schools where the majority of the students come from non-Muslim religious backgrounds we'll turn over to you, the Christians, for no-Allah-needed Jesus explanations of how life began and developed through variation built upon imperfect replication Then all the schools where the majority of students come from Islamic families you turn over to me, the Islamic man, who will teach Islam(specifically defined as non-Christian) beliefs. Deal?

Yep, you're right, harold. He's an IDer, not quite a YECer, but happy to be under the same tent with the mouth-breathing goobers who say it all happened in a week, back about 4000 BC. I had the impression from his vague references in the past to morphic fields and "information as independent of matter" that he was a more-or-less harmless fruitloop. I acknowledge my mistake. He's a would-be culture warrior.

"Would-be" only, mind. He hasn't any actual historical or cultural understanding of what would happen if his religious-apartheid education system ever became reality. Which is that those in the tent would clean house with a vengeance, and his heterodoxy would suddenly become heresy and anathema. His culture warriorhood would be revoked so fast his little head would spin; to his fellow-tentists he'd be just another one of them pointy-headed intelleckshuls. I mean, he reads stuff and he uses them fancy words like "extrapolation" and all.

I suppose it would be interesting to watch what would happen to the part of the USA that became Rednekistan. Interesting. As the Chinese have it, "May you live in interesting times."

But Steve really does want his kingdom of ignorance built over the grave of a dismembered nation. That idea was, as I recall, tried once before. Even so, for all his treasonous intent, Steve may say what he likes. His canvassing the possibility of national segregation is protected by the right to free speech that his tentmates would joyously tear up and burn the instant they got the chance. And so, it seems, would he, if with a little more subtlety.

For what would happen to those kids, who, like me, were brought up religiously, but decided about grade 10 that they don't believe it, Steve? Would there be special religious courts to try their apostacy? Would they have to find adoptive families on the other side of the razor wire? Or should they simply be beheaded? Details, details.

Go screw yourself, Steve.

So that would be a no. Sleazy Stevie can't even try to answer the questions Harold asked. Instead he makes up all kinds of nonsense to try to get people to forget that the questions were asked. How typical. Is he incapable of answering the questions or does he have something to hide? Who cares?

So, SteveP.: How old is the earth, and how do you know?

I can't make the math for the billboard work, it keeps coming out off by a factor of 20 or so. I'm pretty sure they confused hours for days when putting it up.

Rolf said: Robert said:

The public understand ancient things only are known by remaining evidence. Dating tricks is not proven.

Robert, are you insane? There are no 'dating tricks involved! How do you think scientists are able to manage satellites and spacecraft even millions of miles out in space, yet not able to make some simple scientific measurements on the planet? Here is a dating method that even you might understand if you made the effort, but knowing you I think you won't even give it a try: Dendrochronology. By counting tree growth rings it is possible to make very accurate datings back to (IIRC) eight to twelve thousand years. Please don't come back with stupid things like 'there may be more than one ring from the same year' and things like that, scientists are of course well aware of possible sources of error and do all they can to eliminate them. Besides, there is a lot of historical evidence where the dates are already quite well known - and tree ring dating may be correlated with such dates to verify its accuracy. Know what,when scientist find that historical records, radiocarbon dating and tree-ring dating all show the same time, we know that the methods are reliable, they tell us the age of the object in question Don't you think scientists think about what they are doing? Do you think? I don't think you do!

Robert Byers said: Space stuff is not dating stuff or done by the same people.

Robert Byers said: These are not measurements but extrapolations from presumptions that is done with this dating stuff.

Robert Byers said: I don't really like this subject especially as its just silly to me that any confidence in dating things can be made without verification. Yet if it could be verified THAT would be the better dating method.

Robert Byers said: in this crazy earth there are hugh piles of options for why carbon dating doesn't work beyond some past event.

Robert Byers said: likewise tree rings demand no diversity in tree ring growth. No reason to see that especially when people lived hundreds of years. Trees could of been healthier too.

Robert Byers said: its still a faith in dating methods. A faith. Not a proven fact.

A faith. Not a proven fact.

No reason to see that especially when people lived hundreds of years.

Trees could of been healthier too.

Why should any of them sit back and take the shit anti-religious folks throw at them?

why should, you, SteveP, accept that gravity theory explains the attraction of one mass to another?

surely you, as a taxpayer, SteveP, should feel empowered to test your own theory by jumping off a cliff?

teach your kids this theory too. well, before you personally test it of course.

anyone tell you you're completely insane?

you are, you know.

SteveP

Your pupils also want to know if they get to learn alchemy, and whether there will be any field trips to photograph fairies at the bottom of your garden. Seriously, if you intend to teach crap, you might as well go all in.

Self-refutin' Robert

Have you ever used a clock or a watch or a calendar? Do you even understand what these things are?

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: See Richard, the problem you have on your hands is not coming to terms with the fact that these people you keep wailing on do pay taxes. In fact, they are responsible for a majority piece of the tax pie. Why should any of them sit back and take the shit anti-religious folks throw at them? If atheists want to no gods in class, they should get their own schools.

Does this SteveP character work hard at being an idiot or does it just come naturally? What’s the problem SteveP; are you being denied freedom to worship in a church or cult of your choice? Are laws being passed requiring you teach evolution and “materialism” in your churches? Are you being fined or arrested for attending church? Are stealth preachers infiltrating your pulpits slipping evolution into their sermons? Like all fundamentalists, you carry a chip on your shoulder about not being able to force your sectarian beliefs on others. You are not thankful for your Constitutional guarantee of freedom to worship as you please in the churches you can choose to attend on your own. You want it all; you will be satisfied with nothing less than a theocracy that burns “heretics” at the stake. You want the Massachusetts Bay Colony for the entire country. One of the problems with your refusal to get an education is that you never know what you are talking about. All you know how to do is throw feces.

SteveP. said: Elzinga is back with a vengence, I see. So much so that he can't see that I am far from a fundamentalist. He just doesn't like it when I call him on his regurgitated posts. But back to his 'points'. No, I have no desire to see a theocracy in the States. Far from it. Rather, I neither want to see our education system being used as an atheists' pulpit. It makes sense that whomever pays the bills, calls the shots. If atheists were in the majority, I guarentee they would have this attitude towards the minority. There's nothing sinister here, contrary to what Elzinga would have others believe. Elzinga does seem to have a tendency to read all sorts of things into my posts. Better than coffee to keep that blood pressure up I guess.

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: See Richard, the problem you have on your hands is not coming to terms with the fact that these people you keep wailing on do pay taxes. In fact, they are responsible for a majority piece of the tax pie. Why should any of them sit back and take the shit anti-religious folks throw at them? If atheists want to no gods in class, they should get their own schools.

Does this SteveP character work hard at being an idiot or does it just come naturally? What’s the problem SteveP; are you being denied freedom to worship in a church or cult of your choice? Are laws being passed requiring you teach evolution and “materialism” in your churches? Are you being fined or arrested for attending church? Are stealth preachers infiltrating your pulpits slipping evolution into their sermons? Like all fundamentalists, you carry a chip on your shoulder about not being able to force your sectarian beliefs on others. You are not thankful for your Constitutional guarantee of freedom to worship as you please in the churches you can choose to attend on your own. You want it all; you will be satisfied with nothing less than a theocracy that burns “heretics” at the stake. You want the Massachusetts Bay Colony for the entire country. One of the problems with your refusal to get an education is that you never know what you are talking about. All you know how to do is throw feces.

Dave Luckett said: Yep, you're right, harold. He's an IDer, not quite a YECer, but happy to be under the same tent with the mouth-breathing goobers who say it all happened in a week, back about 4000 BC. I had the impression from his vague references in the past to morphic fields and "information as independent of matter" that he was a more-or-less harmless fruitloop. I acknowledge my mistake. He's a would-be culture warrior. "Would-be" only, mind. He hasn't any actual historical or cultural understanding of what would happen if his religious-apartheid education system ever became reality. Which is that those in the tent would clean house with a vengeance, and his heterodoxy would suddenly become heresy and anathema. His culture warriorhood would be revoked so fast his little head would spin; to his fellow-tentists he'd be just another one of them pointy-headed intelleckshuls. I mean, he reads stuff and he uses them fancy words like "extrapolation" and all. I suppose it would be interesting to watch what would happen to the part of the USA that became Rednekistan. Interesting. As the Chinese have it, "May you live in interesting times." But Steve really does want his kingdom of ignorance built over the grave of a dismembered nation. That idea was, as I recall, tried once before. Even so, for all his treasonous intent, Steve may say what he likes. His canvassing the possibility of national segregation is protected by the right to free speech that his tentmates would joyously tear up and burn the instant they got the chance. And so, it seems, would he, if with a little more subtlety. For what would happen to those kids, who, like me, were brought up religiously, but decided about grade 10 that they don't believe it, Steve? Would there be special religious courts to try their apostacy? Would they have to find adoptive families on the other side of the razor wire? Or should they simply be beheaded? Details, details. Go screw yourself, Steve.

SWT said:

SteveP. said: Elzinga is back with a vengence, I see. So much so that he can't see that I am far from a fundamentalist. He just doesn't like it when I call him on his regurgitated posts. But back to his 'points'. No, I have no desire to see a theocracy in the States. Far from it. Rather, I neither want to see our education system being used as an atheists' pulpit. It makes sense that whomever pays the bills, calls the shots. If atheists were in the majority, I guarentee they would have this attitude towards the minority. There's nothing sinister here, contrary to what Elzinga would have others believe. Elzinga does seem to have a tendency to read all sorts of things into my posts. Better than coffee to keep that blood pressure up I guess.

Mike Elzinga said:

SteveP. said: See Richard, the problem you have on your hands is not coming to terms with the fact that these people you keep wailing on do pay taxes. In fact, they are responsible for a majority piece of the tax pie. Why should any of them sit back and take the shit anti-religious folks throw at them? If atheists want to no gods in class, they should get their own schools.

Does this SteveP character work hard at being an idiot or does it just come naturally? What’s the problem SteveP; are you being denied freedom to worship in a church or cult of your choice? Are laws being passed requiring you teach evolution and “materialism” in your churches? Are you being fined or arrested for attending church? Are stealth preachers infiltrating your pulpits slipping evolution into their sermons? Like all fundamentalists, you carry a chip on your shoulder about not being able to force your sectarian beliefs on others. You are not thankful for your Constitutional guarantee of freedom to worship as you please in the churches you can choose to attend on your own. You want it all; you will be satisfied with nothing less than a theocracy that burns “heretics” at the stake. You want the Massachusetts Bay Colony for the entire country. One of the problems with your refusal to get an education is that you never know what you are talking about. All you know how to do is throw feces.

So, SteveP.: How old is the earth, and how do you know?

SteveP. said: I've said it before but you seem to need another fix. Science says the earth is billions of years old. so I take it tentatively that this is so. But as I also pointed out before, it would not shock me if it were revealed that science' current methods of understanding the material world are flawed. It won't be the first time this has happened. Maybe science will end up eating crow and having to stomach the fact that the earth is not billions of years old but say millions or thousands of years old. So what?

thomasjneal.nz said: Why should any of them sit back and take the shit anti-religious folks throw at them? why should, you, SteveP, accept that gravity theory explains the attraction of one mass to another? surely you, as a taxpayer, SteveP, should feel empowered to test your own theory by jumping off a cliff? teach your kids this theory too. well, before you personally test it of course. anyone tell you you're completely insane? you are, you know.

SteveP. said: Lastly, if anyone is a culture warrior its the regular folks on this board. They are extremely interested in getting all aspects of religion out of schools and other public places. And out of peoples minds if they could come up with a way too do it.

SWT said:

SteveP. said: I've said it before but you seem to need another fix. Science says the earth is billions of years old. so I take it tentatively that this is so. But as I also pointed out before, it would not shock me if it were revealed that science' current methods of understanding the material world are flawed. It won't be the first time this has happened. Maybe science will end up eating crow and having to stomach the fact that the earth is not billions of years old but say millions or thousands of years old. So what?

So what do we teach kids about the age of the earth?

SteveP. said: Why do you feel it is necessary to teach kids how old the earth is? Or the galaxy. Or the universe. Does it matter?

Anyway, one line will do it. /Current scientific methods of investigating the age of material objects tells us that the earth is 14 billion years old. / End.

Steve's "simple observation" wasn't an observation, and it wasn't simple. It was the suggestion that there should be separate education systems for the religious and the secular, in the US.

Oh, wait. There is already...

What he actually meant, then, is that the State should fund a separate religious education system, and teach only approved religious doctrine in it and approved science. Um... separate religious doctrines, Steve? Separate creation accounts for different religions? Would we need separate schools for that? Who'd approve the curriculum? The Pope? (Uh, no.) The World Council of Churches? (What, them Commies?) The Scripture Union? (Libruls, all of 'em!) Oh, never mind. We can work out the details later. Probably by the light of the burning martyrs.

As I remarked, there's a temptation to give him what he wants, always supposing that the people, the courts and the legislature would stand for so radical a gutting of the Constitution, except for one consideration: the result would be revolting to a civilised conscience. But then again, why would that be a problem for Steve?

SWT said:

SteveP. said: Why do you feel it is necessary to teach kids how old the earth is? Or the galaxy. Or the universe. Does it matter?

It matters if you're teaching geology/earth science. It matters if you're teaching astronomy. And it matters if you're teaching biology.

Anyway, one line will do it. /Current scientific methods of investigating the age of material objects tells us that the earth is 14 billion years old. / End.

Setting aside the error in your comment, I can't believe you just threw all the YECs under the bus. Thanks for playing.

Dave Luckett said: Steve's "simple observation" wasn't an observation, and it wasn't simple. It was the suggestion that there should be separate education systems for the religious and the secular, in the US. Oh, wait. There is already... What he actually meant, then, is that the State should fund a separate religious education system, and teach only approved religious doctrine in it and approved science. Um... separate religious doctrines, Steve? Separate creation accounts for different religions? Would we need separate schools for that? Who'd approve the curriculum? The Pope? (Uh, no.) The World Council of Churches? (What, them Commies?) The Scripture Union? (Libruls, all of 'em!) Oh, never mind. We can work out the details later. Probably by the light of the burning martyrs. As I remarked, there's a temptation to give him what he wants, always supposing that the people, the courts and the legislature would stand for so radical a gutting of the Constitution, except for one consideration: the result would be revolting to a civilised conscience. But then again, why would that be a problem for Steve?

SteveP. said: It depends what the age of the 'kids' are. If they are in grade school, no it doesn't matter. Those subjects aren't taught. In fact, I don't recall taking geology or astronomy as required courses in high school. Did you? True, its the universe that is 14 billion years old. Mea culpa. But why the surprise? You seem to think I have a vest interest in supporting Robert Byers position. I don't. What I do know is that folks like Byers are hoping that scientists are wrong about carbon dating. And they are making the effort to show that carbon dating is in fact flawed. Who knows? They may very well come out the winner on this issue. It seems though that they will need a modern day Newton to put the nail in the coffin on the reliability of carbon and other dating methods. Only time will tell.

SteveP. said: Again, reading all sorts of things into it. What don't you get about majority rule?

What don’t you get about majority rule?

SteveP

You seriously believe that YEC's are doing anything to prove that radiometric dating is flawed? If you really think that there's a chance of them coming out the winner, then perhaps I can interest you in a very lucrative lottery scheme. Just send me cash - gobs of it, oh, and trust me, I'm scrupulously honest.

Having a wish-list isn't the same as doing actual work, or doing that work properly and with integrity. All they've managed to do in the 15 years of the RATE project is run out of money.

Radioactive decay rates are observed, measurable facts. The theory might change - actually, it's a banker certainty that the theories will change - but the facts will still remain.

Richard,

Time to dump the trolls to the bathroom wall. They are obviously not interested in intelligent conversation or learning anything. They are here to display willful ignorance and taunt, behavior best reserved for the bathroom wall made for expressly that purpose. They are a good example of the hatred that these people have for any real knowledge and the willingness they have to deny any reality, but that is best left to the bathroom wall as well.

SteveP. said: What I do know is that folks like Byers are hoping that scientists are wrong about carbon dating. And they are making the effort to show that carbon dating is in fact flawed. Who knows?

They may very well come out the winner on this issue. It seems though that they will need a modern day Newton to put the nail in the coffin on the reliability of carbon and other dating methods.

Only time will tell.

Why do you feel it is necessary to teach kids how old the earth is? Or the galaxy. Or the universe. Does it matter?

It's pretty clear that Steve P. toes the DI line pretty closely, including a quite undiluted form of Phillip Johnson's Dominionism. Nothing more to see here -

SteveP,

In the 4th century BC, the majority of scholars thought that the Earth was the center of the universe.

Where they correct or incorrect?

eric said:

SteveP. said: What I do know is that folks like Byers are hoping that scientists are wrong about carbon dating. And they are making the effort to show that carbon dating is in fact flawed. Who knows?

If its flawed, its flawed in a way that aligns with multiple other dating techniques. That seems very odd. Almost as if the "its flawed" idea is nothing more than a wacky conspiracy theory.

They may very well come out the winner on this issue. It seems though that they will need a modern day Newton to put the nail in the coffin on the reliability of carbon and other dating methods.

Newton provided an explanation for unexplained, observed phenomena. Variation in C-14, U-238, etc... half-lives is not an observed phenomena, its an hypothesis with zero evidential support, pulled out of YEC butts as a way of deconflicting their creation story with the observations of science.

Only time will tell.

Only time will tell if our theory of QM is right, too. But it will remain just as accurate even if its disproven. Do you get the analogy as it relates to half-lives? Let me spell it out for you: even if we discover some radical new physics that changes our understanding of nuclear half-lives, that radical new physics will agree with the observation of stable half-lives we see under earth-like condititions. If this new physics makes different predictions, it will be at the extreme edges of our observational powers. It will not change the expected C-14 half-life, on earth, 2,000 years ago, from ~5,700 years to 570 years or 5.7 years, the way YECism would require. Yes, its hypothetically possible that YECs are right, but only in the mere logical possibility sense of "its possible we are living in the matrix" and "its possible that tomorrow I will flap my wings and fly around the room."

Why do you feel it is necessary to teach kids how old the earth is? Or the galaxy. Or the universe. Does it matter?

Wow, just...wow. So ultimately, you think its better to keep kids ignorant of this sort of stuff that we know, rather than teach it to them?

ogremk5 said: SteveP, In the 4th century BC, the majority of scholars thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. Where they correct or incorrect?

Dave Luckett said: ...the reality is that evolution happened, and the reality of religious apartheid in the education system would be schism, followed by bloody conflict.

I hope everyone notices that we don’t know, and never will know, whether Steve P. is a “YEC”.

— harold

SteveP. said: If atheists want to no gods in class, they should get their own schools.

What don’t you get about majority rule?

I suspect that SteveP is simply saying anything that he thinks will insult and piss off people. He has a chip on his shoulder because he got nailed repeatedly for making stupid remarks; so all he is doing is “getting even” by throwing feces.

Someone who operates this way doesn’t have much upstairs to work with; he is simply reverting to childish playground “You’re a poopy head!” insults.

SteveP. said:

"If atheists want to no gods in class, they should get their own schools."

Personally, I am not an anthiest. My religious beliefs are not anyone else's business but my own (and my family, congregation). I don't want AiG LIES in MY kids's classes. I accept that public education needs to be secular (secular does NOT mean athiest, secular means compatible to many religious faiths or none) I am glad that the US constitution protects my children from being subject to religious indoctrination at school. Science denial as practiced by AiG and thier ilk is nothing more than an attempt to cheat/game the system (to use EVERYONE's tax money to promote a minority religious agenda.) The fact that these groups want to lie/cheat to promote thier religion tells me everything I need to know about the integrity of those groups- I don't want anything to do with them, I will do everything in my power (that is legal and ethical) to reduce thier influence, I will not vote for candidates to cater to thier agenda. --- you see SteveP (and bobby byers for canada) that's how representative government works - it's not just majority rules and the rest of you can go f*ck yourselves- it's a govermenment for ALL the people - and if you don't like it you are free to send your kids to a private school (but I'm not going to PAY FOR IT)

harold said: I hope everyone here is reading this Steve P. stuff carefully. I hope everyone notices that his goal is to promote the censorship and sabotage of science teaching. I hope everyone notices that he goes back and forth between lies. Not long ago he said "Of course evolution is just atheism in drag". Later he denied equating evolution and atheism. Now in this thread he's back to blatantly equating the teaching of evolution, in fact, science, with atheism. I hope everyone notices that he not only has no interest in honesty or consistency, and in fact, seems to have an inherent aversion to those things. I hope everyone notices that his statements about the age of the universe amount to a claim of post-modern nihilism, but in the service of religious authoritarianism. I hope everyone notices that "I don't know how old the earth is because scientists have been wrong about some things in the past so therefore they are always equally likely to be wrong about anything" is almost never uttered as an honest statement, and frequently invoked by creationists, fraudulent medical quacks, climate change denialists, and others with an agenda that is inconvenienced by scientific reality. I hope everyone notices that we don't know, and never will know, whether Steve P. is a "YEC". The question is meaningless. It's like asking whether a member of politburo of the old USSR truly "believed in" communism. He is an authoritarian, and repression of science and enforcement of certain narrow sectarian claims is part of the authoritarian ideology he thinks he wants to be part of. It doesn't matter what authoritarians "really believe". What matters is that they are all allied against you, that this won't change as long as you are still a "threat", and what it is that they are trying to achieve and how they are trying to achieve it. Steve P, Freshwater, etc., are trying to censor and distort the teaching of science in public schools, in favor of sectarian dogma. Their methodology is "whatever it takes". Because that's what your up against.

Frank J said:

I hope everyone notices that we don’t know, and never will know, whether Steve P. is a “YEC”.

— harold

Lemme resolve this once and for all. Steve long ago admitted old earth and common descent. But he is ideologically aligned with any "kind" of evolution denier, so he promotes YEC as long as his critics don't remind readers what he admitted. If however, he has found new evidence for a young earth, independent from the phony "weaknesses" of evolution that will peddle at every opportunity, he will be sure to let us know. I trust that no one will be holding their breath, though, not even the "YEC" Byers.

I think that a lot of you guys are missing the one advantage of SteveP's system: You would never need to update your textbooks.

Since you wouldn't teach anything that the majority of people didn't already beleive, you would never have to teach any new findings.
In fact, within a short period of time new findings would probably stop happening. Would that be great?

John_S said: There's no simple dichotomy between atheists and "religion". No one has "religion" - they have a religion. There's no way to have a god in class without its being my god instead of yours, or yours instead of the next person's. The only way to avoid this is just to leave god to the individual and keep the government's nose out of it. That's what we have churches for.

harold said:

Frank J said:

I hope everyone notices that we don’t know, and never will know, whether Steve P. is a “YEC”.

— harold

Lemme resolve this once and for all. Steve long ago admitted old earth and common descent. But he is ideologically aligned with any "kind" of evolution denier, so he promotes YEC as long as his critics don't remind readers what he admitted. If however, he has found new evidence for a young earth, independent from the phony "weaknesses" of evolution that will peddle at every opportunity, he will be sure to let us know. I trust that no one will be holding their breath, though, not even the "YEC" Byers.

We don't disagree much. We have a very subtle disagreement. It is due to my understanding of the psychology of authoritarians. I don't think Steve P has any consistent belief beyond the fact that he has decided he likes an ideological stance that includes hostility to science, including but not limited to the theory of evolution. He doesn't "admit" things, he says whatever he thinks will advance his agenda. He wouldn't care all that much about actual evidence that the earth is 6000 years old because he doesn't respect evidence. I think, whatever your former cultural beliefs, you were always a conscientious person who tried to be objective and honest. It's very hard not to project that conscious experience onto others. But many people don't give a damn about such things. They don't feel dishonest, because "lookin' out for number one" is the only honesty they understand. They don't bother with abstractions. Steve P knows he shouldn't jump off a roof, because that is concrete enough. However, if it served his purpose to cast doubt on the idea that two rocks of different sizes will still fall at the same acceleration due to gravity from a roof, he would do so, feel perfectly honest doing so, never drop rocks to test it, and look with scorn on fools who drop rocks instead of "lookin' out for number one" and saying whatever statement about falling rocks is perceived as most likely to gain them some advantage.

He wouldn’t care all that much about actual evidence that the earth is 6000 years old because he doesn’t respect evidence.

— harold

SWT said:

SteveP. said: It depends what the age of the 'kids' are. If they are in grade school, no it doesn't matter. Those subjects aren't taught. In fact, I don't recall taking geology or astronomy as required courses in high school. Did you? True, its the universe that is 14 billion years old. Mea culpa. But why the surprise? You seem to think I have a vest interest in supporting Robert Byers position. I don't. What I do know is that folks like Byers are hoping that scientists are wrong about carbon dating. And they are making the effort to show that carbon dating is in fact flawed. Who knows? They may very well come out the winner on this issue. It seems though that they will need a modern day Newton to put the nail in the coffin on the reliability of carbon and other dating methods. Only time will tell.

First, I'm sorry that you apparently attended fairly sorry schools -- they never taught you about light years, or how big the universe is, or how far away other galaxies are, or how old starlight is? I am shocked -- shocked! -- to find that you're not really for the religious liberty that you seem to want to support, since you've said we should teach in public schools something that is completely incompatible with quite a bit of fundamentalist Christianity.

"I hope everyone notices that his goal is to promote the censorship and sabotage of science teaching."

I hope everyone notices that he goes back and forth between lies. Not long ago he said “Of course evolution is just atheism in drag”. Later he denied equating evolution and atheism. Now in this thread he’s back to blatantly equating the teaching of evolution, in fact, science, with atheism.

"I hope everyone notices that his statements about the age of the universe amount to a claim of post-modern nihilism, but in the service of religious authoritarianism. I hope everyone notices that “I don’t know how old the earth is because scientists have been wrong about some things in the past so therefore they are always equally likely to be wrong about anything” is almost never uttered as an honest statement, and frequently invoked by creationists, fraudulent medical quacks, climate change denialists, and others with an agenda that is inconvenienced by scientific reality."

I hope everyone notices that we don’t know, and never will know, whether Steve P. is a “YEC”. The question is meaningless. It’s like asking whether a member of politburo of the old USSR truly “believed in” communism. He is an authoritarian, and repression of science and enforcement of certain narrow sectarian claims is part of the authoritarian ideology he thinks he wants to be part of. It doesn’t matter what authoritarians “really believe”. What matters is that they are all allied against you, that this won’t change as long as you are still a “threat”, and what it is that they are trying to achieve and how they are trying to achieve it.

Steve P, Freshwater, etc., are trying to censor and distort the teaching of science in public schools, in favor of sectarian dogma. Their methodology is “whatever it takes”.

Frank J said:

I hope everyone notices that we don’t know, and never will know, whether Steve P. is a “YEC”.

— harold

Lemme resolve this once and for all. Steve long ago admitted old earth and common descent. But he is ideologically aligned with any "kind" of evolution denier, so he promotes YEC as long as his critics don't remind readers what he admitted. If however, he has found new evidence for a young earth, independent from the phony "weaknesses" of evolution that will peddle at every opportunity, he will be sure to let us know. I trust that no one will be holding their breath, though, not even the "YEC" Byers.

Time to dump an idiot to the BW.

Steve is about power. That's the reason for his jibe about ten-to-one odds against atheists. He thinks he's on the winning side. He isn't.

For a start, he was addressing me, and ten-to-one isn't anything like the odds I face. In Australia, about 70% still claim some religious affiliation, or at least a generalised belief in a God or gods, but regular attendees at religious services now stand at about 8% of the population, and this number has been steadily heading down for generations. In this country, public averral of religion by a politician is grounds for suspicion. One of the leading sources of distrust against Tony Abbott, leader of the Federal Opposition, is that he's a vocal Catholic and might let his religion dictate his policy decisions. This is not general anti-catholicism, although I've no doubt there's some of that. It would be the same if he were a fundamentalist Protestant. Our present Prime Minister is an agnostic atheist, as were four of the last five, and the reaction to her straightforward statement of that fact was a hearty "So what?"

In the US, the percentage of the population that asserts some form of religious belief is still in the eighties, with agnostics, atheists and "no religion" somewhere between ten and eighteen percent depending on how the question is asked. The number regularly attending services is very much harder to estimate - probably around forty to fifty-five percent, down twenty in a generation. This is still not "ten to one odds", and three things about it should be noted.

One, the numbers of the religious are sliding, and have been for the last three generations. Prediction: the slide will accelerate over the next two.

Two, there is a far greater degree of polarisation occurring between religious groups and the general population. That is, some religious groups are becoming more radical, more sectarian, more fanatical, at the very same time as most of society is becoming less religious, more secular, and more tolerant - or actually, uncaring - about religious difference. Prediction: conflict within and between the religious groups and mainstream society.

Three, notwithstanding the declining religious observance and actual Church (Synagogue, Mosque, etc) membership in the US, cultural values lag behind real practice. Candidates for political office are still strongly advantaged by a public averral of religious faith, specifically Protestantism. The right wing especially is culturally intertwined with fundamentalist Christianity. But politicians, especially on the right, are remorseless pragmatists, generally. The religious are going to have to keep on stumping up the real financial and numerical support they've been delivering, or they won't get their policies pushed. Now, they can do that at present, because of the polarisation mentioned above - their actual numbers might be declining, but the remainder are harder-core, and they've still got clout. But there is a limit to how far that will take them in the face of their declining real support base.

Prediction: the religious right will fade. Not the right itself, in the sense of corporate and capitalist causes like anti-environmentalism or not taxing the rich. But the religious right's preoccupation with termination of pregnancy, same-sex marriage, wedging creationism into schools, taxation breaks for churches and so on, will fade away.

Not completely, of course. There are fundamentalists here, too, and they write to newspapers. Sure. But they haven't any clout. Not enough people listen any more.

So we're betting different, Steve and I. He reckons that the current situation in the US, where political power gets a leg up by not disagreeing with the whackaloons, will continue. That's why he doesn't disagree with them, even though they'd turn on him in a heartbeat if they didn't need to keep an increasingly fragile and leaky boat afloat. He thinks different to them - he's said so, right here - and they can't stand that, not really. Steve thinks he can ride the tiger. The funny part is, if he loses, he loses, but he still loses if he wins. His bet is a bet to nothing.

Me, I'll bet the way I'm betting, and if I lose, then I'll pay. Boy, will I pay, and so will everyone else. But I think the odds, and the payoff, are pretty good.

SteveP. said:

"I hope everyone notices that his goal is to promote the censorship and sabotage of science teaching."

Lie No. 1. Never said such a thing. In fact, what I have been saying for the past three years is that atheists use the education to propagate anti-religious sentiment. They are trying to leverage public institutions as a marketing platform for their ideas. They are able to do this due the vacuum left from the separation of church/state.

SteveP. said: Frank J, don't follow in harold's footsteps and lie about what I wish to promote. I have never promoted YEC. but yes, I do find the animosity towards atheists does help to counterbalance the influence atheism wields in public institutions. It would be a detriment to society if it were not held in check. So both counterbalance each other. You guys are just pissed because christianity has held sway for so long. but now that you have found a huge Catepillar truck in public institutions, particularly mass education, and you thought you could even the cultural playing field, here comes Christianity trying to nip it in the bud.

co said: Time to dump an idiot to the BW.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: (secular does NOT mean athiest, secular means compatible to many religious faiths or none)

SteveP. said: Not true. Micro evolution, defined as change in allele frequency over time through NS acting on variation, is not against FC. What is against FC is macro evolution, defined as an extrapolation of micro evolution, whereas the same mechanism described above is also responsible for the development of life on Earth. No what I said was that I advocate teaching ID alongside Darwinian macro evolution to explain biodiversity. When delving into the details, students will invariably side with ID. But you already know that.

SWT said:

SteveP. said: It depends what the age of the 'kids' are. If they are in grade school, no it doesn't matter. Those subjects aren't taught. In fact, I don't recall taking geology or astronomy as required courses in high school. Did you? True, its the universe that is 14 billion years old. Mea culpa. But why the surprise? You seem to think I have a vest interest in supporting Robert Byers position. I don't. What I do know is that folks like Byers are hoping that scientists are wrong about carbon dating. And they are making the effort to show that carbon dating is in fact flawed. Who knows? They may very well come out the winner on this issue. It seems though that they will need a modern day Newton to put the nail in the coffin on the reliability of carbon and other dating methods. Only time will tell.

First, I'm sorry that you apparently attended fairly sorry schools -- they never taught you about light years, or how big the universe is, or how far away other galaxies are, or how old starlight is? I am shocked -- shocked! -- to find that you're not really for the religious liberty that you seem to want to support, since you've said we should teach in public schools something that is completely incompatible with quite a bit of fundamentalist Christianity.

SWT said:

SteveP. said: Not true. Micro evolution, defined as change in allele frequency over time through NS acting on variation, is not against FC. What is against FC is macro evolution, defined as an extrapolation of micro evolution, whereas the same mechanism described above is also responsible for the development of life on Earth. No what I said was that I advocate teaching ID alongside Darwinian macro evolution to explain biodiversity. When delving into the details, students will invariably side with ID. But you already know that.

SWT said:

SteveP. said: It depends what the age of the 'kids' are. If they are in grade school, no it doesn't matter. Those subjects aren't taught. In fact, I don't recall taking geology or astronomy as required courses in high school. Did you? True, its the universe that is 14 billion years old. Mea culpa. But why the surprise? You seem to think I have a vest interest in supporting Robert Byers position. I don't. What I do know is that folks like Byers are hoping that scientists are wrong about carbon dating. And they are making the effort to show that carbon dating is in fact flawed. Who knows? They may very well come out the winner on this issue. It seems though that they will need a modern day Newton to put the nail in the coffin on the reliability of carbon and other dating methods. Only time will tell.

First, I'm sorry that you apparently attended fairly sorry schools -- they never taught you about light years, or how big the universe is, or how far away other galaxies are, or how old starlight is? I am shocked -- shocked! -- to find that you're not really for the religious liberty that you seem to want to support, since you've said we should teach in public schools something that is completely incompatible with quite a bit of fundamentalist Christianity.

Change subjects much? Both a ~4-billion-year-old Earth and a ~14-billion-year-old universe are incompatible with quite a bit of fundamentalist Christianity.

tomh, quoting the proposed amendment to the Missouri State Constitution: “that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs.”

Dave Luckett said:

tomh, quoting the proposed amendment to the Missouri State Constitution: “that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs.”

Srsly? So say, a history course about Rome, that considered the possibility that Christianity might have spread and become dominant for some other reason than the Will of God, that couldn't be taught? How about a history of the United States that showed that Protestant theocracy was already obsolete by 1700? A treatment of the papacy of Pius the Ninth that exposed his enthusiastic co-operation with the nineteenth century aristocratic tyrants of Europe, or that of Pius the Twelfth with Adolf Hitler? An account of Buddhism that pointed out that its preoccupation with reducing "spiritual" suffering never actually extended much to efforts to reduce hunger, poverty or disease? An approach to Islam that explored its tendency to armed conquest, or Judaism's understanding of race, or the nationalistic and xenophobic aspects of Hinduism or Shinto or even Confucianism? Cripes. In other words, criticism of any religion is going to become impossible, with Christianity and Protestantism in the lead. All anyone's got to do is to say "It's agin my religion", and that's it. A's all around. Education system? What education system?

Steve P., your definition of evolution is screwed up. You mixed up mechanisms with explanations and consequently produced a wonderful word salad. Try this - "evolution involves the observed changes in the allele frequencies of a population over time; these changes usually occur through the process of random mutation coupled with (natural) selection." The first phrase represents the theory of evolution and the second phrase highlights a mechanism that drives evolution. If this definition is not comprehensible, read a biology textbook.

There is no need to incorporate micro- or macro- evolutionary divisions, because there are none. (unless you are considering changes on the phylogenetic hierarchy)

James said: Steve P., your definition of evolution is screwed up. You mixed up mechanisms with explanations and consequently produced a wonderful word salad. Try this - "evolution involves the observed changes in the allele frequencies of a population over time; these changes usually occur through the process of random mutation coupled with (natural) selection." The first phrase represents the theory of evolution and the second phrase highlights a mechanism that drives evolution. If this definition is not comprehensible, read a biology textbook. There is no need to incorporate micro- or macro- evolutionary divisions, because there are none. (unless you are considering changes on the phylogenetic hierarchy)

apokryltaros said: SteveP has repeatedly made it crystal clear that he thinks we're all a bunch of morons solely because we do not bob our heads in time with his anti-science/anti-education/anti-evolution/anti-atheism rants.

James said: Steve P., your definition of evolution is screwed up. You mixed up mechanisms with explanations and consequently produced a wonderful word salad. Try this - "evolution involves the observed changes in the allele frequencies of a population over time; these changes usually occur through the process of random mutation coupled with (natural) selection." The first phrase represents the theory of evolution and the second phrase highlights a mechanism that drives evolution. If this definition is not comprehensible, read a biology textbook. There is no need to incorporate micro- or macro- evolutionary divisions, because there are none. (unless you are considering changes on the phylogenetic hierarchy)

Dave Luckett said: So say, a history course about Rome, that considered the possibility that Christianity might have spread and become dominant for some other reason than the Will of God, that couldn't be taught?

tomh said: The way it’s worded, I don’t think it means it can’t be taught. It can be taught but students can ignore assignments dealing with it, without penalty.

jjm said:

Robert Byers said: Space stuff is not dating stuff or done by the same people.

They both use the scientific method

Robert Byers said: These are not measurements but extrapolations from presumptions that is done with this dating stuff.

So they don't measure the ratio of different isotopes of Carbon? So you think that physicists don't understand radioactive decay?

Robert Byers said: I don't really like this subject especially as its just silly to me that any confidence in dating things can be made without verification. Yet if it could be verified THAT would be the better dating method.

It wouldn't be silly to you if you read up and understood it, then you may realise it has been verified. Tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments and more. all verify each other. the odds that they are all wrong, but give the same age are incredibly low.

Robert Byers said: in this crazy earth there are hugh piles of options for why carbon dating doesn't work beyond some past event.

For example?

Robert Byers said: likewise tree rings demand no diversity in tree ring growth. No reason to see that especially when people lived hundreds of years. Trees could of been healthier too.

What difference would you expect in tree rings for healthier and unhealthier trees? Do you think any research has been done on this?

Robert Byers said: its still a faith in dating methods. A faith. Not a proven fact.

No it's not a faith, it's a scientific model that has been well tested and verified. Do you understand facts, observations, theories/models, hypotheses, and faith/belief. If you don't like the dating methods, come up with a hypothesis as to why and then go and test that hypothesis. That's how scientists got and verified the dating model.

Dating methods are not verified save by less inferior dating methods which have not been verified. sorry but its all untested assumptions and extrapolation . Creationists in no way see the world before the flood as like the one after. In fact the flood itself would of distorted any dating thing. Trees are a good point. In a world of trees having the ability to live thousands of years growth power would not be restricted to yearly rings. thats just now. the dating methods used have never been tested as they can’t be. Its just a line of reasoning that tiday is the same as the ancient past. In fact even if so its not proven. It was not so anyways.

"Dating methods are not verified save by less inferior dating methods which have not been verified."

So NO dating method whatsoever can ever be accepted as a method of measuring the age of anything. Only a date that's "verified" can do that.

Now, what does Byers mean by "verified"? This is a guess, but it's probably something like "stated by an authority Byers accepts". The Bible, mostly.

So there we have it. Byers has ab initio ruled out all evidence. It's not just radiocarbon or other radiological dating methods he rejects. Tree rings, lake varves, ice cores, sedimentation rates, thermoluminescence, coral growth, measured rates of mountain growth, continental drift, ancient delta fans, erosion rates, anything. None of it is of any value whatsoever. None of it impresses him. Nothing can move him. Safe in its armoured mental shell, the mind of Byers is completely proof against any and all facts whatsoever.

Keep on posting, Byers. The more the better. You're a godsend to evolution, and I'm not at all sure that I mean that completely metaphorically. Let everyone see what you've done to yourself. You're a human sea cucumber, an organism that has destroyed its own brain, but at least the sea cucumber had the sense to recycle the nutrients.

James said: Steve P., your definition of evolution is screwed up. You mixed up mechanisms with explanations and consequently produced a wonderful word salad. Try this - "evolution involves the observed changes in the allele frequencies of a population over time; these changes usually occur through the process of random mutation coupled with (natural) selection." The first phrase represents the theory of evolution and the second phrase highlights a mechanism that drives evolution. If this definition is not comprehensible, read a biology textbook. There is no need to incorporate micro- or macro- evolutionary divisions, because there are none. (unless you are considering changes on the phylogenetic hierarchy)

Dave Luckett said: "Dating methods are not verified save by less inferior dating methods which have not been verified." So NO dating method whatsoever can ever be accepted as a method of measuring the age of anything. Only a date that's "verified" can do that. Now, what does Byers mean by "verified"? This is a guess, but it's probably something like "stated by an authority Byers accepts". The Bible, mostly. So there we have it. Byers has ab initio ruled out all evidence. It's not just radiocarbon or other radiological dating methods he rejects. Tree rings, lake varves, ice cores, sedimentation rates, thermoluminescence, coral growth, measured rates of mountain growth, continental drift, ancient delta fans, erosion rates, anything. None of it is of any value whatsoever. None of it impresses him. Nothing can move him. Safe in its armoured mental shell, the mind of Byers is completely proof against any and all facts whatsoever. Keep on posting, Byers. The more the better. You're a godsend to evolution, and I'm not at all sure that I mean that completely metaphorically. Let everyone see what you've done to yourself. You're a human sea cucumber, an organism that has destroyed its own brain, but at least the sea cucumber had the sense to recycle the nutrients.

And here's Steve, to push the ancient canard "There are limits to biological change through evolution, because I say so, and I don't have to prove it, you have to prove that there aren't".

Steve's an idiot.

SteveP. said: It depends what the age of the 'kids' are. If they are in grade school, no it doesn't matter. Those subjects aren't taught. In fact, I don't recall taking geology or astronomy as required courses in high school. Did you?

Steve’s an idiot.

— Dave Luckett

SteveP. said: Not true. Micro evolution, defined as change in allele frequency over time through NS acting on variation, is not against FC. What is against FC is macro evolution, defined as an extrapolation of micro evolution, whereas the same mechanism described above is also responsible for the development of life on Earth.

SteveP. said: Darwinians are exceedingly stubborn in the face of this stream of evidence...

Naturally I stand by my previous comments.

Now I have some questions for Steve P -

1. Ken Miller is a Catholic; why is he wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

2. Who is the designer?

3. What did the designer design, how did the designer do it, and how can we test your answers?

4. When did the designer do this?

5. Why can't we extrapolate from micro-evolution to macro-evolution? What is the magic barrier? If A can evolve into B, why can't B evolve into C? Where does the ability for small evolutionary steps freeze up, and what stops it?

6. The consensus estimate of the age of the earth is from very well-established principles, mainly from physics. Why do you feel that the estimate is so tenuous? Which of these principles do you doubt, and why?

Robert Byers,

Do you believe that it is possible to control the electrical output of a nuclear power station? I ask because the exact same theory used to predict that output is used in all of those dating methods you don't believe in.

SteveP. said: Well, I think you are mistaken like Elzinga is. You assume no dichotomy between micro and macro but have no empirical evidence to back it up. Its unwarranted extrapolation. Does the fact that I can drive a car mean I can fly a plane? Both are transport vehicles yet take completely different skill sets.

I get the impression that the likes of SteveP have found a sense of community in whatever religous group they belongs to. When confronted with the fact that what these people have said about evolution could be wrong, they strike out because it brings up the spector of other things that they have said being lies.

SteveP. said: That's why ID is despised. It takes on the details, breaking it down and showing how it simply doesn't work the way the glossed version is said to work.

As I have said in the past, there are numerous biological development thresholds that Darwinian evolution has no way to explain,

You assume no dichotomy between micro and macro but have no empirical evidence to back it up. Its unwarranted extrapolation.

Does the fact that I can drive a car mean I can fly a plane? Both are transport vehicles yet take completely different skill sets.

Malcolm said: Robert Byers, Do you believe that it is possible to control the electrical output of a nuclear power station? I ask because the exact same theory used to predict that output is used in all of those dating methods you don't believe in.

bigdakine said:

SteveP. said: Well, I think you are mistaken like Elzinga is. You assume no dichotomy between micro and macro but have no empirical evidence to back it up. Its unwarranted extrapolation. Does the fact that I can drive a car mean I can fly a plane? Both are transport vehicles yet take completely different skill sets.

Funny you should mention that. Flight has evolved independently in multiple lineages.

Malcolm said:

SteveP. said: That's why ID is despised. It takes on the details, breaking it down and showing how it simply doesn't work the way the glossed version is said to work.

Name one example.

As I have said in the past, there are numerous biological development thresholds that Darwinian evolution has no way to explain,

Name one example.

Robert Byers said: Dating methods are not verified save by less inferior dating methods which have not been verified. sorry but its all untested assumptions and extrapolation . Creationists in no way see the world before the flood as like the one after. In fact the flood itself would of distorted any dating thing. Trees are a good point. In a world of trees having the ability to live thousands of years growth power would not be restricted to yearly rings. thats just now. the dating methods used have never been tested as they can't be. Its just a line of reasoning that tiday is the same as the ancient past. In fact even if so its not proven. It was not so anyways.

SteveP,

I'd really like to get back to this concept of Majority Rules.

The ancient Greeks (4th Century BC) all thought that the Earth was the center of the universe. The majority of people believed this to be the case for several hundred years. Where they right or wrong?

Prior to Pasteur, everyone believed in the spontaneous generation of animals (mice from grain, maggots from rotting meat, etc.). Where they right or wrong?

Next, what concept showed everyone that these concepts were wrong?

Steve P wrote:

"Lie No. 3. If I were an YEC, it would be a dishonest statement. But I am Catholic. I hold to the notion that the Bible should not be read literally, if at all. So I take the position that scientists do. Science is provisional, tentative. If now, today, science says the eath is 4 billion years old, great. But if it can be shown by someone in the future that this is not so, I will not be surprised. My world view does not hinge upon the age of material objects. As a Catholic that views my soul as immaterial and eternal, why would I?"

Well then Steve, the tentative conclusion of science is that macroevolution is responsible for producing the diversity of life on the planet. So you accept the tentative conclusion of science, right? You can hope that it is wrong all you want to, but you must admit that for now, this is the best explanation because it has more predictive and explanatory power than any other explanation. The fact that you don't want to believe it is irrelevant. Your world view doesn't hinge on this, right? There is absolutely no reason you can't accept it, right? Unless of course you were lying again. Do we really need to remind you of what your own pope said about this?

SteveP. said: Well, I think you are mistaken like Elzinga is. You assume no dichotomy between micro and macro but have no empirical evidence to back it up. Its unwarranted extrapolation. Does the fact that I can drive a car mean I can fly a plane? Both are transport vehicles yet take completely different skill sets.

Here is the link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

SteveP. said: Darwinians are exceedingly stubborn in the face of this stream of evidence but as I have said before, if you (pl) don't change, you will simply collapse under the weight of your own hedge bets. Its starting to happen already. Shapiro is just one of the first few. More like him will come out of the woodwork. Its inevitable.

DS said:

SteveP. said: Well, I think you are mistaken like Elzinga is. You assume no dichotomy between micro and macro but have no empirical evidence to back it up. Its unwarranted extrapolation. Does the fact that I can drive a car mean I can fly a plane? Both are transport vehicles yet take completely different skill sets.

Well then you won't mind going to the Talk Origins site and providing your refutation for all of the 29+ evidences for macroevolution now will you? See you can lie all you want to about the evidence, but like the kid with his hands over his eyes who claims to be invisible, everyone can see right through you.

Steve P. -

I'd like you to answer all my questions, but I'd like to repeat this one.

What is an example of two organisms that share common descent, but are at a maximal micro-evolutionary distance from one another? Why prevents either of them from having offspring that are even slightly more different from the other?

Well, I think you are mistaken. You assume that there is a dichotomy between micro and macro but have no empirical evidence to back it up. Its unwarranted assumption. The fact that I can drive a car means I can drive it one mile or one thousand miles. Both journeys require exactly the same skill sets.

Its the same with evolution. What is observed in the lab shows a mechanism for stabilizing populations by adjusting to perturbations in environmental conditions. It shows a mechanism for extensive morphological development. Evo devo shows many mechanisms for morphological change. That's just the way it is.

This is not the achilles heel of ID. The best that be said for ID is that it is more than a preponderance of imagined circumstantial evidence organized in the most unconvincing fashion. That’s why ID is completely worthless. It doesn't take on the details, it breaks down and shows how it simply can't work the way the glossed version of ID is said to work. There is simply no evidence for it whatsoever.

As I have said in the past, there are numerous biological development thresholds that I don't think ID has a way to explain, just reams of guesstimates as to what may possibly have happened. Again, volumes of speculation does not substitute for hard evidence. That's the way ID works.

With all the real evidence coming in, its seems more and more likely that evolution is the more rational explanation, not ID nonsense. Shapiro is a case in point. He does not subscribe to tweaking Gods but simply claims, without any evidence, that cells do in fact engineer their own mutations. Yes, its heresy to Darwinian evolutionists for obvious reasons. But at least he is calling it like he wishes that the observations would show it to be. there’s actually plenty of evidence to show that mutations are indeed random. And there’s nothing random about cells recognizing harmful mutations and repairing resulting defects. That's just mainstream molecular biology well recognized by biologists for many years. No problem for evolutionary theory at all. Why would you ever think it would be?

IDiots are exceedingly stubborn in the face of this stream of evidence but as I have said before, if you (pl) don’t change, you will simply collapse under the weight of your own hedge bets. Its starting to happen already. Shapiro is just one of the last to show how futile it is to make grandiose claims with absolutely no evidence. More like him will come out of the woodwork, but that won't change a thing.

Its inevitable. ID is doomed to the trash bin of bad IDeas.

You assume no dichotomy between micro and macro but have no empirical evidence to back it up.

Its unwarranted extrapolation.

Does the fact that I can drive a car mean I can fly a plane? Both are transport vehicles yet take completely different skill sets.

tomh said:

Dave Luckett said: So say, a history course about Rome, that considered the possibility that Christianity might have spread and become dominant for some other reason than the Will of God, that couldn't be taught?

The way it's worded, I don't think it means it can't be taught. It can be taught but students can ignore assignments dealing with it, without penalty. There are several clauses that deal with students; "that students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work;" "that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs"

Well, I think you are mistaken like Elzinga is. You assume no dichotomy between micro and macro but have no empirical evidence to back it up. Its unwarranted extrapolation.

Dave Luckett said:

tomh, quoting the proposed amendment to the Missouri State Constitution: “that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs.”

Srsly? So say, a history course about Rome, that considered the possibility that Christianity might have spread and become dominant for some other reason than the Will of God, that couldn't be taught? How about a history of the United States that showed that Protestant theocracy was already obsolete by 1700? A treatment of the papacy of Pius the Ninth that exposed his enthusiastic co-operation with the nineteenth century aristocratic tyrants of Europe, or that of Pius the Twelfth with Adolf Hitler? An account of Buddhism that pointed out that its preoccupation with reducing "spiritual" suffering never actually extended much to efforts to reduce hunger, poverty or disease? An approach to Islam that explored its tendency to armed conquest, or Judaism's understanding of race, or the nationalistic and xenophobic aspects of Hinduism or Shinto or even Confucianism? Cripes. In other words, criticism of any religion is going to become impossible, with Christianity and Protestantism in the lead. All anyone's got to do is to say "It's agin my religion", and that's it. A's all around. Education system? What education system?

tomh said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: (secular does NOT mean athiest, secular means compatible to many religious faiths or none)

Not sure where you found that definition of secular, every one I've ever seen leaves religion out altogether, for instance, something like this, from Dictionary.com "of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious." The problem with "compatible to many religious faiths," or, treating all faiths equally, is that it doesn't work. For example, in August, Missouri voters will decide on whether to amend their constitution to ensure religious freedom. Among other things, like the right to pray and express religious views on public property, it includes the clause; "that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs." This is compatible with all religions and treats them all equally. It could also destroy science teaching in Missouri schools.

micro vs macro -
a more apt (more apt than SteveP's flawed analogy, that is)
If you can walk .5 miles what is stooping you from walking 1.0 miles or 2 or 10 or 1000 - there is no destiction between "micro" and "macro" in the MECHANISM (it's just putting one foot in front of the other)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: If a student claims an exemption from doing algebra--or even having to take algebra--because "algebra is of the devil", who, if anyone, will have the authority to enforce the math requirements?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: ...pro football (for the most part) is secular...

W. H. Heydt said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: If a student claims an exemption from doing algebra--or even having to take algebra--because "algebra is of the devil", who, if anyone, will have the authority to enforce the math requirements?

Of COURSE algebra is "of the devil." The term "algebra" comes from the Arabic "al-jebr" and Arabic is spoken by adherents of Islam, so it MUST be evil and against all right-thinking Christianity. /snark --W. H. Heydt

W. H. Heydt said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: If a student claims an exemption from doing algebra--or even having to take algebra--because "algebra is of the devil", who, if anyone, will have the authority to enforce the math requirements?

Of COURSE algebra is "of the devil." The term "algebra" comes from the Arabic "al-jebr" and Arabic is spoken by adherents of Islam, so it MUST be evil and against all right-thinking Christianity. /snark --W. H. Heydt

Carl Drews said: Are there any other results that I have missed?

tomh said:

Carl Drews said: Are there any other results that I have missed?

The only one I can think of is that it may make believers out of a lot more students. I know that back when I was a student, I would have subscribed to any faith that got me out of doing homework.

Does Liberty "University" or Bob Jones care if you went to an accredited school?

W. H. Heydt said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: If a student claims an exemption from doing algebra--or even having to take algebra--because "algebra is of the devil", who, if anyone, will have the authority to enforce the math requirements?

Of COURSE algebra is "of the devil." The term "algebra" comes from the Arabic "al-jebr" and Arabic is spoken by adherents of Islam, so it MUST be evil and against all right-thinking Christianity. /snark --W. H. Heydt

However something happened that led to the end of this age of science in the Islamic world. Neil Tyson describes what happened, involving a scholar (Imam Hamid al-Ghazali) who put forth the idea that mathematics was the work of the devil. This plus other things led to the collapse of that scientific tradition, and it has not since recovered.

Just Bob said: Does Liberty "University" or Bob Jones care if you went to an accredited school?

. . . new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

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

SteveP said: Does the fact that I can drive a car mean I can fly a plane? Both are transport vehicles yet take completely different skill sets.

What a stupid "analogy." Here's a real one--planes happen to have some of the instruments and parts that cars do, but not many, actually. Like they were designed, using whatever was available regardless of "heredity." Bats were "designed" by a process that knew absolutely nothing about pterosaur flight or bird flight, and instead of adapting, say, a pterosaur wing for bat flight, what do you know?, bat wings are simply adaptations of mammalian forelimbs. Like evolution predicts, not like what honest creationism (nothing like yours or Byers') would predict.

Adherence to Islam is what destroyed the Arabic “Golden Age”, and brought rational thought to a screeching halt in the Arab world.

Tenncrain said:

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

SteveP said: Does the fact that I can drive a car mean I can fly a plane? Both are transport vehicles yet take completely different skill sets.

What a stupid "analogy." Here's a real one--planes happen to have some of the instruments and parts that cars do, but not many, actually. Like they were designed, using whatever was available regardless of "heredity." Bats were "designed" by a process that knew absolutely nothing about pterosaur flight or bird flight, and instead of adapting, say, a pterosaur wing for bat flight, what do you know?, bat wings are simply adaptations of mammalian forelimbs. Like evolution predicts, not like what honest creationism (nothing like yours or Byers') would predict.

Not to mention no "design" was borrowed from the wings of flying insects, either. Four different wing designs (bats/birds/pterosaurs/insects) with four different support structures, four different aerodynamic shapes. Why would an all-knowing 'Designer' have to keep experimenting? This video (click here) takes on common design vs common descent. Anti-evolutionists might get some comfort that a Christian produced this video series. BTW, this Christian even admitted an error after the video came out (the link says all mammals have internal gestation, neglecting egg-laying mammals like the platypus).

harold said: Scott F. -

Adherence to Islam is what destroyed the Arabic “Golden Age”, and brought rational thought to a screeching halt in the Arab world.

I love Neil de Grasse Tyson, have no use for religion, and have close friends who are culturally from Muslim families but not religious, but no, this isn't what happened (I'm not able to watch the video - in a library without headphones - so I'll assume for now that you've paraphrased Tyson fairly, since your comments are usually reasonable). The Arabic language explosion of math and science, which drew on earlier sources but was unique, took place after the initial expansion of Islam, and is often referred to, accurately, as an "Islamic" explosion of scholarship. Arabic was a scholarly common language, although Greek and Latin were also used. Many of the major figures were not actually ethnic Arabs; many were Persians or of other middle eastern/west Asian ethnicities whose nation-states converted to Islam, writing in Arabic. Obviously we don't know whether these authors were sincerely religious on a personal level, but the relative cultural unity across multiple vernacular languages that early Islam provided seems to have played a strong role in creating a beneficial environment for scholarship. In addition, many early Islamic rulers believed encouragement of scholarship to be a source of prestige. Anti-scientific and anti-intellectual attitudes have probably always existed in the Islamic world, but the fundamentalist movements of today are mainly modern and reactionary. Medieval Islamic societies were, by medieval standards, mainly more supportive of original scholarship than medieval Christian societies. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB As I said, I have no use for any religion, but reality is what it is.

harold said: 5. Why can't we extrapolate from micro-evolution to macro-evolution? What is the magic barrier? If A can evolve into B, why can't B evolve into C? Where does the ability for small evolutionary steps freeze up, and what stops it?

SteveP. said: Does the fact that I can drive a car mean I can fly a plane? Both are transport vehicles yet take completely different skill sets.

I defy any of you to show that macrofusion can occur in stars. Sure, special designed lab experiments can cause microfusion, and even larger fusion can be designed in "H-bombs," but that's all just microfusion--and designed.

It's unwarranted extrapolation to suppose that somehow designed microfusion indicates that the sun and other stars can actually be powered by macrofusion. Oh yeah, I know, electron neutrinoes are found coming from the sun, but that's just godless theory anyhow, and I see no reason to suppose that god couldn't be due to special creation or some other process anyway.

The materialists just can't accept that God powers the sun, that's why they dream that microfusion tells us anything like that macrofusion can happen. It's such a transparent dodge around theism, the only real explanation for solar energy.

Glen Davidson

I see no reason to suppose that neutrinos couldn’t be due to special creation or some other process anyway.

Intelligent shining?

Helena Constantine said:

harold said: Scott F. -

Adherence to Islam is what destroyed the Arabic “Golden Age”, and brought rational thought to a screeching halt in the Arab world.

I love Neil de Grasse Tyson, have no use for religion, and have close friends who are culturally from Muslim families but not religious, but no, this isn't what happened (I'm not able to watch the video - in a library without headphones - so I'll assume for now that you've paraphrased Tyson fairly, since your comments are usually reasonable). The Arabic language explosion of math and science, which drew on earlier sources but was unique, took place after the initial expansion of Islam, and is often referred to, accurately, as an "Islamic" explosion of scholarship. Arabic was a scholarly common language, although Greek and Latin were also used. Many of the major figures were not actually ethnic Arabs; many were Persians or of other middle eastern/west Asian ethnicities whose nation-states converted to Islam, writing in Arabic. Obviously we don't know whether these authors were sincerely religious on a personal level, but the relative cultural unity across multiple vernacular languages that early Islam provided seems to have played a strong role in creating a beneficial environment for scholarship. In addition, many early Islamic rulers believed encouragement of scholarship to be a source of prestige. Anti-scientific and anti-intellectual attitudes have probably always existed in the Islamic world, but the fundamentalist movements of today are mainly modern and reactionary. Medieval Islamic societies were, by medieval standards, mainly more supportive of original scholarship than medieval Christian societies. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB As I said, I have no use for any religion, but reality is what it is.

I don't think Tyson is a good reference here, since he's not a historian, and I'm not necessarily either since my expertise as a specialist in Late Antiquity ends with Mohammed but as I understand it, what happened is that after the Mongols sacked Baghdad, there was a fundamentalist Islamic backlash which blamed the disaster on the secularism of Islamic intellectual activity and effectively brought the golden age of Arab philosophical investigation to a close.

Both Helena and Scott F have the right of it, I think. Fundamentalism had largely destroyed liberal Islam by the end of the thirteenth century CE. Although the roots of Islamic fundamentalism go far deeper than that, liberal Islam was dealt a fatal blow with the Mongol destruction of Baghdad and the overall Caliphate. With it went the knowledge and enlightenment that the Islamic world had gathered or preserved from ancient times. Thankfully, that was mostly transmitted to the west through such contact points as Constantinople, Syracuse and Cordoba, and we are the beneficiaries thereby.

We owe Islam a great debt; nevertheless we are dealing, and will be dealing for some time, with the triumph of fundamentalism in the Islamic world. One reaction in the west to that struggle has been a resurgence of the very fundamentalism that threatens us. Ironic. But when you read history, you get used to irony.

Helena Constantine said:

harold said: Scott F. -

Adherence to Islam is what destroyed the Arabic “Golden Age”, and brought rational thought to a screeching halt in the Arab world.

I love Neil de Grasse Tyson, have no use for religion, and have close friends who are culturally from Muslim families but not religious, but no, this isn't what happened (I'm not able to watch the video - in a library without headphones - so I'll assume for now that you've paraphrased Tyson fairly, since your comments are usually reasonable). The Arabic language explosion of math and science, which drew on earlier sources but was unique, took place after the initial expansion of Islam, and is often referred to, accurately, as an "Islamic" explosion of scholarship. Arabic was a scholarly common language, although Greek and Latin were also used. Many of the major figures were not actually ethnic Arabs; many were Persians or of other middle eastern/west Asian ethnicities whose nation-states converted to Islam, writing in Arabic. Obviously we don't know whether these authors were sincerely religious on a personal level, but the relative cultural unity across multiple vernacular languages that early Islam provided seems to have played a strong role in creating a beneficial environment for scholarship. In addition, many early Islamic rulers believed encouragement of scholarship to be a source of prestige. Anti-scientific and anti-intellectual attitudes have probably always existed in the Islamic world, but the fundamentalist movements of today are mainly modern and reactionary. Medieval Islamic societies were, by medieval standards, mainly more supportive of original scholarship than medieval Christian societies. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB As I said, I have no use for any religion, but reality is what it is.

I don't think Tyson is a good reference here, since he's not a historian, and I'm not necessarily either since my expertise as a specialist in Late Antiquity ends with Mohammed but as I understand it, what happened is that after the Mongols sacked Baghdad, there was a fundamentalist Islamic backlash which blamed the disaster on the secularism of Islamic intellectual activity and effectively brought the golden age of Arab philosophical investigation to a close.

SWT said: Intelligent shining?

To David Lucket: what you say is generally correct, but Constantinople was not a transfer point for ancient learning preserved by the Arabs. I think this worth expanding upon, since this concerns one of the howlers Carl Sagan made in Cosmos that is often taken as Gospel in the Atheist community. After the 7th century or so knowledge of Greek became extraordinary rare in Western Europe ad there were hardly any Greek manuscripts. in the 12th century, knowledge of ancient authors such as Aristotle and Ptolemy was reintroduced into Western Europe via Arab Spain. This information, originally written in Greek had been translated into Aramaic in Late Antiquity, then into Arabic, then finally into Latin by Christian monks working in Spain. And this sparked off the Little Renaissance with people like Abelard making real intellectual advances (though the church quickly put a stop to free intellectual inquiry--for example Abelard blew the ontological argument, which out of the water, but Aquinas quickly re-established in a way that was dangerous to question). Sagan waxed on and on about how the Arabs had preserved ancient learning. This is true in the sense I've just described, but in fact the only place that actual Greek texts were preserved were in Constantinople and a few monasteries in the southern Balkans. A few scholars saw what was coming and got their libraries out to Italy before 1453 where people were anxious to read Greek literature. And this is why we have plays by Sophocles and dialogues by Plato. But what was preserved was only a fraction of what was destroyed when Constantinople was burned by the Turks. So the over-all Islamic legacy is far more mixed that Sagan allowed. Don't get me started on Sagan's nonsense about the Library at Alexandria (which was burned by Julius Caesar, not Christians), and Hypatia, and his Pythagorean spaceship with the Dodecahedron emblem on it!

Harold: what you say is correct, but I will add that after Ghengis had conquered northern China, he had no idea what farmers were or what use they were and had to be talked out of killing all of them by his new Chinese advisors.

harold said: Scott F. -

Adherence to Islam is what destroyed the Arabic “Golden Age”, and brought rational thought to a screeching halt in the Arab world.

I love Neil de Grasse Tyson, have no use for religion, and have close friends who are culturally from Muslim families but not religious, but no, this isn't what happened (I'm not able to watch the video - in a library without headphones - so I'll assume for now that you've paraphrased Tyson fairly, since your comments are usually reasonable). The Arabic language explosion of math and science, which drew on earlier sources but was unique, took place after the initial expansion of Islam, and is often referred to, accurately, as an "Islamic" explosion of scholarship. Arabic was a scholarly common language, although Greek and Latin were also used. Many of the major figures were not actually ethnic Arabs; many were Persians or of other middle eastern/west Asian ethnicities whose nation-states converted to Islam, writing in Arabic. Obviously we don't know whether these authors were sincerely religious on a personal level, but the relative cultural unity across multiple vernacular languages that early Islam provided seems to have played a strong role in creating a beneficial environment for scholarship. In addition, many early Islamic rulers believed encouragement of scholarship to be a source of prestige. Anti-scientific and anti-intellectual attitudes have probably always existed in the Islamic world, but the fundamentalist movements of today are mainly modern and reactionary. Medieval Islamic societies were, by medieval standards, mainly more supportive of original scholarship than medieval Christian societies. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_M%C5%ABs%C4%81_al-Khw%C4%81rizm%C4%AB As I said, I have no use for any religion, but reality is what it is.

SLC said: Actually, as Tyson explains in the attached link, the culprit was a man named Al-Ghazali who, almost single-handedly in the 11th century CE caused the collapse of the scientific regime in Baghdad. This was also commented upon by Steven Weinberg in a presentation at the same conference preceding Tyson's. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMifWU5ucU

Helena Constantine said: Harold: what you say is correct, but I will add that after Ghengis had conquered northern China, he had no idea what farmers were or what use they were and had to be talked out of killing all of them by his new Chinese advisors.

Helena Constantine said: Harold: what you say is correct, but I will add that after Ghengis had conquered northern China, he had no idea what farmers were or what use they were and had to be talked out of killing all of them by his new Chinese advisors.

Helena Constantine said: To David Lucket: what you say is generally correct, but Constantinople was not a transfer point for ancient learning preserved by the Arabs.

Dave Luckett said:

Helena Constantine said: To David Lucket: what you say is generally correct, but Constantinople was not a transfer point for ancient learning preserved by the Arabs.

I regret to differ. The translations from the Greek made by William Moerbeke date from the middle of the thirteenth century CE and were made direct from Byzantine texts. They included the first Latin translation of Aristotle's "Politics", which had not passed through Arabic first. These texts were known to European scholars contemporaneously with others coming in through Spain and Sicily. I think a strong case can be made for Constantinople as a transfer point. Not, perhaps, with the willing co-operation of the Byzantines themselves, who had neglected the ancient Greek writings and who often expunged them to write holier texts on the material. Nevertheless, a body of works did enter western Europe by that route; although as you say, this was a side-effect of the ability to read classical Greek, which was uncommon in northern Europe before 1200 CE, and afterwards revived. But it never actually died out completely, either. Strangely, it was at the other end of Europe, in Ireland, that it lingered longest in the Dark Ages, and was to some extent reintroduced from there.

1. Wrong about what? About evolution in general? Sure, he's wrong. But he's probably worried about fundamental christianity getting in the science classroom. I wouldn't want that either. But that doesn't make Darwin's take on the development of life correct.

2. Already answered that question

3. Already answered that question.

4. Already answered that question.

5. Of course there is a barrier. We do not see true speciation in action since there are no new niches to be filled. What we see are variations, which biologists are under pressure to call species in order to support Darwin's theory of evolution. No organism has evolved in the Darwinian sense for millions of years. Micro evolution is a screen saver program, where macro evolution was an exe. program.

6. I did not say the age of the earth was tenuous. I said that it is possible the current understanding of the age of the earth could be overturned as many other scientific concepts and understanding have been overturned in the past.

harold said: Naturally I stand by my previous comments. Now I have some questions for Steve P - 1. Ken Miller is a Catholic; why is he wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller 2. Who is the designer? 3. What did the designer design, how did the designer do it, and how can we test your answers? 4. When did the designer do this? 5. Why can't we extrapolate from micro-evolution to macro-evolution? What is the magic barrier? If A can evolve into B, why can't B evolve into C? Where does the ability for small evolutionary steps freeze up, and what stops it? 6. The consensus estimate of the age of the earth is from very well-established principles, mainly from physics. Why do you feel that the estimate is so tenuous? Which of these principles do you doubt, and why?

bigdakine said:

SteveP. said: Not true. Micro evolution, defined as change in allele frequency over time through NS acting on variation, is not against FC. What is against FC is macro evolution, defined as an extrapolation of micro evolution, whereas the same mechanism described above is also responsible for the development of life on Earth.

So I take it you have issues with Plate Tectonics where the minute yearly motions of the Earth's Tectonic Plates have been extrapolated to the distances spanned by entire ocean basins.

Scott F said:

TomS said: Does anyone have an approximation for the population growth in various regions of the world based on the assumption that there were exactly 8 people in 2348 BC? How many people were around to build the Indus Valley civilization? How about to build the Pyramids of Egypt? How many people took place in the migration to the Americas some 600 years after the Flood? The Bible tells us about the number of people who were involved in the Exodus, some time about 1500 BC (or, according to some, 1200 BC).

I recently did some rough back-of-the-envelope calculations. Starting with 8 people (4 women), and based on the need for a 10,000 man dedicated work force to build the Pyramids and a 50% child mortality rate (not uncommon for the time), I estimated that it would have required something like every fertile woman to bear 8 live children every year for 20 years of her life time (ages 15 to 35) in order to achieve the requisite population to support the major Egyptian works built within 150 years of the Flood. And that's just for Egypt. That doesn't even count the Indus Valley, or Mesopotamia, or China, or anywhere else. Just Egypt. (My numbers and assumptions may be a bit off, but they're probably within the ball park.) The people of Noah's family not only had lifespans of many hundreds of years, they also bred like rabbits.

SteveP, here's a question you haven't answered, and I don't think you can answer it.

Why do you believe that gods exist?

Abraham is usually dated to 1800 BCE or so. Too late for the pyramids, which were being built by 2300 BCE. That's a little matter of five hundred years. The Flood is usually dated contemporary with them, in fact. News to the ancient Egyptians.

Henry, as usual, blithely ignores facts - in this case, the facts of ancient population growth. That is, that it was in lockstep with food supply, not with the utmost theoretical breeding potential. Human populations simply can't grow that fast unless new technology allows the production of more food without a commensurate increase in the labour required. Otherwise, they can't feed the infants, who will be unproductive for many years. It's no use having even limitless land to till if there are no adults to till it, and a higher proportion than usual of the adults available are tied down to infant care.

Add to that the findings of archeology - most people before 1000 BCE did not live long lives. A few reached their sixties, but most were dead before forty, and the infant mortality rate was grim. Such rates of growth simply are not possible, in the real ancient world. But then again, when did a fundamentalist ever live in the real world?

SteveP. said: Seriously, you want to equate plate techtonics with the development of life? Its no wonder you fall for this step-by-excruciatingly small stepwise change over billions of years crap.

SteveP. said: Seriously, you want to equate plate techtonics with the development of life? Its no wonder you fall for this step-by-excruciatingly small stepwise change over billions of years crap.

bigdakine said:

SteveP. said: Not true. Micro evolution, defined as change in allele frequency over time through NS acting on variation, is not against FC. What is against FC is macro evolution, defined as an extrapolation of micro evolution, whereas the same mechanism described above is also responsible for the development of life on Earth.

So I take it you have issues with Plate Tectonics where the minute yearly motions of the Earth's Tectonic Plates have been extrapolated to the distances spanned by entire ocean basins.

Wrong about what? About evolution in general? Sure, he’s wrong. But he’s probably worried about fundamental christianity getting in the science classroom. I wouldn’t want that either. But that doesn’t make Darwin’s take on the development of life correct.

Of course there is a barrier. We do not see true speciation in action since there are no new niches to be filled. What we see are variations, which biologists are under pressure to call species in order to support Darwin’s theory of evolution. No organism has evolved in the Darwinian sense for millions of years. Micro evolution is a screen saver program, where macro evolution was an exe. program.

I did not say the age of the earth was tenuous. I said that it is possible the current understanding of the age of the earth could be overturned as many other scientific concepts and understanding have been overturned in the past.

Henry said: Gen 9:1 They were told to be fruitful and multiply so they did.

Reminds me of this one,
the Dunning-Kruger effect
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/11/dont-know-enoug.html

Dave Luckett said: The answer is that Steve, who knows nothing, has the overwhelming, stupefying insouciant hubris to think that he knows better, on no evidence whatsoever. In fact, Steve thinks he knows literally everything, simply because he knows it. Which is to imply who Steve thinks he is.

Henry said:

Scott F said:

TomS said: Does anyone have an approximation for the population growth in various regions of the world based on the assumption that there were exactly 8 people in 2348 BC? How many people were around to build the Indus Valley civilization? How about to build the Pyramids of Egypt? How many people took place in the migration to the Americas some 600 years after the Flood? The Bible tells us about the number of people who were involved in the Exodus, some time about 1500 BC (or, according to some, 1200 BC).

I recently did some rough back-of-the-envelope calculations. Starting with 8 people (4 women), and based on the need for a 10,000 man dedicated work force to build the Pyramids and a 50% child mortality rate (not uncommon for the time), I estimated that it would have required something like every fertile woman to bear 8 live children every year for 20 years of her life time (ages 15 to 35) in order to achieve the requisite population to support the major Egyptian works built within 150 years of the Flood. And that's just for Egypt. That doesn't even count the Indus Valley, or Mesopotamia, or China, or anywhere else. Just Egypt. (My numbers and assumptions may be a bit off, but they're probably within the ball park.) The people of Noah's family not only had lifespans of many hundreds of years, they also bred like rabbits.

Gen 9:1 They were told to be fruitful and multiply so they did. Shem had 5 children, Ham had 4 sons, and Japheth had 7 sons. Shem's great grandson, Joktan had 13 sons. There are 10 generations from Shem to Abraham. If each generation had 4 kids then the population would have been over 1 million in the 10th generation. If each generation had 6 kids, the population would have been over 60 million. It looks like there were enough to build the pyramids and other ancient works and civilizations.

Hey SteveP, since you're answering questions, I'd like to talk back around to this majority rule thing you've been talking about.

2400 years ago, everyone on the planet thought the Earth was the center of the universe. This majority position continue well past the time of Galileo. Was the majority correct?

Now, let's consider that the majority of people from then until, well now, are not considered experts in astronomy, biology, physics, medicine, etc. In cases where there is evidence pointing one way, why should the majority of people who are pointing the other way rule? In other words, if you get everyone on Earth to believe that boiling water (at sea level) isn't hot... are YOU willing to jump into a vat of boiling water?

If not, then you are being hypocritical. You are willing to accept some science, but you are not willing to accept other science regardless of the evidence, because it offends your worldview.

No new niches? How about bugs that can eat nylon?

1. Wrong about what? About evolution in general? Sure, he’s wrong. But he’s probably worried about fundamental christianity getting in the science classroom. I wouldn’t want that either. But that doesn’t make Darwin’s take on the development of life correct.

2. Already answered that question

3. Already answered that question.

4. Already answered that question.

5. Of course there is a barrier.

We do not see true speciation in action since there are no new niches to be filled.

What we see are variations, which biologists are under pressure to call species in order to support Darwin’s theory of evolution.

No organism has evolved in the Darwinian sense for millions of years. Micro evolution is a screen saver program, where macro evolution was an exe. program.

harold said: Steve P seems to be trying to answer some questions, but he is obsessively evasive. However, maybe some communication is possible. [...]

No organism has evolved in the Darwinian sense for millions of years. Micro evolution is a screen saver program, where macro evolution was an exe. program.

A) Bullshit. B) Does not answer the question - what is the barrier? C) Reveals, unsurprisingly, that you have no clue what evolution actually means.

co said:

harold said: Steve P seems to be trying to answer some questions, but he is obsessively evasive. However, maybe some communication is possible. [...]

No organism has evolved in the Darwinian sense for millions of years. Micro evolution is a screen saver program, where macro evolution was an exe. program.

A) Bullshit. B) Does not answer the question - what is the barrier? C) Reveals, unsurprisingly, that you have no clue what evolution actually means.

Also reveals, unsurprisingly, that he has no clue what screensavers, .exes, or other general computer programs are, nor how to make a useful analogy.

Pushers of ID/creationism aren’t the only crackpots who feign expertise in science. It seems to be a characteristic of most crackpots to jump directly into “advanced” concepts in order to appear to be experts.

If one takes down their claims, they immediately up the ante and start inventing words and making references to advanced topics they know nothing about. It’s the “old razzle-dazzle ‘em” tactic that is apparently intended to divert attention from their total lack of understanding of basic, middle school science.

Just reading stuff by ID/creationists pushers like Abel, Sewell, Dembski, and the rest of the crackpots in that world always makes me wonder who they think they are fooling. They want to convey the impression that they are knowledgeable and sincere; yet the crap they write down makes one’s eyes cross.

And their rube followers, especially those over on UD, are just lapping it up, strutting their new-found “expertise,” and putting on airs.

From all the miscellaneous crap and outrageous statements he is throwing around, I suspect SteveP is trying to yank peoples’ chains after having his ass handed to him.

harold said:

co said:

harold said: Steve P seems to be trying to answer some questions, but he is obsessively evasive. However, maybe some communication is possible. [...]

No organism has evolved in the Darwinian sense for millions of years. Micro evolution is a screen saver program, where macro evolution was an exe. program.

A) Bullshit. B) Does not answer the question - what is the barrier? C) Reveals, unsurprisingly, that you have no clue what evolution actually means.

Also reveals, unsurprisingly, that he has no clue what screensavers, .exes, or other general computer programs are, nor how to make a useful analogy.

And incidentally, this illustrates a good point. Steve P actually has not falsely claimed expertise in computer science or engineering, but it is not uncommon for creationists to do so. Yes, I realize that engineers are over-represented in the creationist community. Computer scientists don’t seem to be, but I can certainly think of at least one creationist who is a very mediocre professional programmer. Nevertheless, due to the popularity of Granville Sewell type efforts to “disprove evolution from above” without actually knowing anything about the theory of evolution, via references to probability, information, thermodynamics, etc, it’s a fairly common ruse for creationists to feign expertise in computer science or engineering, sometimes using some superficial technical language as part of the ruse. Always be skeptical of creationist claims to be an “engineer” or “computer scientist” and challenge them to explain exactly what they mean when they refer to themselves in those terms. Yes, some of them really are, but a fair number of them aren’t, but claim to be. It never hurts to catch that.

co said: Creationists' analogies (and most definitely those of SteveP) usually show a marked lack of understanding at least one of their claimed domains of knowledge, and often of both. They're no educators, and certainly no learners.

phhht said: SteveP, here's a question you haven't answered, and I don't think you can answer it. Why do you believe that gods exist?

phhht said:

phhht said: SteveP, here's a question you haven't answered, and I don't think you can answer it. Why do you believe that gods exist?

OK, SteveP, since you won't answer this question either, I feel free to speculate. See, SteveP, I don't think you know why you believe in the existence of gods. I think you cannot answer the question. You're like all the other religious believers. You have nothing but baffled, silent, inarticulate intuition.

ogremk5 said: [...] I could go on, but I have a meeting now. Feel free to jump in SteveP.

co said:

ogremk5 said: [...] I could go on, but I have a meeting now. Feel free to jump in SteveP.

Ick. No thanks.

ogremk5 said:

phhht said:

phhht said: SteveP, here's a question you haven't answered, and I don't think you can answer it. Why do you believe that gods exist?

OK, SteveP, since you won't answer this question either, I feel free to speculate. See, SteveP, I don't think you know why you believe in the existence of gods. I think you cannot answer the question. You're like all the other religious believers. You have nothing but baffled, silent, inarticulate intuition.

I think it's more cultural imprinting married to a complete lack of self awareness and inability to reason (usually caused by the first two). That's why he believes. He's been programmed so well that he can't imagine not believing. He believes so well that he can't even imagine questioning his faith and anything (real or imagined) that interferes with that faith is therefore wrong. He can't understand that in science, the majority doesn't rule. Or maybe he can understand it, but since it doesn't support his ideas, he can't even talk about (knowing he'd lose and therefore his faith would take a hit. The faith must be protected at all costs... even lying.) I could go on, but I have a meeting now. Feel free to jump in SteveP.

harold said: Oddly, Steve P. states in this thread that he is Catholic. Therefore, his religion does not seem to be sufficient to explain his rejection of biological evolution. I wonder what other factors could be playing a role.

harold said: Oddly, Steve P. states in this thread that he is Catholic. Therefore, his religion does not seem to be sufficient to explain his rejection of biological evolution. I wonder what other factors could be playing a role.

Just Bob said:

harold said: Oddly, Steve P. states in this thread that he is Catholic. Therefore, his religion does not seem to be sufficient to explain his rejection of biological evolution. I wonder what other factors could be playing a role.

Indeed, some strange theological gymnastics must be going on in the minds of Catholic creationists, e.g. Rick Santorum.

Maybe science envy.

The issue for Steve P (as well as FL, Ray Martinez and other kooks that come here and make @$$holes of themselves) is atheism. But what is their problem with atheism? There is no clear empirical evidence for gods and therefore no reason NOT to be an atheist. Of course, one may freely choose to believe in a god-centered religion, but if that religion is really so useful, why should they demand it be reinforced outside the institutions of the religion itself? That is not justice!

To justify this, they claim that public schools, by teaching evolution, are also teaching atheism. But that is a flat out LIE. There is nothing about evolution, or ANY aspect of modern science, which proclaims "THERE IS NO GOD." Rather, it simply presents a picture of the universe as discovered through empirical means of study. That is something a person of any religion, or no religion, can do. It's not about atheism. It's about SECULARISM, putting all religious views under the same standard, including those which can be debunked by scientific means.....which both Creationism and Intelligent Design have been! You cannot believe in them without believing in lies!

I think one often sees an interesting form of denial on this forum.

Traditionally, mainstream religion was often seen as a "liberal" moderating force in society. For example, William Jennings Bryon was considered a "progressive", so much so that I recently saw a low rent right wing "anti-progressive" screed that focused on him.

The promotion of atheism by the Soviet Union made open atheism completely unacceptable on the political right. Nevertheless, we see insincere converts to religion like Gingrich all the time. Please note that by pointing out obvious hypocrisy, I am not "saying something good about religion". It was perfectly possible to be a hypocritical "convert" to Soviet communism or Nazism (not an example of "Godwin"). The fact that a belief system has some hypocritical followers does not mean that it is a "good" belief system overall.

However, outright Ayn Rand type stuff has a problem. It is fundamentally unpopular.

Extreme, authoritarian, bigoted religion has also never been terribly popular on its own.

The magical discovery they made was that, when you mix harsh economics with authoritarian bigotry justified by religion, much like accidental combining of chocolate and peanut butter, you do end up with a combined product that sells.

At this point, "pure" religious kooks are about as common as "pure" objectivists. They exist but are rare.

Science denial and weird, narcissistic post-modern Protestant religion have become an integral part of the right wing ideology package.

Most people commit to the whole package.

Hence, we see absurdities like Newt Gingrich "converting to Catholicism", yet also taking up a host of new science denialism that is NOT required by the Catholic Church. We see right wing creationist Ron Paul name his son after right wing atheist Any Rand, and then deny that son is named after Ayn Rand, even though father and son seem to show strong Ayn Rand influence.

Creationism is part of a social/political movement. It can exist in isolation, but it rarely does.

Denying that is foolish.

I realize it is probably frustrating to those who actually are non-superstitious, science-respecting Ayn Rand fans, but you are a very rare breed, even if part of a long tradition.

The "dumb creationists just aren't smart enough to understand that god doesn't exist" model just doesn't work. Yes, there are plenty of dumb creationists, but there are plenty of smart, crafty people who deny evolution, climate change, HIV, cigarettes/disease, and so on. And not every atheist is academically gifted.

dalehusband said: The issue for Steve P (as well as FL, Ray Martinez and other kooks that come here and make @$$holes of themselves) is atheism. But what is their problem with atheism? There is no clear empirical evidence for gods and therefore no reason NOT to be an atheist. Of course, one may freely choose to believe in a god-centered religion, but if that religion is really so useful, why should they demand it be reinforced outside the institutions of the religion itself? That is not justice! To justify this, they claim that public schools, by teaching evolution, are also teaching atheism. But that is a flat out LIE. There is nothing about evolution, or ANY aspect of modern science, which proclaims "THERE IS NO GOD." Rather, it simply presents a picture of the universe as discovered through empirical means of study. That is something a person of any religion, or no religion, can do. It's not about atheism. It's about SECULARISM, putting all religious views under the same standard, including those which can be debunked by scientific means.....which both Creationism and Intelligent Design have been! You cannot believe in them without believing in lies!

dalehusband,

That's a very interesting comment. I've always looked at it from the science and religion issues. I've never thought about it being about atheism, but I can easily see where this is major point.

The people we're talking about (generally older white males) have these fond memories of a society (that may not have ever really existed) in which they were in charge and everyone else knew their place (beneath them). They could see that the 60s, 70s, and on have become "degenerate" and lay the blame on what they are told, i.e. removing God from our culture.

They see science as a path to atheism and since atheism is evil, science must be evil too.

They are therefore free to use science and the things developed by science as long as they remain faithful to their religion. Very interesting. This bears some serious thinking.

P.S. Sorry for the comma issue. That's what copy editors are for.

ogremk5 said: dalehusband, That's a very interesting comment. I've always looked at it from the science and religion issues. I've never thought about it being about atheism, but I can easily see where this is major point. The people we're talking about (generally older white males) have these fond memories of a society (that may not have ever really existed) in which they were in charge and everyone else knew their place (beneath them). They could see that the 60s, 70s, and on have become "degenerate" and lay the blame on what they are told, i.e. removing God from our culture. They see science as a path to atheism and since atheism is evil, science must be evil too. They are therefore free to use science and the things developed by science as long as they remain faithful to their religion. Very interesting. This bears some serious thinking. P.S. Sorry for the comma issue. That's what copy editors are for.

Indeed, some strange theological gymnastics must be going on in the minds of Catholic creationists, e.g. Rick Santorum.

— Just Bob

dalehusband said: The issue for Steve P (as well as FL, Ray Martinez and other kooks that come here and make @$$holes of themselves) is atheism. But what is their problem with atheism? There is no clear empirical evidence for gods and therefore no reason NOT to be an atheist. Of course, one may freely choose to believe in a god-centered religion, but if that religion is really so useful, why should they demand it be reinforced outside the institutions of the religion itself? That is not justice! To justify this, they claim that public schools, by teaching evolution, are also teaching atheism. But that is a flat out LIE. There is nothing about evolution, or ANY aspect of modern science, which proclaims "THERE IS NO GOD." Rather, it simply presents a picture of the universe as discovered through empirical means of study. That is something a person of any religion, or no religion, can do. It's not about atheism. It's about SECULARISM, putting all religious views under the same standard, including those which can be debunked by scientific means.....which both Creationism and Intelligent Design have been! You cannot believe in them without believing in lies!

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator .

dalehusband said: The issue for Steve P (as well as FL, Ray Martinez and other kooks that come here and make @$$holes of themselves) is atheism. But what is their problem with atheism? There is no clear empirical evidence for gods and therefore no reason NOT to be an atheist. Of course, one may freely choose to believe in a god-centered religion, but if that religion is really so useful, why should they demand it be reinforced outside the institutions of the religion itself? That is not justice! To justify this, they claim that public schools, by teaching evolution, are also teaching atheism. But that is a flat out LIE. There is nothing about evolution, or ANY aspect of modern science, which proclaims "THERE IS NO GOD." Rather, it simply presents a picture of the universe as discovered through empirical means of study. That is something a person of any religion, or no religion, can do. It's not about atheism. It's about SECULARISM, putting all religious views under the same standard, including those which can be debunked by scientific means.....which both Creationism and Intelligent Design have been! You cannot believe in them without believing in lies!

I don't know about you guys, but my creator was mom and dad. Their creators were Tince, Gran, Pappy, and Polly. etc. etc. etc.

But yes, my mom generally wants me to be happy, a good life, and the freedom to do what I want, when I want and to be who I want to be.

Henry said: The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator .

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator .

Notice that they didn't specify who that creator was.

It would have been easy (and Henry would have preferred) for them to just NAME "the God of the Bible" or some such. But they didn't. That's because they were mainly Deists, who felt that there was likely some First Cause--but that it almost certainly WASN'T that childish monster of the OT.

And Henry, I believe you've been educated here before: the Declaration of Independence is historically important, but of no legal standing whatever. When those Founding Fathers wanted to actually outline the rules for a new country, in the Constitution, they made no reference to God whatever. And the only reference to religion in general (no mention of Christianity), was that the government had to stay out of the religion business.

TomS said: It is about equality in rights...

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator .

Krauthammer: "How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too."

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator .

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator .

dalehusband said: The issue for Steve P (as well as FL, Ray Martinez and other kooks that come here and make @$$holes of themselves) is atheism. But what is their problem with atheism? There is no clear empirical evidence for gods and therefore no reason NOT to be an atheist. Of course, one may freely choose to believe in a god-centered religion, but if that religion is really so useful, why should they demand it be reinforced outside the institutions of the religion itself? That is not justice! To justify this, they claim that public schools, by teaching evolution, are also teaching atheism. But that is a flat out LIE. There is nothing about evolution, or ANY aspect of modern science, which proclaims "THERE IS NO GOD." Rather, it simply presents a picture of the universe as discovered through empirical means of study. That is something a person of any religion, or no religion, can do. It's not about atheism. It's about SECULARISM, putting all religious views under the same standard, including those which can be debunked by scientific means.....which both Creationism and Intelligent Design have been! You cannot believe in them without believing in lies!

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator.

John_S said:

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator.

Note how careful they were to say "their creator", not "God" or "our creator".

SWT said:

John_S said:

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator.

Note how careful they were to say "their creator", not "God" or "our creator".

Note how careful Henry is to miss the point that the rights are self-evident and not something to be granted (or taken away) by a government.

SWT said:

John_S said: Note how careful they were to say "their creator", not "God" or "our creator".

Note how careful Henry is to miss the point that the rights are self-evident and not something to be granted (or taken away) by a government.

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator .

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator .

dalehusband said: ...Why can't we just be content to treat human beings like human beings, nothing more or less, and stop either deifying a few of them or dehumanizing many of them?!

apokryltaros said:

dalehusband said: ...Why can't we just be content to treat human beings like human beings, nothing more or less, and stop either deifying a few of them or dehumanizing many of them?!

That's because, according to the Christian Fundamentalists' interpretation of the Bible, all humans are inherently evil, filled with evil sin, and otherwise totally worthless, vile scum, destined for an eternity of torment in Hell for the unpardonable sin of being alive. That is, unless of course, one lives a life trying to do good solely in the hopes of avoiding eternal punishment.

As, after all, doing good things for other people simply because it's good to do, and not because you want to avoid being tortured forever and ever and ever is not only wrong, but is also sin.

Declaration of Independence: That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Romans 13 1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Micro evolution is a screen saver program, where macro evolution was an exe. program.

That is, you have to say and believe that Jesus is Lord and Saviour. If you do, you’re in. If you don’t, you’re damned.

harold said: Denying the importance of "works" and taking a "screw you, only I go to heaven because only I get the magic words right" mentality has, of course, always existed, but it used to be the signature of isolated, extreme sects.

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Rom. 3:28

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:24

John_S said:

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Rom. 3:28

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:24

It really is quite simple, to Christians generally - what the fundies call "liberals", with a sneer.

If you have faith in Jesus, then you will necessarily follow his teachings. So you will care for the poor, the sick, the dispossessed, the rejected. You will give food to the hungry, you will shelter the homeless, you will visit the imprisoned, you will help the afflicted and you will aid the oppressed - for by doing those things, you do it unto him. He said so, and he said that it was by your fruits that you will be known.

If you don't have faith in him, you still might do those things, in which case he will know you from your acts. But if you do not act in that fashion, he will not know you, no matter how much you call him "Lord". He said that, too. Thus, the supposed distinction between "faith" and "works" doesn't actually exist, for Christians. The former necessarily involves the latter, and if the latter exists without the former, they still have God's own statement of what he recognises.

As I have said before - forgive the repetition - the fundies have substituted for this difficult and inconvenient business a much simpler and far more enforceable idea. Confession of faith is the be-all and the end-all, except for those who are able to stomach the awesome insanities of outright Calvinism. For those who can, simple hubris is sufficient - they are the ineluctably and irresistably Elected, and all the rest of you sinners are damned.

But the very existence of an argument about what matters, faith or works, is a pretty sure indication that the whole point of Christianity has been lost.

Actually, fundies (and Luther, too, it must be said) ignored Paul's qualification. He said "deeds of the law", not just deeds. In other words, he was saying you won't be saved simply because you're a good Jew and sacrifice at the temple, abstain from pork and observe the Sabbath. It's a modern stretch to assume you can steal, rape, murder, or do anything else you like (except maybe be a homosexual, support abortion rights or universal health care, vote for a Democrat or call for stronger gun laws), say "Lord, ah'm sorry, ah hev SEE-und" and be home free.

John_S said: "Lord, ah'm sorry, ah hev SEE-und" and be home free.

John_S said: Actually, fundies (and Luther, too, it must be said) ignored Paul's qualification. He said "deeds of the law", not just deeds. In other words, he was saying you won't be saved simply because you're a good Jew and sacrifice at the temple, abstain from pork and observe the Sabbath. It's a modern stretch to assume you can steal, rape, murder, or do anything else you like (except maybe be a homosexual, support abortion rights or universal health care, vote for a Democrat or call for stronger gun laws), say "Lord, ah'm sorry, ah hev SEE-und" and be home free.

Just Bob said:

John_S said: "Lord, ah'm sorry, ah hev SEE-und" and be home free.

It helps your worldly bottom line if you do that publicly, preferably in front of TV cameras, while crying copiously.

Brain fart alert: In the post above I referred to Matthew 31:34 ff. Wrong. The reference is Matthew 25:34 ff. Sorry. I can't think what came over me.

Just Bob said:

John_S said: "Lord, ah'm sorry, ah hev SEE-und" and be home free.

It helps your worldly bottom line if you do that publicly, preferably in front of TV cameras, while crying copiously.

Dave Luckett said: Brain fart alert: In the post above I referred to Matthew 31:34 ff. Wrong. The reference is Matthew 25:34 ff. Sorry. I can't think what came over me.

SWT said:

John_S said:

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator.

Note how careful they were to say "their creator", not "God" or "our creator".

Note how careful Henry is to miss the point that the rights are self-evident and not something to be granted (or taken away) by a government.

Yes, Henry, it is.

In fact such rights could not have been bestowed or guaranteed by a creator, as witness the fact that nearly all humans throughout history, and a simple majority in the world today, (I think) did not and do not have them. Had they actually been bestowed by an omnipotent creator, they would have been universal, don't you think? But despite eighteenth century notions of "noble savagery" and "natural rights" of Man, they most certainly were not universal. In fact the notion was almost unheard-of up to the date of the Declaration, and remained so, in most places, for centuries afterwards.

It's true that the Declaration of Independence asserts such rights, which is what makes it so extraordinary an achievement - but it asserts them because the rights were granted only by human means, that is, through the consensus of a people, by agreement among themselves. That alone marks an astonishing upward leap in the human journey. It is understandable, although a great pity, that its framers and propounders, or their posterity, were unable to give it full effect for generations afterwards, and vast numbers of people in the United States remained deprived of liberty and the (free) pursuit of happiness, despite the ringing words of the Declaration.

Henry said:

SWT said:

John_S said:

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator.

Note how careful they were to say "their creator", not "God" or "our creator".

Note how careful Henry is to miss the point that the rights are self-evident and not something to be granted (or taken away) by a government.

Is it possible to have these certain unalienable rights without the Creator?

Henry said:

SWT said:

John_S said:

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator.

Note how careful they were to say "their creator", not "God" or "our creator".

Note how careful Henry is to miss the point that the rights are self-evident and not something to be granted (or taken away) by a government.

Is it possible to have these certain unalienable rights without the Creator?

Also, I see you've still failed to provide evidence to support your dishonest claim that the Founding Fathers were Young Earth Creationists who believed that the world was magically poofed into existence by God, using magic 10,000 years ago, as per a literal reading of the King James Bible, under pain of eternal damnation.

Why is that?

Henry,

Let's say that God comes down from on high and commands you, in no unambiguous fashion, that to be saved, you must kill and consume a human baby. There are three possible responses to this.

1) (and most common), "God would never say that". Except he has commanded the deaths of millions of babies in the Bible. But that aside, if God would never command that, then why? Because God too follows a moral principle. If God follows a moral principle, then it is higher than even God. So, why do you need God anyway? You can follow a moral principle with or without God being involved.

2) "I refuse"... in this case, you are putting your moral principles ahead of God and His moral principles. You are becoming human. Why do you need God, if you can follow your own moral principles? Remembering that moral principles are products of the society and culture, rather than ordained by God. Honestly, how many things are commanded by God in the Bible that you find abhorrent?

3) (and this is the only possible answer of the true believer) "Pass the ketchup". In this case, you have actually done what others have hypocritically claimed. You have ignored every moral, ethic, and human aspect of yourself and replaced it with God's law. Surprisingly, of course, you will be hated and reviled by most humans and will be breaking the laws of almost every country on the planet. But at least you will be right with God the Monster.

Do you begin to understand? There is probably such thing as God or a Creator. Even if there was, no American follows Him according to the Bible.

I think the founding fathers were wrong, but they had no other referents. It's like the American Indians seeing the giant ships of the Europeans and only being able to understand them as giant swans. The Founding Fathers had no other referents. They couldn't conceive of evolution and cosmology. All they had was myth.

In reality, the statement should be "By the virtue of being human, we are all born with certain irrevocable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Or something like that.

God didn't give us those rights. The simple fact of being born human gives us those rights. I, personally, would argue that even being born a living thing gives all living things those rights... but then I think "I want a burger for lunch".

So Henry thinks the founding fathers, in writing the US Constitution, intended to establish the nation as an overtly Christian one, but just happened to forget to include any mention whatsoever of God, Jesus, or Christianity. For such smart guys, that seems like quite an oversight. The most important document in our history, worked on for almost four months by dozens of the best and brightest people of their time, with hundreds of revisions and compromises and rewrites, and yet in the end they left out the most important part?

It's a good thing we have Henry here to read their minds retroactively and explain what they really meant to say. Is there anything else they left out that you would like us to know about, Henry?

Henry said:

SWT said:

John_S said:

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator.

Note how careful they were to say "their creator", not "God" or "our creator".

Note how careful Henry is to miss the point that the rights are self-evident and not something to be granted (or taken away) by a government.

Is it possible to have these certain unalienable rights without the Creator?

Henry said:

SWT said:

John_S said:

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator.

Note how careful they were to say "their creator", not "God" or "our creator".

Note how careful Henry is to miss the point that the rights are self-evident and not something to be granted (or taken away) by a government.

Is it possible to have these certain unalienable [sic] rights without the Creator?

Regarding this whole "micro/macro" farce-gument, I've often had the following thought:

Saying that micro-evolution does/can not lead to macro-evolution is rather like saying a match can light a cigarette but not start a hundred-acre bushfire. It's patently ludicrous; the exact same mechanisms are in place and the only factors limiting the fire's spread are the amount of fuel and oxygen available.

With evolution, your fuel is the reproducing population of organisms, the oxygen is the various selective pressures, the lit match is the mutation. One mutation that's heritable and non-detrimental (or not even catastrophically detrimental) PLUS one reproducing population PLUS any number/combination of selective pressures and you will have variations in offspring. This is as true for bacteria as it is for blue whales; the key difference being the relative "slow-burn" of multicellular evolution versus the "quick flash" that can be seen in single-celled organisms (especially under accelerated lab conditions or extreme changes in nature). But then, creationists know that speciation is time-dependent; they also know that science has discovered that life has been smouldering away on this ever-changing planet quite long enough for countless speciation events to occur - so, of course, in tandem with their micro/macro fingers-in-ears act, they also have to shut their eyes tight and keep bellowing "thousands of years, not billions, radiometrics is wrong, plate tectonics is wrong, geology and palaeontology and cosmology and astronomy are all WRONG" without taking a breath, lest an uncomfortable fact sneak between the gaps.

Why do creationists get bogged down on these piffling non-issues? Do they honestly think they can erect some kind of (necessarily and by definition) arbitrary rhetorical barrier to reproductive variation? It's childishly ignorant - but then, I've never met a creationist who wasn't both childishly ignorant of science and absolutely sure that it's all wrong.

--

A question that I don't expect an answer to for SteveP: if you saw, under a microscope, a mutation happening during mitotic reproduction of a bacterium, right next to a mutation happening during the conception of a blue whale, would you know the difference? Would you be able to tell another observer standing next to you why exactly the bacteria's mutation is so different to the whale's mutation that the whale's mutation could never, ever give rise, given sufficient time and selective pressure, to a new species?

Can you explain why a match can light a cigarette but not start a bushfire?

Henry said: The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator .

Most of them would be quite secure in the self-evident fact that they lived on a flat, stationary planet, dutifully circled by the sun and the stars once a day.

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator .

John said:

Henry said: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Founding Fathers knew it was self-evident that we have a Creator .

Virtually all of them, including those who described themselves as "Christians", were strongly influenced by the French, and especially, Scottish Enlightenments. Their view of a "Creator" is more closely aligned with those of Spinoza, Hume and Montesquieu and other notable figures of the Enlightenment, than it is with the fervently rabid Xian beliefs expressed by the "Christians" posting here, yourself included.

And having said that, let's return to the topic...

To the Creationist trolls in this thread (i.e., Henry and SteveP): Why do we have to trust what Answers In Genesis says about science?

Besides the fact that the staff of Answers In Genesis have a vested interest in (and a long record of) lying and promoting anti-science propaganda, the staff of Answers In Genesis clearly demonstrate that they totally lack reading comprehension skills.

Why are we supposed to trust Answers In Genesis when they totally lack any credibility? Because Jesus will murder us and torture us forever in Hell if we don't?

The Constitution specified 3/5 of the number of "other persons" (that is, slaves) be counted in the population of states. That was a compromise which the non-slave states got so that slave states wouldn't get more votes in Congress by counting all of their slaves. It was not favoritism to slave holders, quite the contrary.

The Copernican model of the Solar System was quite firmly established by the 1700s, and the round Earth long before that.

Belief in witchcraft was pretty much obsolete by then.

Which one described the Trinity as a “three headed monster”?

Henry J said:

Which one described the Trinity as a “three headed monster”?

The Trinity is actually Cerberus? Is that why "god" is "dog" spelled backwards?

Thomas Jefferson said: "The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

apokryltaros said:

Thomas Jefferson said: "The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

No wonder the Conservatives are purging all mention of Thomas Jefferson from textbooks in Texas.

TomS said:

apokryltaros said:

Thomas Jefferson said: "The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

No wonder the Conservatives are purging all mention of Thomas Jefferson from textbooks in Texas.

I checked at Wikiquote, and it refers to Positive Atheism, which in turn says that this quotation has not been found in Jefferson's writings.

Here it is in Notes on Virginia Query XVIII, “The Peculiar Customs and Manners,” Page 80.

Mike Elzinga said: Here it is in Notes on Virginia Query XVIII, “The Peculiar Customs and Manners,” Page 80.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burn, tortured, find, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.

Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher …

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said: Here it is in Notes on Virginia Query XVIII, “The Peculiar Customs and Manners,” Page 80.

This is what I found (Query XVII, page 80 in this edition):

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burn, tortured, find, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.

Incidentally, and this has nothing to do with the point, but I found it amusing (page 79):

Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher …

Henry, if you had ever read history, which of course you haven't, you would know that in the territory that was to be occupied by the USA, Christians hanged, imprisoned, exiled and pilloried other Christians - often Quakers - with great glee and righteous justification. That was the reason for the foundation of the Rhode Island colony, and it was widely condemned in New England as ungodly because it tolerated religious difference. Maryland, founded by Roman Catholics, became increasingly intolerant of them as the balance shifted towards Protestantism. The anti-Catholic laws of 1688, copied from England, were strongly enforced there, and it was not until 1776 that the Maryland state constitution repealed them. Even Virginia still prescribed capital punishment for unregenerate Quakers as late as 1720. Religious taxes on all - co-religionists or not - were often imposed in the eighteenth century, and were alone one of the reasons why people minded to be free of them tended to move further out.

The Constitution didn't completely bring an end to religious persecution in the United States. Even in the nineteenth century, Christians massacred other religious groups, such as the Mormons, and there are those who would put the Waco massacre of 1993 in the same category. But the Constitution, a manifestation of the Enlightenment, did put an end to formal theocracy in the United States, by forbidding government to support or discriminate against any religion. The fact that there are still ignoramuses like Henry who think that the United States is some sort of pristine exception to all human experience of religious intolerance, and who want to bring theocracy back, testifies to the fact that not even the Constitution can educate a fool.

Henry said: I wonder if Jefferson might be thinking of Europe when he made this comment. It certainly was never true in America. Also, at the introduction of Christianity, the Christians were the ones burned, tortured, imprisoned, etc.

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said: Here it is in Notes on Virginia Query XVIII, “The Peculiar Customs and Manners,” Page 80.

This is what I found (Query XVII, page 80 in this edition):

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burn, tortured, find, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.

Incidentally, and this has nothing to do with the point, but I found it amusing (page 79):

Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher …

Henry said: I wonder if Jefferson might be thinking of Europe when he made this comment. It certainly was never true in America. Also, at the introduction of Christianity, the Christians were the ones burned, tortured, imprisoned, etc.

harold said:

That is, you have to say and believe that Jesus is Lord and Saviour. If you do, you’re in. If you don’t, you’re damned.

The post-modern adoption of the "I can do whatever I want as long as I 'believe' and 'repent', and you're going to Hell no matter what you do" mentality is interesting. As someone raised in a non-science denying church that was traditionally considered a bit too austere by other mainstream churches, I can tell you that the "I can do whatever I want as long as I say the magic words" school of thought has massively expanded in the post-modern era. Denying the importance of "works" and taking a "screw you, only I go to heaven because only I get the magic words right" mentality has, of course, always existed, but it used to be the signature of isolated, extreme sects. It fits perfectly with the contemporary Fox/Limbaugh/Tea Party mentality. Behave as wastefully, selfishly, and belligerently as possible, claim that the best possible system is everyone doing this all the time, and angrily deny any evidence to the contrary.

See

Composition

Membership and demographics section

Henry said: The TEA party is a good representation of the general population.

Henry, you still have not explained to us why or how your demonstrably false claim blatant lie that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America were Young Earth Creationists is supposed to magically prove Young Earth Creationism true, and magically prove Evolution to be false.

Why is that?

Just Bob said:

Henry said: The TEA party is a good representation of the general population.

Then why did McCain/Palin lose? Big.

Spinning so fast, you're drilling yourself into the ground.

BTW, I didn't vote for Obama because he is "black". His heritage is 1/2 caucasian, yet you call him "black". With equal justification, one could call him "white".

Does any "taint" of African genetics make one "black", regardless of how much "white" is in one's genes? And colorwise he isn't even close to black. He isn't much darker than I am with a summer tan, and my ancestry is "white" as far back as I know. I know folks of Mexican, Asian Indian, Middle Eastern, and even a Mongolian who are all darker in color than the President. But you wouldn't call any of them "black".

But the President has to be called "black" because, you know, he's half ni African, right?

I didn't vote for McCain, who I suspect would have made a tolerably decent president, because as even many conservatives have admitted, Palin was unthinkable as president. A joke. And that McCain would pick such a running mate completely discounted his judgment on any serious matter.

Just Bob said: Spinning so fast, you're drilling yourself into the ground. BTW, I didn't vote for Obama because he is "black". His heritage is 1/2 caucasian, yet you call him "black". With equal justification, one could call him "white". Does any "taint" of African genetics make one "black", regardless of how much "white" is in one's genes? And colorwise he isn't even close to black. He isn't much darker than I am with a summer tan, and my ancestry is "white" as far back as I know. I know folks of Mexican, Asian Indian, Middle Eastern, and even a Mongolian who are all darker in color than the President. But you wouldn't call any of them "black". But the President has to be called "black" because, you know, he's half ni African, right? I didn't vote for McCain, who I suspect would have made a tolerably decent president, because as even many conservatives have admitted, Palin was unthinkable as president. A joke. And that McCain would pick such a running mate completely discounted his judgment on any serious matter.

Why the Democrats lost support in 2010 might just be general disenchantment - the turnout was far lower.

One reason for that disenchantment might well be extreme disappointment with Obama. He's a lovely talker, but talk is cheap. He didn't go after the criminals who fomented the war in Iraq, nor those who buried the banks under phony paper. Both sets should now be in jail. He didn't try or release the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, and by doing so has destroyed habeas corpus for good. Failing absolute, practically expressed disavowal, habeas corpus now exists only so long as it is not inconvenient to the executive. He exonerated the torturers and abductors, and so enshrined raison d'etat as part of American law. He has asserted that he may execute any person as it seems fit to him, with no form of judicial colour, no "due process" by any standard ever heard of before. He has refused to dismantle a "security" apparatus that asserts as a commonplace, that anyone can be subjected to any search or seizure that its operatives take it into their heads to impose, and the Constitution be damned.

There was a time when the United States was indeed a shining beacon on a hill. It may yet be again. Alas, not under this President or this Congress. I can only trust the American people to do better. I'm sure that they can. I can only hope that they will. But I know that Romney, who would do anything to be elected, and nothing once elected, is not the man to do it.

Why don't we get back to the topic of the thread?

You know, about why we are supposed to take what anti-science bigots like the staff of Answers In Genesis say about science, even though they

A) Know absolutely nothing about science

B) Profess to have religious prohibitions forbidding science education under pain of eternal damnation

C) Have been repeatedly demonstrated to have an anti-science and anti-science education agenda

and, perhaps most telling,

D) Have sub-par reading comprehension skills even by elementary school standards.

So far, the only reason the creationists on this thread have given us is that... uh... It's apparently very unfair to not take Answers In Genesis' anti-science diatribes seriously.

And then resident bigot Henry comes along to change the topic to advertising his blatant lie that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America were all Young Earth Creationists who believed that the Earth is only 10,000 years old under pain of eternal damnation.

And when asked of any proof or justification that the Founding Fathers were anti-science bigots like himself, he further adjusts the topic so he can now begin bitching about how President Obama is so awful and so terrible and will lead the US into fiscal and literal ruin and damnation because President Obama is neither white, nor Republican.

Very telling.

Dave Luckett said: Also, most regrettably, when Paul came to state what is required for salvation, he was plain but not exhaustive: Romans 10:8-10. This, plus John 3:16, is what the fundies fling in everyone's teeth who doubts that confession by faith and belief is sufficient - if indeed anything is. The fact that this doctrine runs directly contrary to Jesus's own words on the subject never seems to come up; for Jesus was unequivocal about what matters: Matthew 31:34 ff.

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, . . .

39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

You're not disagreeing with me, exactly. Any difference is one of emphasis.

Paul at Romans 10:9 was "not exhaustive", I said. I don't think he thought that the affirmation of faith and belief, even if genuine, and not hypocritical, was alone sufficient except in extremis. (Possibly he was thinking of the confession of the Jewish faith "when the knife is at the throat and the fire at the feet" : Hear, Oh Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One!)

Unfortunately, that's not what he wrote at Romans 10:9. He didn't qualify. That's a bit of an oversight, I think.

Now, of course, any Christian who's within a bull's roar of reason on this matter thinks of it in the same way as you do. Unfortunately, we have experience here of Christians who aren't and don't. For FL and his merry crew, it simply doesn't matter how you behave - and if you doubt that, watch how he does. No, what matters is beleeeeeving. I don't actually blame Paul for this state of affairs. But it's regrettably true that he said something that provides these loons with a figleaf to cover their naked pride, hubris and uncharity.