Evolution education in evangelicals' home schooling

One of the major issues in learning science, or, really, any good investigative practice, is learning not to fool yourself.

And that possibility (though not acknowledged as such) is one of the greatest threats that many fundamentalists can imagine.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: One of the major issues in learning science, or, really, any good investigative practice, is learning not to fool yourself. And that possibility (though not acknowledged as such) is one of the greatest threats that many fundamentalists can imagine. Glen Davidson

As someone who cares about civil rights, science education, and use of sound science rather that ideological propaganda to guide social policy, I am extremely glad to hear of this trend.

Let's hope that such "enlightened" evangelicals are doing the same with American history.

Mike Elzinga said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: One of the major issues in learning science, or, really, any good investigative practice, is learning not to fool yourself. And that possibility (though not acknowledged as such) is one of the greatest threats that many fundamentalists can imagine. Glen Davidson

If the Unamiginably Dense website is any indication, ID/creationists not only continue to fool themselves with gut-busting, teeth-gritting, head-exploding tenacity; they actually accuse the science community of doing exactly what they, the ID/creationists, are doing. It takes a lot of chutzpa to engage in such atrocious behavior and then accuse others of doing exactly what you yourself are doing. Listen to an ID/creationist rant about their “enemies” and you will learn all about the inner lives and “morality” of ID/creationists. They are telling you about themselves.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said: One can generally bet heavily on the following. Those who most frequently and loudly accuse others of lying are habitual if not compulsive liars. They assume, perhaps subconsciously, that their behavior is normal and that everyone lies as much as they do or that they are in fact more honest than others. But we are most decidedly not a bunch of psychotic apes. No siree bub. *eyeroll*

It's nice to be reminded that evangelical ≠ fundamentalist.

Chris Lawson said: It's nice to be reminded that evangelical ≠ fundamentalist.

Chris Lawson said: It's nice to be reminded that evangelical ≠ fundamentalist.

Paul Burnett said:

Chris Lawson said: It's nice to be reminded that evangelical ≠ fundamentalist.

...which is why I use the portmanteau "fundagelical" to describe the actively anti-evolution/anti-science crowd - most of them are fundamentalists and most of them are evangelicals.

Paul Burnett said:

Paul Burnett said:

Chris Lawson said: It's nice to be reminded that evangelical ≠ fundamentalist.

...which is why I use the portmanteau "fundagelical" to describe the actively anti-evolution/anti-science crowd - most of them are fundamentalists and most of them are evangelicals.

Rats...I hit Enter too soon. Here's the Urban Dictionary definition of Fundagelical: Someone who believes in a totalitarian world rule with an American Christo-theocratic party dictating legislation based on limited interpretation of scripture they consider applicable. Applicable scripture is limited to scripture in which they personally are willing to impose on others regardless of whether they, themselves, personally adhere to it in private. Derived from a contraction of the words Fundamentalist and Evangelical. James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps are leaders in the fundagelical movement.

....James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps are leaders in the fundagelical movement.

So rich it makes my teeth hurt!

Paul Burnett said: Here's the Urban Dictionary definition of Fundagelical:

First, a shout-out to David Montgomery and his book "The Rocks Don't Lie", which is mentioned in the Atlantic article. I am reading Chapter 3 of Montgomery's book (so far) and I recommend it.

With Richard's permission I am going to extend the thread beyond Evangelical home-schooling to science teaching in private Christian schools. There is issue overlap between the two.

1. In David Kinnaman's book "You Lost Me", he emphasizes that young people today have unprecedented access to a myriad of viewpoints through the Internet, YouTube, and whatever their friends text to them (p. 135). Although they can find lots of creationist sites, their teachers and parents can no longer insulate them from mainstream science. The Discovery channel and even Mythbusters expose them to popular science, which is fascinating and fun. I think the students themselves are pushing back against creationism, or at least rolling their eyes at some of the more egregious nonsense.

2. Home schooling takes a lot of commitment on the part of the parents. Private school tuition can be around $1,000 per month (see Village Christian School and Minnehaha Academy). For that kind of involvement and expense, fewer Evangelical parents want their kids to see drawings of humans riding a Triceratops. They want to get their time and money's worth and have their kids receive a good education in return.

3. I am sure that some students of creationism will swallow it all and be unable to attend a birthday party without making some derogatory comment about evolution. Other Christian students are more critical in their thinking (see point #1), and they get tired of hearing how every little factlet in their Bob Jones textbook "disproves evolution." Why is there suddenly a need for a verse from Psalms right in the middle of this discussion about earthquakes?

4. A particularly sad result is that creationism cheats the kids, whether that creationism comes from home-schooling or from a private Christian school. I have never seen a creationist presentation that does not convey the unmistakable message: Science Is Bad. Yes, some of them claim to honor science, but they really don't. The students quickly learn that Science class has to have a bunch of disclaimers, and controversy, and warning labels, and Bible verses inexplicably punctuating the text. What is lost is that excitement they first felt upon seeing that rocket shoot into the air, or watching a Rotifer under a microscope, or coming downstairs on the morning after Christmas to see that the crystals in their solution really are forming!

5. In a weak economy, where Mom's and Dad's jobs may be shaky every day, parents don't want to raise a set of unemployable offspring. This is not a game: our children have to learn real science in order to become the engineers and researchers of tomorrow.

There's some statistics here: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=91. This is the National Center for Education Statistics, which is a Federal Government agency, and I take their figures to be accurate.

The facts that leaped out is that the incidence of home schooling is increasing, having nearly doubled in fifteen years, and at least 1.5 million students in the US now are home-schooled; and that 36% of parents who choose to home school their children give "religious reasons" as the cause, and that this was the most common reason, ahead of dissatisfaction with the education provided by the public schools. Both of those numbers are increasing. Another statistic is that a higher proportion of white students are home schooled than black or Hispanic students.

I think that there's some evidence for an emerging "two nations" dichotomy here. Add in the private and charter schools, as Carl Drews says, and that's something to worry about.

I think that there’s some evidence for an emerging “two nations” dichotomy here. Add in the private and charter schools, as Carl Drews says, and that’s something to worry about.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: One of the major issues in learning science, or, really, any good investigative practice, is learning not to fool yourself. And that possibility (though not acknowledged as such) is one of the greatest threats that many fundamentalists can imagine. Glen Davidson

Carl Drews said: 4. A particularly sad result is that creationism cheats the kids, whether that creationism comes from home-schooling or from a private Christian school. I have never seen a creationist presentation that does not convey the unmistakable message: Science Is Bad. Yes, some of them claim to honor science, but they really don't. The students quickly learn that Science class has to have a bunch of disclaimers, and controversy, and warning labels, and Bible verses inexplicably punctuating the text. What is lost is that excitement they first felt upon seeing that rocket shoot into the air, or watching a Rotifer under a microscope, or coming downstairs on the morning after Christmas to see that the crystals in their solution really are forming! 5. In a weak economy, where Mom's and Dad's jobs may be shaky every day, parents don't want to raise a set of unemployable offspring. This is not a game: our children have to learn real science in order to become the engineers and researchers of tomorrow.

James Hoeffgen redirect examination Millstone asked James if he reached any conclusion, then or later, about what Freshwater was doing in his teaching of evolution. James replied that his parents were upset about Freshwater’s use of Survival of the Fakest, about Freshwater’s claims of the inaccuracy of carbon dating, about the Hovind video, and about the notion that dinosaurs and humans were on earth together. Millstone asked James what he concluded from Freshwater’s teaching. James replied with an anecdote. He said his sister had found a rock and was going to take it to a teacher to see if she could find out how old it is. James said he told his sister to not bother, “Science can’t be trusted. Science can’t teach us anything.” That’s a direct quote, immediately checked with an attorney who was also taking notes. And it says it all.

First many Evangelicals home school to AVOID liberal propaganda and include creationism.
your saying they exclude evolution. They don't. Its about equal time.
One must include to be sure of test results.
Usually its the upper middle class people who have the confidence to homeschool and its producing confident creationist kids.
Its kids in "public' education getting one side and denied the truth of public contention on origin issues./
Place your bets on the future!

Please, please don't feed the troll. I'll leave Byers' one comment up, at least for the time being, but please merely gaze upon it in wonder at the disconnect from reality.

it seems to me that an interested parent could pull together an adequite curriculum if they are willing to put in the effort- they might be learning along with thier children as much as they are teaching them - IMHO this would be a feature, not a bug.

I hope that some of those 1.5 million home schoolers have opted out of the available public program becuase they want to give thier kids a BETTER education than what is locally available - I know that if I lived in a community where the likes of Freshwater was the norm and not the exception, I'd seriously consider home-schooling (or moving)

a quick google search finds several science curricula for home schoolers that appear to be free of religious propoganda

unfortunately, many do home school in order to avoid teaching science and evolution to their children. This is especially problematic in places like Kansas where they actually changed the standards on standardized tests for home schools in order to exclude macro evolution. It then becomes obvious exactly what the motivation was for home schooling in the first place.

DS said: unfortunately, many do home school in order to avoid teaching science and evolution to their children. This is especially problematic in places like Kansas where they actually changed the standards on standardized tests for home schools in order to exclude macro evolution. It then becomes obvious exactly what the motivation was for home schooling in the first place.

I wonder if Kansas students know where corn comes from?

What proportion of standardized test questions typically relate to Evolution? Is it a significant proportion? Could a student fail to answer any of them and still easily pass the test?

My hypothesis is: Evolution can safely be omitted from home-schooling curricula with little fear of significantly affecting test results.

gnome de net said: What proportion of standardized test questions typically relate to Evolution? Is it a significant proportion? Could a student fail to answer any of them and still easily pass the test? My hypothesis is: Evolution can safely be omitted from home-schooling curricula with little fear of significantly affecting test results.

harold said: Creationist books don't just ignore evolution, they contain inaccurate statements about evolution and promote creationism as science. It's one thing not to be taught at all, and a far worse thing to be taught incorrectly.

gnome de net said: What proportion of standardized test questions typically relate to Evolution? Is it a significant proportion? Could a student fail to answer any of them and still easily pass the test? My hypothesis is: Evolution can safely be omitted from home-schooling curricula with little fear of significantly affecting test results.

One reason for the growth of homeschooling is the general easing of requirements in order to homeschool. Fewer than half the states (24) require standardized tests at all, and not just in the expected Bible Belt. California, for instance, encourages, but does not require standardized tests. This applies to private schools as well. Only nine states require the homeschooling parents to have a high school diploma or GED.

The requirements for each state are here, with a summary here. This web site, by the way, the Home School Legal Defense Association, has been the main lobbyist for homeschooling, and the major reason for the general easing of home schooling requirements.

I am an educator from outside the States but teach in an American Christian School system. And I have to say that I am horrified by some of the things they teach the children. And the biggest problem with the system is that it is run by pastors and not educators. They are hell bent on getting the bible into the curriculum and I have heard how the top administrator has said that it was more important than the kid’s education. And this is a system that was developed because they did not like the science in public schools.

A particularly sad result is that creationism cheats the kids, whether that creationism comes from home-schooling or from a private Christian school.

is that the incidence of home schooling is increasing, having nearly doubled in fifteen years, and at least 1.5 million students in the US now are home-schooled; and that 36% of parents who choose to home school their children give “religious reasons” as the cause,...

One reason for the growth of homeschooling is the general easing of requirements in order to homeschool.

raven said:

One reason for the growth of homeschooling is the general easing of requirements in order to homeschool.

Whatever the requirements, they aren't enforced or even enforceable any more.

raven said: Whatever the requirements, they aren't enforced or even enforceable any more.

I don’t know why you say that. Some states enforce stringent requirements, New York, for instance. Massachusetts requires and enforces that a homeschooling plan, equivalent to public education, be approved in advance.

In 2002, then-state Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin said homeschooling was illegal and that she would enforce the law. Eastin then asked the Legislature to take up the issue. It declined. Six months later, O’Connell took over as state schools chief and opted for a hands-off approach, directing homeschooling families to the forms required to create a private school and telling local districts that truancy was their issue.

latimes: The California Department of Education currently allows home schooling as long as parents file paperwork with the state establishing themselves as small private schools, hire credentialed tutors or enroll their children in independent study programs run by charter or private schools or public school districts while still teaching at home. California does little to enforce those provisions and insists it is the local school districts' responsibility. In addition, state education officials say some parents home school their children without the knowledge of any entity. Home schoolers and government officials have largely accepted this murky arrangement.

raven said: Technically, homeschooling is illegal in California. The state doesn't do anything. They just told the local school districts to deal with it.

raven said: The west coast where I live has 50 million people. I've never seen or heard of anyone being challenged by the states over their kid's education or whereabouts in the last 30 years.

stevaroni said: If I recall correctly, wasn't the UC system in a lawsuit last year where they had to defend their practice of refusing to admit home schooled kids that didn't meet their academic standards?

raven said: The state of California doesn't enforce any of their home schooling rules.

Your problem in California is legislative incompetence. There are no homeschooling rules to enforce because there is no homeschooling statute.

The man (supporter of Freshwater) asked if [Francis] Collins accepts Genesis. I replied that Collins is an evangelical Christian, but that he doesn’t read Genesis literally and believes that evolution is the means by which God created the diversity of biological life. The man then refused to consider reading it, saying “I don’t need to look at beliefs I don’t agree with.” That level of willful ignorance pretty much says it all.

— Richard B. Hoppe

tomh said:

stevaroni said: If I recall correctly, wasn't the UC system in a lawsuit last year where they had to defend their practice of refusing to admit home schooled kids that didn't meet their academic standards?

Not home schools, but Christian schools sued UC because UC wouldn't approve the texts used by the religious schools, including history and science courses. UC won the case which ended when the CA Supreme Court refused to review the case. Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns

eric said:

tomh said:

stevaroni said: If I recall correctly, wasn't the UC system in a lawsuit last year where they had to defend their practice of refusing to admit home schooled kids that didn't meet their academic standards?

Not home schools, but Christian schools sued UC because UC wouldn't approve the texts used by the religious schools, including history and science courses. UC won the case which ended when the CA Supreme Court refused to review the case. Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns

Side note, UC didn't refuse to admit any student. What they said is: the students who do not take approved history, biology etc. courses must go through the regular university admissions process. They will not be eligible for the uniquely Californian guarantee of automatic admission into UC or Cal State that the state gives to the top 10% of graduating high school students from California who do take approved courses.

harold said: That's actually a highly relevant point in this discussion. Effectively, what happened, and this is incredibly typical of fundamentalists, is that they tried to get an extremely unfair privilege for themselves. They tried to set up schools with only fundamentalist kids in them, teaching Bible stories as science - and then demand that the top 10% of graduates be given automatic admission to the UC system, in the same way as students who go through schools with a standard, rigorous curriculum. However, it backfired, and in the long run, not having taken standard courses turned out to be, what a surprise, a detriment to the kids. Clearly, the kids and their parents wanted admission to UC. They could have just applied straight to Liberty University, but they at least had the judgment to prefer UC. While they might not have qualified for automatic admission if they had competed in a regular school, at least they would have been more qualified for a mainstream university.

DS said:

harold said: ...Clearly, the kids and their parents wanted admission to UC. They could have just applied straight to Liberty University, but they at least had the judgment to prefer UC...

And, as is also typical of fundamentalists, they would have set themselves up for failure, even if they had gotten their way. They would have entered college unprepared, failed miserably, blamed the system and demanded to be graduated anyway.

They would have entered college unprepared, failed miserably, blamed the system and demanded to be graduated anyway. Then they would have gotten jobs as doctors and lawyers for which they were totally unprepared and again failed miserably and again tried to blame someone else.

Virginia governor, Bob “Vaginal Ultrasound Probe” McDonnell got his undergraduate degree from Regent “University” in 1989

Mike Elzinga said: Virginia governor, Bob “Vaginal Ultrasound Probe” McDonnell got his undergraduate degree from Regent “University” in 1989

I don’t remember my source for this, but I believe that at least some of the litigants (i.e. parents) were non-YEC, non-fundie parents who sent their kids to ASCI schools for for reasons having nothing to do with creationism. They thought their kids were getting a reasonable education across the board, and were thus I think justifiably upset to learn that their kids were not getting the same opportunity that a public HS kid would get. Now, they should’ve been justifiably upset at ACSI, not UC, but I can see how this may have happened. Lesson learned: if you wish to send your kid to a private school for whatever reason, vet its programs. Ask about accreditation etc. Ask about what texts are used. Its up to you, the parent, to ensure the school is giving you kid a good education. Don’t assume they are just because they have a nice shiny building and well-spoken staff at the interview. I doubt the ACSI school administraters ever outright lied to any parents about what they taught - they seem to be fairly proudly creationist. But it wouldn’t surprise me at all if, faced with an OEC or TE parent as a potential customer, the school administrators did not go out of their way to discuss program details that might turn that customer away.

— eric

And, as is also typical of fundamentalists, they would have set themselves up for failure, even if they had gotten their way. They would have entered college unprepared, failed miserably, blamed the system and demanded to be graduated anyway. Then they would have gotten jobs as doctors and lawyers for which they were totally unprepared and again failed miserably and again tried to blame someone else.

— DS

Frank J said:

And, as is also typical of fundamentalists, they would have set themselves up for failure, even if they had gotten their way. They would have entered college unprepared, failed miserably, blamed the system and demanded to be graduated anyway. Then they would have gotten jobs as doctors and lawyers for which they were totally unprepared and again failed miserably and again tried to blame someone else.

— DS

Very few would become doctors because they would do poorly in science (yes I know about the Salem hypothesis, and that doctors are really engineers, but they do have to pass some science courses). The few exceptions would be those like Jonathan Wells who admitted (in so many words) getting a PhD for the sole purpose of learning how to misrepresent evolution better. Most choose nonscience fields, including law and sales, where the talent is how to tell half-truths convincingly. One thing I have noticed listening to "conservative" talk radio for ~20 years is that radical paranoid authoritarians do value education, but unless they are specifically addressing evolution, and lately also climate change, treat science like it doesn't exist. They love History and English.

@harold

I agree that the % of evolution-deniers among engineers is much lower than among the general public. It is among committed anti-evolution activists that engineers, MDs, etc., are very "visible" because they have one more way to scam the public than, say, a politician or real estate agent. But even among activists, they are a small minority.

Frank J said: @harold I agree that the % of evolution-deniers among engineers is much lower than among the general public. It is among committed anti-evolution activists that engineers, MDs, etc., are very "visible" because they have one more way to scam the public than, say, a politician or real estate agent. But even among activists, they are a small minority.

harold said: ...creationists who can't spell and have difficulty leaving comments correctly are often "engineers".

Paul Burnett said:

harold said: ...creationists who can't spell and have difficulty leaving comments correctly are often "engineers".

I agree, but I've known lots of engineers and observed that spelling is not always their strong suit.

In the creationism world, it makes you a superstar, a rare “scientist doubting Darwin”.

— harold

The more I think about it, that idiotic Gallup poll that everyone cites completely misses the point. The 40-50% that (consistently since 1982) that chooses the “creationism” answer includes not only those that we can write off, but ~half of the “salvageable” ~half, who can and do change their minds in the rare cases they give it 5 minutes’ thought.

harold said: Meanwhile, an ancient earth and human evolution are deeply assumed by mainstream American culture. If you set up evolution questions in an unbiased way that doesn't imply confrontation with religion, seventy percent will agree with the pro-science side. (For example, I predict that if I set up a poll saying "modern birds are descended from dinosaurs which lived millions of years ago, and were themselves descended from earlier reptiles", I would get a seventy percent agreement rate - maybe higher, because of the popularity of dinosaurs.)

Polls can indeed be over simplistic and/or the results can be misinterpreted.

The Gallup poll selection "God created humans in their present form about ten thousand years ago" can be used as an example. Over the last couple of decades, 40% to 47% have chosen this selection. Some have concluded that this 40-47% represents young-earth (or young-age) creationists. However, some anti-evolutionists while saying humans are only a few thousand years old also proclaim that other life species as well as Earth may be millions or billions of years old. There are even a very small number that believe the sun, Earth and other planets around our sun (and life itself) are extremely young but the rest of the universe is billions of years old. Thus, it's likely the 40-47% figure represents a mixture of many different types of OECs (or OACs) and YECs/YACs that believe literally everything was created a few thousand years ago.

However, the Gallup poll only gives three relatively simple choices, so many may end up holding their nose while taking the poll.

The assertion that anyone who believes in evolution “disregards” the Bible offends many evangelicals who want their children to be well-versed in modern science. Jen Baird Seurkamp, an evangelical who homeschools her children, avoids textbooks that discredit evolution. “Our science curriculum is one currently used in public schools,” she says. “We want our children to be educated, not sheltered from things we are afraid of them learning.”

Ray Martinez said: Home-schooling exists, in part, to prevent indoctrination from the Atheist/Evolution agenda.

Home-schooling exists, in part, to prevent indoctrination from the Atheist/Evolution agenda. What the mother really said was that she teaches her children the controversy and the fact that the public school curriculum, regarding evolution, is false. To think or believe she is teaching her children the scientific fact of evolution contradicts the reason-for-being of home-schooling.

The quote doesn’t say what you think it says.

Rolf said: How is the book that will be the end of Darwinism that, according to Ray, will make "all our (i.e. supporters of science) lives miserable" coming along? For lurkers: Ray threatened to publish a revolutionary paper, later downgraded to 'a book' that would put an end to Darwinism. His starting point was an "Eureka moment" of his, which seems to be the idea that by going back to Darwin and "tear down the foundation", the entire theory of evolution would crumble. Presumably to make 150 years of science since Origins irrelevant. That's the reason he is not interested in science and must be considered science illiterate.

The quote doesn’t say what you think it says.....What the mother really said was that she teaches her children the controversy and the fact that the public school curriculum, regarding evolution, is false. To think or believe she is teaching her children the scientific fact of evolution contradicts the reason-for-being of home-schooling.

For Seurkamp, the ability to reconcile science and faith is one of the biggest advantages of homeschooling. "God knew what his creatures would need to survive and thrive when he created them," she says. "The ability to evolve and adapt is just one example of his creativity and infinite wisdom."

I meant "if" where I said "unless".

Ray Martinez said: A home-schooling mother allegedly said:

The assertion that anyone who believes in evolution “disregards” the Bible offends many evangelicals who want their children to be well-versed in modern science. Jen Baird Seurkamp, an evangelical who homeschools her children, avoids textbooks that discredit evolution. “Our science curriculum is one currently used in public schools,” she says. “We want our children to be educated, not sheltered from things we are afraid of them learning.”

Dear Richard B. Hoppe: The quote doesn't say what you think it says. It appears your excitement is unfounded. The home-schooling mother didn't say "The assertion that anyone who believes in evolution 'disregards' the Bible offends many evangelicals who want their children to be well-versed in modern science." The mother said “Our science curriculum is one currently used in public schools,” she says. “We want our children to be educated, not sheltered from things we are afraid of them learning.” Home-schooling exists, in part, to prevent indoctrination from the Atheist/Evolution agenda. What the mother really said was that she teaches her children the controversy and the fact that the public school curriculum, regarding evolution, is false. To think or believe she is teaching her children the scientific fact of evolution contradicts the reason-for-being of home-schooling.

bbennett1968 said:

The quote doesn’t say what you think it says.....What the mother really said was that she teaches her children the controversy and the fact that the public school curriculum, regarding evolution, is false. To think or believe she is teaching her children the scientific fact of evolution contradicts the reason-for-being of home-schooling.

Possibly. Possibly, that is, unless one (like Ray) is too effing stupid to google something from the quote (like "Jen Baird Seurkamp", not exactly a common phrase) and find what she really said. I won't connect the dots for you, Ray, knowing you probably don't get google where you live, but the adults here can easily do what I suggest and see that Jen Baird Seurkamp was most definitely saying that she didn't want her homeschooled children to grow up to be willfully ignorant science-deniers like Ray Martinez (who is apparently enough of an idiot to think he and his fellow religious bigots own homeschooling and "what it's for").

For Seurkamp, the ability to reconcile science and faith is one of the biggest advantages of homeschooling. "God knew what his creatures would need to survive and thrive when he created them," she says. "The ability to evolve and adapt is just one example of his creativity and infinite wisdom."

But it's not working, is it, Ray. Even with all your indoctrination, all your denial, thousands and thousands of kids are dropping your church like a flea-infested bat carcass. They don't like your gods, Ray, not even a little bit, and they want nothing to do with you.

A lot of them leave, Ray, because they can see that your loony-toons gods aren't real. Heck, you don't even have very good god stories, not compared to Harry Potter, not compared to The Avengers. And the kids can see that, no matter where they're schooled.

Your fight isn't with evolution, Ray. It's with reality. And you're losing the war.

Frightening, isn't it, Ray?

Ray Martinez said:

bbennett1968 said:

The quote doesn’t say what you think it says.....What the mother really said was that she teaches her children the controversy and the fact that the public school curriculum, regarding evolution, is false. To think or believe she is teaching her children the scientific fact of evolution contradicts the reason-for-being of home-schooling.

Possibly. Possibly, that is, unless one (like Ray) is too effing stupid to google something from the quote (like "Jen Baird Seurkamp", not exactly a common phrase) and find what she really said. I won't connect the dots for you, Ray, knowing you probably don't get google where you live, but the adults here can easily do what I suggest and see that Jen Baird Seurkamp was most definitely saying that she didn't want her homeschooled children to grow up to be willfully ignorant science-deniers like Ray Martinez (who is apparently enough of an idiot to think he and his fellow religious bigots own homeschooling and "what it's for").

For Seurkamp, the ability to reconcile science and faith is one of the biggest advantages of homeschooling. "God knew what his creatures would need to survive and thrive when he created them," she says. "The ability to evolve and adapt is just one example of his creativity and infinite wisdom."

My observations were based solely on what Hoppe said and quoted in the topic text. And these observations are generally correct: home-schooling exists, in part, to prevent brainwashing by the Atheist/Evolution agenda. And one still sees Creationism in the new Seurkamp quote. Evolution a doctrine of Creationism? Is said quote constitutional? Any public school teacher who taught that evolution is created would undoubtedly be censured and fired if they did not cease and desist.

And these observations are generally correct: home-schooling exists, in part, to prevent brainwashing by the Atheist/Evolution agenda.

DS said: No Ray, your "observations" were just a figment of your imagination.

harold said:

And these observations are generally correct: home-schooling exists, in part, to prevent brainwashing by the Atheist/Evolution agenda.

There is no Atheist/Evolution agenda. The theory of evolution is not taught, and cannot be taught, by brainwashing techniques. Although the words "critical thinking" have become a right wing code slogan (invariably referring to the exact opposite of critical thinking, in Orwellian fashion), the theory of evolution and the evidence supporting it can only be understood correctly by applying objective critical reasoning. You will note that I said "understood". The goal of a good public high school, in terms of the theory of evolution, would be to graduate students who correctly understand, and can correctly explain the theory of evolution, and the evidence supporting it. This would include not underestimating the evidence in support, of course. Whether students privately "believe" or "accept" the theory of evolution is irrelevant to the education process. They don't have to "believe" that George Washington was the first president of the United States either - but they do have to know the mainstream historical evidence that he was. Granted, since the evidence is convincing in both cases, students will tend to accept it, when it is offered in a fair and correct manner.

harold said:

And these observations are generally correct: home-schooling exists, in part, to prevent brainwashing by the Atheist/Evolution agenda.

There is no Atheist/Evolution agenda.

The theory of evolution is not taught, and cannot be taught, by brainwashing techniques.

Although the words "critical thinking" have become a right wing code slogan (invariably referring to the exact opposite of critical thinking, in Orwellian fashion), the theory of evolution and the evidence supporting it can only be understood correctly by applying objective critical reasoning.

You will note that I said "understood". The goal of a good public high school, in terms of the theory of evolution, would be to graduate students who correctly understand, and can correctly explain the theory of evolution, and the evidence supporting it. This would include not underestimating the evidence in support, of course. Whether students privately "believe" or "accept" the theory of evolution is irrelevant to the education process. They don't have to "believe" that George Washington was the first president of the United States either - but they do have to know the mainstream historical evidence that he was. Granted, since the evidence is convincing in both cases, students will tend to accept it, when it is offered in a fair and correct manner.

Ray Martinez said: The first tenet of the agenda is denying its existence.

Anti-evolutionists disagree.

[I]t is only required that one understand evolutionary theory.

Ray Martinez said: Brainwashing is FORCING someone to think a certain way. Harold, our Evolutionist, said it is only required that one understands evolutionary theory. This requirement, in the context of higher education, says one must understand or fail the class and jeopardize graduation and future.

Why on earth would any science teacher want to do this?

Actually, the sheaf of techniques referred to as "brainwashing" includes 1) isolation and sensory deprivation. The subject is deprived of cues to reality: time, sleep, day/night cycle, hot and cold, regular mealtimes. The purpose is to produce disorientation and confusion. 2) At the same time, other sensory inputs are added: overpowering music, constant propaganda, suggestion, false befriendment, insidious disinformation, physical stress. The purpose is to reduce resistance and sense of self, and eventually to replace reality and personality itself with the perceptions and reactions selected by the brainwashers.

Obviously, the above regime has to be institutionally enforced in some way, or reality will necessarily intrude.

Religions use these techniques, especially fundamentalist ones. They can be extremely highly developed. "Retreats", "prayer vigils", "contemplation", "fasts" on the one hand; ecstatic worship, immersion events, self-examination, penance on the other. In the case of home-schooled children in fundamentalist households, both these techniques are in use - to insulate the subject from the evidence of the real world, and to replace real-world inputs with those dictated by the institution, which is in that case their church and family.

If there were any tendency at all for science to follow such techniques, the outcomes would be immediately obvious. Science simply would not work, when applied. The moons would not move. The rocket would not rise. The speed of light would vary. Sometimes the apple would not fall. And evolution would not happen.

But science does work. Its observations and conclusions come from the real world, or it could not work in the real world. Ray's faction has some techniques that replace science, and that do work, but only to warp human minds and their perceptions. But only their perceptions of reality, not reality itself.

For him to use the term "brainwashing" of science is projection on steroids.

Ray Martinez said:

harold said:

And these observations are generally correct: home-schooling exists, in part, to prevent brainwashing by the Atheist/Evolution agenda.

There is no Atheist/Evolution agenda.

The first tenet of the agenda is denying its existence.

The theory of evolution is not taught, and cannot be taught, by brainwashing techniques.

Anti-evolutionists disagree. It's just education. All they do is grade you on tests.

Although the words "critical thinking" have become a right wing code slogan (invariably referring to the exact opposite of critical thinking, in Orwellian fashion), the theory of evolution and the evidence supporting it can only be understood correctly by applying objective critical reasoning.

Could one really expect an Evolutionist to believe otherwise?

You will note that I said "understood". The goal of a good public high school, in terms of the theory of evolution, would be to graduate students who correctly understand, and can correctly explain the theory of evolution, and the evidence supporting it. This would include not underestimating the evidence in support, of course. Whether students privately "believe" or "accept" the theory of evolution is irrelevant to the education process. They don't have to "believe" that George Washington was the first president of the United States either - but they do have to know the mainstream historical evidence that he was. Granted, since the evidence is convincing in both cases, students will tend to accept it, when it is offered in a fair and correct manner.

Brainwashing is FORCING someone to think a certain way. Just like you, you brainwashed your own children at an early age. Harold, our Evolutionist, said it is only required that one understands evolutionary theory. This requirement, in the context of higher education, says one must understand or fail the class and jeopardize graduation and future.

Brainwashing is FORCING someone to think a certain way.

Harold, our Evolutionist, said it is only required that one understands evolutionary theory. This requirement, in the context of higher education, says one must understand or fail the class and jeopardize graduation and future.

Harold, our Evolutionist, said it is only required that one understands evolutionary theory. This requirement, in the context of higher education, says one must understand or fail the class and jeopardize graduation and future.

Let me add that I remember Ray admitting at talkorigins that he is a brainwashed Christian.

In other words, Ray Martinez is the one who advocates brainwash

The comments by Ray Martinez here are articulate and valuable.

Ray doesn't distinguish between explaining a concept to someone, showing them the evidence for it, and helping them to understand it - versus using brainwash techniques to force adherence to an arbitrary, authority-commanded ideology.

This is also true of almost all other committed creationists, but they tend to be either too inarticulate to express that position, or too weaselly to admit it.

Learning about creationists has caused me to learn a great deal about authoritarians.

Without speculating on how or why, I will note that they think differently than people who fully accept the scientific method, with its implied respect for the observations and contributions of other humans.

They perceive every aspect of reality, beyond the most concrete level, as best understood by accepting some arbitrary dogma, never deviating from it, and advocating for it. They view all reference to evidence as meaningless made up arguments to justify a fixed, pre-determined ideology. That is how they operate and that is how they think everyone operates.

If a science-denying authoritarian ideologue accidentally sits his a$$ on a hot stove, he'll probably jump up - thus demonstrating an implied acceptance of physical reality, at the most concrete level (this goes for post-modern deconstructionist philosophers, as well).

However, he (or she) will deny all the science that explains how stoves get hot, how the human a$$ senses heat, how heat damages human tissue, etc, all day long, if their ideology tells them to deny it.

Lest someone be confused - Ray's comments are articulate and valuable, not because they are correct, but because he bluntly and quite articulately expresses the workings of an authoritarian mind.

As I mentioned above, but it bears repeating, most of his fellow authoritarians are either unable to express their own perception, or have learned to hide their thinking.

Phhht said

"But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative."

I ask

I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

There is no reason to suppose that the Universe, or anything in it, including us, has a purpose. It simply is. Most of how it came to be has been explained, at least generally, although I don't doubt that many surprises lie ahead.

But as to why, that is, with what intent it exists, science has no answer and cannot ever assume that there is an answer, absent empirical evidence.

Which leaves us with the possibility that we are present in this Universe to ask why, and to provide an answer for ourselves, knowing that we are the only ones who can, and only for ourselves.

This reminds me of the final exam for the Philosophy 303 course at Polysognic University. There was only one question on the paper: "Why?"

Those who answered "Why not?" were awarded a C. Those who answered "Because!" received a B. Those who answered "Why, indeed?" received an A. All other answers were failed, except for one student who answered "Fish" and was awarded the Dean's Prize for postmodernist philosophy and offered a scholarship place in the graduate program.

And I though the answer was 42.

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

Scott F said: This is why I "disrespect" the Creationist "way of addressing life's issues." Because that way doesn't work. It fails to address the real suffering of humanity. It fails to address reality. It demonstrably makes the human condition worse.

Scott F said: This is why I "disrespect" the Creationist "way of addressing life's issues." Because that way doesn't work. It fails to address the real suffering of humanity. It fails to address reality. It demonstrably makes the human condition worse.

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

Marilyn: Phhht said “But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative.” I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life’s issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

Marilyn: Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life’s issues.

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you ever wish for something that you cannot fulfil for your self? What do you think of the instruction - If you fell too many trees it will effect the eco system and so destroy the planet -. If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences. How would you react if blatantly no notice was taken. Of course there are other things that effect the safety of the planet beyond our control, but I'm talking about a warning instruction.

I often wonder what your answer to it all is?

Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction.

Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life?

Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress?

Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life’s issues.

What ideal do you expect from life.

Marilyn: If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences.

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you ever wish for something that you cannot fulfil for your self? What do you think of the instruction - If you fell too many trees it will effect the eco system and so destroy the planet -. If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences. How would you react if blatantly no notice was taken. Of course there are other things that effect the safety of the planet beyond our control, but I'm talking about a warning instruction.

Doesn't ecology include studying how things in the environment affect each other, even when people aren't the ones doing it?

phhht said:

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you ever wish for something that you cannot fulfil for your self? What do you think of the instruction - If you fell too many trees it will effect the eco system and so destroy the planet -. If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences. How would you react if blatantly no notice was taken. Of course there are other things that effect the safety of the planet beyond our control, but I'm talking about a warning instruction.

I don't understand the points of your questions. Can you restate them or expand on them or somehow clarify them?

Marilyn said: Would you ever warn anyone of the consequences of their actions if you knew they were doing wrong and what the out come of their actions would be.

Or when in science class does the teacher ever say don't do it that way do it this way because this way works and the other way doesn't.

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you ever wish for something that you cannot fulfil for your self? What do you think of the instruction - If you fell too many trees it will effect the eco system and so destroy the planet -. If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences. How would you react if blatantly no notice was taken. Of course there are other things that effect the safety of the planet beyond our control, but I'm talking about a warning instruction.

I don't understand the points of your questions. Can you restate them or expand on them or somehow clarify them?

Would you ever warn anyone of the consequences of their actions if you knew they were doing wrong and what the out come of their actions would be. Or when in science class does the teacher ever say don't do it that way do it this way because this way works and the other way doesn't.

raven said: What xians claim we have as a manual is the bible. A kludgy, contradictory mess written in languages that few read any more, and that is obviously largely multi-authored fiction. Anyone following an OT lifestyle would be doing multiple life sentences in prison. Warren Jeffs tried it and got life + 20 years.

Marilyn: Would you ever warn anyone of the consequences of their actions if you knew they were doing wrong and what the out come of their actions would be.

How do these questions bear on evolution, or the existence of gods?

harold said: The comments by Ray Martinez here are articulate and valuable. Ray doesn't distinguish between explaining a concept to someone, showing them the evidence for it, and helping them to understand it - versus using brainwash techniques to force adherence to an arbitrary, authority-commanded ideology. This is also true of almost all other committed creationists, but they tend to be either too inarticulate to express that position, or too weaselly to admit it. Learning about creationists has caused me to learn a great deal about authoritarians. Without speculating on how or why, I will note that they think differently than people who fully accept the scientific method, with its implied respect for the observations and contributions of other humans. They perceive every aspect of reality, beyond the most concrete level, as best understood by accepting some arbitrary dogma, never deviating from it, and advocating for it. They view all reference to evidence as meaningless made up arguments to justify a fixed, pre-determined ideology. That is how they operate and that is how they think everyone operates. If a science-denying authoritarian ideologue accidentally sits his a$$ on a hot stove, he'll probably jump up - thus demonstrating an implied acceptance of physical reality, at the most concrete level (this goes for post-modern deconstructionist philosophers, as well). However, he (or she) will deny all the science that explains how stoves get hot, how the human a$$ senses heat, how heat damages human tissue, etc, all day long, if their ideology tells them to deny it.

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you ever wish for something that you cannot fulfil for your self? What do you think of the instruction - If you fell too many trees it will effect the eco system and so destroy the planet -. If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences. How would you react if blatantly no notice was taken. Of course there are other things that effect the safety of the planet beyond our control, but I'm talking about a warning instruction.

I don't understand the points of your questions. Can you restate them or expand on them or somehow clarify them?

Would you ever warn anyone of the consequences of their actions if you knew they were doing wrong and what the out come of their actions would be. Or when in science class does the teacher ever say don't do it that way do it this way because this way works and the other way doesn't.

raven said:

Marilyn: Would you ever warn anyone of the consequences of their actions if you knew they were doing wrong and what the out come of their actions would be.

Sure. We do it all the time. Some examples. 1. Creationism is a lie. All creationists are liars. This is BTW, one of the purposes of this website. 2. Hitchens Rule. Religion poisons everything. 3. You, Marilyn, have ceased to make any sense. From the way you ignore anything directed at you, you are a trolling troll. I'm done here unless Marilyn decides that there are better purposes to life than being a 4 foot tall, warty, green skinned creature living under a bridge. I think we've found her god given purpose in life, trolling websites.

I have read "The Year of Living Biblically". What I found upsetting, and not particularly funny, is that there are actual religious groups, some of them ultra-Orthodox Jewish, but not necessarily, who really do follow one or other set of Biblical injunctions rigidly. Even the animal sacrifice ones. But often they make a fetish of one particular set of injunctions and give little attention to others.

Now, it's one thing to kill a chicken for the pot. The groups Jacobs found who were killing them for sacrificial purposes were doing it in as humane a way as any - and I speak as one who worked in a chicken abattoir. It's the idea that you kill things because your God tells you he likes things killed for Him that squicks me.

Then there are the religious officials who inspect clothing to make sure it's not made with two sorts of thread. The precise form and method for wearing tefilim. (Apparently there are groups who are practically at daggers drawn over the question.) What are the prescribed thoughts you should have when entering the mikveh? How are the side-curls to be displayed? Is it ever correct to trim the beard? What about the fingernails? What is to be done with the clippings? On and on.

I can only liken it to substance abuse. There's a story somewhere in my memory about the addiction of a man to tea, how he becomes enslaved to ever stronger and stronger brews. The progress of religious practice seems to be like that, to me. Stronger and stronger forms of ritualised behaviour, of austerity, of withdrawal from reality, of exaggerated conventions of dress, thought, gesture, practice. Once begun, the process is addictive. My saint's name is David, patron of Wales. He was known as "Dewi Ddyfrwr", Dave Waterdrinker, partly because that was all he drank, but also from his habit of standing up to his neck in icy Welsh lakes. For days. To keep himself awake.

There are legions of teadrinkers who don't feel the need for a strong cup every ten minutes. There are huge numbers of religious people who aren't about to join a Trappist monastery (or an extreme cult of self-cutting Hindus). But there's some who go that way.

I suppose I can't object if they do these things to themselves. But home-schooling is somewhere along that spectrum, too, when done for sectarian reasons, and in that case, it's being done to someone else.

prongs said: So I guess phhht will have to change his tune. After all, if it's good enough for Ray, why not for phhht?

phhht said:

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you ever wish for something that you cannot fulfil for your self? What do you think of the instruction - If you fell too many trees it will effect the eco system and so destroy the planet -. If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences. How would you react if blatantly no notice was taken. Of course there are other things that effect the safety of the planet beyond our control, but I'm talking about a warning instruction.

I don't understand the points of your questions. Can you restate them or expand on them or somehow clarify them?

EvoDevo said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you ever wish for something that you cannot fulfil for your self? What do you think of the instruction - If you fell too many trees it will effect the eco system and so destroy the planet -. If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences. How would you react if blatantly no notice was taken. Of course there are other things that effect the safety of the planet beyond our control, but I'm talking about a warning instruction.

I don't understand the points of your questions. Can you restate them or expand on them or somehow clarify them?

She's trying to get you to convert.

Marilyn said:

EvoDevo said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you ever wish for something that you cannot fulfil for your self? What do you think of the instruction - If you fell too many trees it will effect the eco system and so destroy the planet -. If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences. How would you react if blatantly no notice was taken. Of course there are other things that effect the safety of the planet beyond our control, but I'm talking about a warning instruction.

I don't understand the points of your questions. Can you restate them or expand on them or somehow clarify them?

She's trying to get you to convert.

I'm just trying so see if a point of view can be seen to more understand why anyone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning.

"I’m just trying so see if a point of view can be seen to more understand why anyone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning."

Look, Marilyn, I am not poking fun at you. Please believe me. Only I really don't understand your meaning, here.

Do you mean "I'm trying to see whether a point of view is so important to you that you take offence at a warning that it is life-threatening"?

Or do you mean "I'm trying to understand what it is about my life-saving warning that makes you feel angry"?

Or do you mean "I'm trying to understand why anyone would be angry at someone else for being ignorant of a life-saving warning"?

Or do you mean something completely different?

Because, if you read your sentence exactly as you wrote it, word by word, you'll see that it doesn't actually make sense. I am guessing at what you meant, and I might have gotten it completely wrong.

Dave Luckett said: "I’m just trying so see if a point of view can be seen to more understand why anyone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning." Look, Marilyn, I am not poking fun at you. Please believe me. Only I really don't understand your meaning, here. Do you mean "I'm trying to see whether a point of view is so important to you that you take offence at a warning that it is life-threatening"? Or do you mean "I'm trying to understand what it is about my life-saving warning that makes you feel angry"? Or do you mean "I'm trying to understand why anyone would be angry at someone else for being ignorant of a life-saving warning"? Or do you mean something completely different? Because, if you read your sentence exactly as you wrote it, word by word, you'll see that it doesn't actually make sense. I am guessing at what you meant, and I might have gotten it completely wrong.

Marilyn said: I'm just trying so see if a point of view can be seen to more understand why anyone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning.

Dave Lovell said:

Marilyn said: I'm just trying so see if a point of view can be seen to more understand why anyone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning.

And regardless of what you are trying to say, surely it is necessary to establish there is a need for a life saving warning in the first place. A fire in a crowded building would potentially be a dangerous situation requiring a warning, but shouting "FIRE!" in such a place would be a potentially reckless act. I think I would need to both see the fire and establish its nature before running the risk of creating unwarranted panic; for example birthday candles on a cake would probably not merit the issuing of a warning even if I saw it with my own eyes. I certainly would not scream "FIRE!" simply because someone told me there was one, especially if that someone told me they only knew there must be one because somebody had told her that there used to be one a couple of thousand years ago. It seems you think it would be a good idea.

harold said:

Marilyn said:

EvoDevo said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you ever wish for something that you cannot fulfil for your self? What do you think of the instruction - If you fell too many trees it will effect the eco system and so destroy the planet -. If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences. How would you react if blatantly no notice was taken. Of course there are other things that effect the safety of the planet beyond our control, but I'm talking about a warning instruction.

I don't understand the points of your questions. Can you restate them or expand on them or somehow clarify them?

She's trying to get you to convert.

I'm just trying so see if a point of view can be seen to more understand why anyone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning.

I'm having a hard time understanding you as well, Marilyn.

W. H. Heydt said: I think it's pretty clear what her whole point has been all along. She is trying to draw an analogy between warnings of impending adverse results from scientific findings and the evangelical imperative to spread what they claim is "good news". She is trying to parallel the risks of what we know--through evidence--of the risks and consequences of AGW and what she thinks is peril regarding an afterlife with no evidence to support it. The key difference is, of course, that on side of the comparison has evidence to support its conclusions and the other does not.

Marilyn said:

EvoDevo said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you ever wish for something that you cannot fulfil for your self? What do you think of the instruction - If you fell too many trees it will effect the eco system and so destroy the planet -. If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences. How would you react if blatantly no notice was taken. Of course there are other things that effect the safety of the planet beyond our control, but I'm talking about a warning instruction.

I don't understand the points of your questions. Can you restate them or expand on them or somehow clarify them?

She's trying to get you to convert.

I'm just trying so see if a point of view can be seen to more understand why anyone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning.

She is trying to draw an analogy between warnings of impending adverse results from scientific findings and the evangelical imperative to spread what they claim is “good news”.

EvoDevo said:

Marilyn said:

EvoDevo said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you ever wish for something that you cannot fulfil for your self? What do you think of the instruction - If you fell too many trees it will effect the eco system and so destroy the planet -. If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences. How would you react if blatantly no notice was taken. Of course there are other things that effect the safety of the planet beyond our control, but I'm talking about a warning instruction.

I don't understand the points of your questions. Can you restate them or expand on them or somehow clarify them?

She's trying to get you to convert.

I'm just trying so see if a point of view can be seen to more understand why anyone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning.

This blog is not about "life saving warnings". It's about the "creation-evolution controversy". So please, try to stay on topic.

Forgive me for being blunt, dull, stupid, and for stating the obvious, but I believe Marilyn is being civil and subtle while FL is crass and obnoxious.

The message is, "I have knowledge of impending doom. I can't tell you how, because you wouldn't believe me, and you would laugh at me. But I know it is true. And if you ignore it, you will perish. I don't want you to perish. How can I convince you to see what I have seen, to know what I know? I don't want you to perish."

This is the theme of many a good science fiction movie. It is the theme of Christianity, if you like.

C.S. Lewis was perhaps the best proponent expressing this idea, in a Christian context. He had a way with words, and was affable and endearing.

I can appreciate people like this, even if I don't agree entirely with their message.

I decidedly don't appreciate FL and the way he delivers his 'message'.

Thanks for listening.

apokryltaros said:

EvoDevo said:

Marilyn said:

EvoDevo said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you ever wish for something that you cannot fulfil for your self? What do you think of the instruction - If you fell too many trees it will effect the eco system and so destroy the planet -. If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences. How would you react if blatantly no notice was taken. Of course there are other things that effect the safety of the planet beyond our control, but I'm talking about a warning instruction.

I don't understand the points of your questions. Can you restate them or expand on them or somehow clarify them?

She's trying to get you to convert.

I'm just trying so see if a point of view can be seen to more understand why anyone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning.

This blog is not about "life saving warnings". It's about the "creation-evolution controversy". So please, try to stay on topic.

In particular, this specific entry is about how some American Christian home-schoolers do not hate science or evolution, to the point where they try to give their children a competent science education. And having said that, trying to give a "life saving warning" by shielding children from the alleged spiritually harmful effects of an adequate science education is tantamount to teaching a 6 year old to not play with matches at an oil refinery using only reverse psychology.

I believe prongs may have articulated exactly what Marilyn meant. But only "may have". Unless we have her specific consent to that form of words, further speculation is idle.

Rolf said: Let me add that I remember Ray admitting at talkorigins that he is a brainwashed Christian.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Home-schooling exists, in part, to prevent indoctrination from the Atheist/Evolution agenda.

Ah but Ray Martinez, once the camel gets his nose inside the tent, it's too late. See, those kids are smart. They can see that no gods are necessary for evolution to work...

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: Brainwashing is FORCING someone to think a certain way. Harold, our Evolutionist, said it is only required that one understands evolutionary theory. This requirement, in the context of higher education, says one must understand or fail the class and jeopardize graduation and future.

That's right Ray. Brainwashing is FORCING someone to think a certain way. That's what religious nuts do, not science teachers. A science teacher cannot do that. All they can do is ask test questions and grade you accordingly.

They cannot read minds. They cannot possibly know what you really think. [Science teachers] don't care what you really think.

harold said:

Brainwashing is FORCING someone to think a certain way.

That's a reasonable definition.

Harold, our Evolutionist, said it is only required that one understands evolutionary theory. This requirement, in the context of higher education, says one must understand or fail the class and jeopardize graduation and future.

In other words, Ray Martinez is the one who advocates brainwash. After all, you can never force anyone to understand something. If they really can't understand it, of course they can't get credit for learning it. Many wonderful people have some kind of disability that prevents them from, for example, earning a high school diploma. That doesn't make them bad people, obviously. You can't make them "understand" by trying to force them, though. And if someone can understand something, they don't necessarily have to believe in it. I have a pretty solid understanding of astrology, for example. I was curious about it at a young age, and learned about it. It's a fascinating cultural construction. But I don't "believe" in astrology. You can, on the other hand, very easily force someone not to understand something, but keeping them ignorant of it, or force them to pretend that they don't understand it with threats of social ostracism or physical abuse, even if they actually do. Creationists are afraid that if students actually do understand the theory of evolution, it will make sense to them.

RPST said:

In other words, Ray Martinez is the one who advocates brainwash

Indeed. Science is a methodology, and a set of explanations generated using that methodology. As a society we have chosen to teach this methodology and set of explanations to all children, because we have recognized that science per se (not science as one might redefine it for some reason) has been so spectacluarly successful at generating useful knowledge, that we conclude everyone should be fluent in it. Ray hates science, because none of the explanations it generates help support his goofy superstitious obsessions in any way, and many of the findings of science directly destroy claims made about those superstitions. For Ray, being a religious totalitarian bigot, the answer is to attack science, to lie about it, and redefine it such that it can be portrayed as supporting his fairy tales. Science as he imagines it would be very useful for brainwashing people into agreeing with his bullshit (or at least seeingno coherent alternative), and would be totally useless for generating the kinds of useful explanations that have led to space exploration beyond the solar system, ubiquitious access to human information, modern agriculture and medicine, the PC Ray types his drivel into, and the LED TV he watches his leaders preach nonsense on. Science as Ray imagines it, would leave us one day starving in mud huts, ignorant and stupid, diseased and afraid, while a tiny elite of supposedly divinely-guided elites laugh at us from their thrones and tell us god intended it this way. Ray doesn't care.

Ray Martinez said:

Rolf said: Let me add that I remember Ray admitting at talkorigins that he is a brainwashed Christian.

Absolutely correct. I am completely and irreversibly brainwashed by Christ, the Bible, and Church scholars. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are completely brainwashed by Naturalism, Darwin, and his Atheist successors.

raven said:

Marilyn: Would you ever warn anyone of the consequences of their actions if you knew they were doing wrong and what the out come of their actions would be.

Sure. We do it all the time. Some examples. 1. Creationism is a lie. All creationists are liars. This is BTW, one of the purposes of this website.

2. Hitchens Rule. Religion poisons everything.

Ray demonstrates that he hasn't the faintest idea what constitutes brainwashing, and is trying to apply the term to any form of learning.

phhht said: And what can Christ, the Bible, and Church scholars do? Well, they can't tell very good stories. Compared to Harry Potter or The Avengers, they're boooring.

Ray Martinez said: Since the student must attain a predetermined level of understanding the ToE or fail the class and jeopardize graduation and future, one can certainly say brainwashing is occurring.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: And what can Christ, the Bible, and Church scholars do? Well, they can't tell very good stories. Compared to Harry Potter or The Avengers, they're boooring.

The Bible has been the focus of scholarly attention for thousands of years, including non-Christian scholars. Can you name even one scholar whose mind has been occupied by Harry Potter? LOL!

Ray Martinez said: The Bible has been the focus of scholarly attention for thousands of years...

Here, Ray, a collection of scholarly essays on Harry Potter:

http://mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=6382&pc=9

You going to eat your words now, Ray?

Ray is happy beneath his tinfoil hat, a throwback born 2000 years too late.

" further speculation is idle."

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said: Brainwashing is FORCING someone to think a certain way. Harold, our Evolutionist, said it is only required that one understands evolutionary theory. This requirement, in the context of higher education, says one must understand or fail the class and jeopardize graduation and future.

That's right Ray. Brainwashing is FORCING someone to think a certain way. That's what religious nuts do, not science teachers. A science teacher cannot do that. All they can do is ask test questions and grade you accordingly.

If the student does not attain understanding of evolutionary theory the science teacher will not pass the student. If the student does not pass the class graduation and future, like I said, are jeopardized. So how is the teaching of evolution not brainwashing? I would appreciate if you would address and answer these points?

They cannot read minds. They cannot possibly know what you really think. [Science teachers] don't care what you really think.

The science teacher doesn't care what the student thinks concerning evolutionary theory? I will wait for your clarification.

Think o f it this way Ray, if a teacher taught comparative religion he could ask the student about the beleies of any given religion, which are polytheistic, which are monotheistic, which believe in an afterlife, which believe in reincarnation, etc. The student would not have to beleive in any religion in order to pass the class. The teacher would not care if the student believed in any religion. That is not the point of the class. Is the really so hard for you to understand? Are your really incapable of understanding anything that you choose not to believe in? That's sad Ray, very sad.

prongs said:

" further speculation is idle."

True indeed. Is Marilyn an exceedingly clever troll? Or a truly sincere individual? How can one tell? The evidence of the written words. But that evidence can be cleverly crafted. What Turing test is there to know if those printed words come from a human being and not an intelligently designed computer program? Or a sincere or insincere individual? What is the reliability of that test? All I have to go on are my own feelings. Often I can detect dishonesty, but every time? Was it Feynman that said, "The easiest person to fool with the evidence is yourself"? I don't know the answers. All I know is that I come here honestly, and I expect others do the same.

Here is the thing Ray, if you don't understand it, how do you know that you don't believe it?

Think of it this way Ray, understanding is a prerequisite for belief, the reverse is not true. That would be a logical error. I think the technical term is putting Descartes before de horse.

Ray,

You do know that creationist have gotten PhDs in biology in order to attack evolution right? So I guess their professors never knew what they believed, probably never asked, probably never cared. The whole world is not like you Ray. Get over it.

Dave Luckett said: Ray demonstrates that he hasn't the faintest idea what constitutes brainwashing, and is trying to apply the term to any form of learning.

Dave Luckett said: Here, Ray, a collection of scholarly essays on Harry Potter: http://mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=6382&pc=9 You going to eat your words now, Ray?

No Ray, they do not. They never did and they never will. Only intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt people would do such a thing. It would be blatantly illegal and immoral. Just because that is the way you would act, don't project your shortcomings on others. I have proven that you are dead wrong about this, just admit it like a man and get over it.

Education is not brainwashing. Repeat it two hundred times until it sinks in, if that's what it takes.

DS said: Ray, You do know that creationist have gotten PhDs in biology in order to attack evolution right? So I guess their professors never knew what they believed, probably never asked, probably never cared. The whole world is not like you Ray. Get over it.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Ray, You do know that creationist have gotten PhDs in biology in order to attack evolution right? So I guess their professors never knew what they believed, probably never asked, probably never cared. The whole world is not like you Ray. Get over it.

Much like Atheists who obtained advanced degrees in Religion, Theology, and other related disciplines? Did their professors know what they were up to? But again, the point is that since graduation and future is on the line, some degree of forced understanding (brainwashing) is being practiced.

Ray Martinez said:

Dave Luckett said: Here, Ray, a collection of scholarly essays on Harry Potter: http://mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=6382&pc=9 You going to eat your words now, Ray?

My point is not harmed in any way. The number of scholars whose minds have been occupied with the Bible (countless) and the number of scholars whose minds have been occupied with Harry Potter (handful to be generous). Your inability to understand, be objective, and concede the point, is the real point. Ray (Christian)

Scott F said: First, I want Creationists to stop using public funds to lie to children.

When Creationists say there was a global flood that killed all life on Earth, that is a lie.

When they say that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, that is a lie.

When they say Evolution cannot explain the diversity of life, that is a lie.

When they say that Evolution is a theory in crisis, that is a lie.

When they say that there is "scientific" controversy about the fundamentals of Evolution, that is a lie.

When they say that humans and (non-avian) dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time, that is a lie.

Second, I want to see a better life for my son, and the rest of our children. By rejecting science, by rejecting evidence, by rejecting reality, Creationists are systematically ruining our country. The United States has the largest military and arguably the strongest economy in the world. But look closer at the details. By almost every other measure, the People of the United States are worse off than almost every other developed country in the world. The US comes in at or near the very bottom in infant mortality, education, medical care, standard of living, investment in public infrastructure. The US leads the developed world in teen pregnancy, early death, poverty, crime, incarceration, drug abuse, economic inequality. Just because we are "big", does not mean we are "best". This is why I "disrespect" the Creationist "way of addressing life's issues." Because that way doesn't work. It fails to address the real suffering of humanity. It fails to address reality. It demonstrably makes the human condition worse.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Ray, You do know that creationist have gotten PhDs in biology in order to attack evolution right? So I guess their professors never knew what they believed, probably never asked, probably never cared. The whole world is not like you Ray. Get over it.

Much like Atheists who obtained advanced degrees in Religion, Theology, and other related disciplines? Did their professors know what they were up to? But again, the point is that since graduation and future is on the line, some degree of forced understanding (brainwashing) is being practiced.

Ray Martinez said: blah blah blah

DS said:

prongs said:

" further speculation is idle."

True indeed. Is Marilyn an exceedingly clever troll? Or a truly sincere individual? How can one tell? The evidence of the written words. But that evidence can be cleverly crafted. What Turing test is there to know if those printed words come from a human being and not an intelligently designed computer program? Or a sincere or insincere individual? What is the reliability of that test? All I have to go on are my own feelings. Often I can detect dishonesty, but every time? Was it Feynman that said, "The easiest person to fool with the evidence is yourself"? I don't know the answers. All I know is that I come here honestly, and I expect others do the same.

Marilyn has had a day to clarify a simple statement. The fact that she has chosen not to do so, after promising to do so, is evidence that either she has no idea what she meant in the first place or she was just yanking chains and has now given up. Either way, she seems incapable of articulating anything coherently. Speculation and responses are futile. That is all.

So that would be a no. You can't construct a meaningful sentence. You can't explain what you meant and you can't present any coherent argument. Got it.

And just for the record, I am not the only one who had no idea what you were talking about. It is not my fault that you cannot be understood. Take some responsibility for your incoherence at least.

Marilyn said: What bothers me is the extreme intolerance of a persons belief in God.

DS said: So that would be a no. You can't construct a meaningful sentence. You can't explain what you meant and you can't present any coherent argument. Got it. And just for the record, I am not the only one who had no idea what you were talking about. It is not my fault that you cannot be understood. Take some responsibility for your incoherence at least.

gnome de net said:

Marilyn said: What bothers me is the extreme intolerance of a persons belief in God.

We are not intolerant of a person's belief in God; we are intolerant of a person who tries to impose that belief on somebody else.

gnome de net said:

Marilyn said: What bothers me is the extreme intolerance of a persons belief in God.

We are not intolerant of a person's belief in God; we are intolerant of a person who tries to impose that belief on somebody else.

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Ray, You do know that creationist have gotten PhDs in biology in order to attack evolution right? So I guess their professors never knew what they believed, probably never asked, probably never cared. The whole world is not like you Ray. Get over it.

Much like Atheists who obtained advanced degrees in Religion, Theology, and other related disciplines? Did their professors know what they were up to? But again, the point is that since graduation and future is on the line, some degree of forced understanding (brainwashing) is being practiced.

Bullshit. How could thier professors possibly know what they were up to? Why would they care? You are just plain wrong and too stubborn to admit it.

Religions operate by brainwashing people. Education is the EXACT OPPOSITE of brainwashing. Until you admit this you are being disingenuous and deceitful.

Any further replies by me to you will be on the bathroom wall, which is more than you deserve.

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Ray, You do know that creationist have gotten PhDs in biology in order to attack evolution right? So I guess their professors never knew what they believed, probably never asked, probably never cared. The whole world is not like you Ray. Get over it.

Much like Atheists who obtained advanced degrees in Religion, Theology, and other related disciplines? Did their professors know what they were up to? But again, the point is that since graduation and future is on the line, some degree of forced understanding (brainwashing) is being practiced.

Nope - brainwashing is essentially forced acceptance of an idea.

Understanding cannot be forced - you demonstrate that again and again and again and again and again and again !

phhht said: The trouble with your arguments, Ray, is that there are no gods. Not a one. Nowhere. We look and look, but what do we find? Nothing. Nobody can detect a god. Nobody can see one, hear one, feel one, smell one, or taste one. Gods have not the slightest perceptible effect on reality.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: The trouble with your arguments, Ray, is that there are no gods. Not a one. Nowhere. We look and look, but what do we find? Nothing. Nobody can detect a god. Nobody can see one, hear one, feel one, smell one, or taste one. Gods have not the slightest perceptible effect on reality.

Millions upon millions of Christians and Creationists completely disagree.

Marilyn said: Also I see no reason why someone who believes in God should not study science as well.

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Ray, You do know that creationist have gotten PhDs in biology in order to attack evolution right? So I guess their professors never knew what they believed, probably never asked, probably never cared. The whole world is not like you Ray. Get over it.

Much like Atheists who obtained advanced degrees in Religion, Theology, and other related disciplines? Did their professors know what they were up to? But again, the point is that since graduation and future is on the line, some degree of forced understanding (brainwashing) is being practiced.

Nope - brainwashing is essentially forced acceptance of an idea.

I defined "brainwashing" early on as "forcing someone to think a certain way." It appears you agree.

Understanding cannot be forced - you demonstrate that again and again and again and again and again and again !

IF graduation and future is on the line, yes it is to some degree which I am rightfully calling brainwashing.

prongs said:

Marilyn said: Also I see no reason why someone who believes in God should not study science as well.

Indeed, you are correct. Absolutely, positively correct. Did you know that there is an Elder in the Presbyterian Church amongst the regular posters here? At the same time we have others here who see absolutely no evidence whatsoever for gods. In the middle we have exquisitely eloquent posters who say, "I see no evidence for God or gods, but I can't rule out the possibility." We have Unitarians. We have atheists. We are Americans (mostly). So I say unto you, be not discouraged. The World is a cruel place, and this forum can be an especially cruel place. Lurk, post sparingly. Measure your words carefully. Isolation is suffocating. Discourse brings new ideas. In case of a misstep, you are protected by your anonymity. Call me naïve, but I believe in the human spirit, the value of free discourse. If I am fooled by a troll is the sin mine, or the trolls? Good luck in your study. (I'll get off my soapbox now. Thanks for listening.)

Ray Martinez said: When the Pastor teaches the word of God at a Church service the doors are not locked, everyone is free to leave anytime, or if the teaching is on public airwaves everyone is free to change the channel, no here-and-now incentive exists to make any person stay and listen, unlike public higher education where graduation and future is on the line. I don't see why you are so afraid to admit since you do indeed believe that everyone should have their brainwashed with the "truth of evolution."

Well it seems that Marilyn is still trying to figure out what she meant. Sure hope she isn't the one teaching a home school.

In the meantime I have to admit that she is absolutely right. There is no reason whatsoever why someone who believes in god should not study science as well. But that was the entire point of this thread in the first place. Why home school children just to prevent them from learning science and dealing with reality? If you lie to them and cheat them out of a real education you aren't doing them any favors. What ever happened to "teach the controversy"? I guess that only applied to kids who were being taught science in the first place.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Religions operate by brainwashing people. Education is the EXACT OPPOSITE of brainwashing. Until you admit this you are being disingenuous and deceitful.

It is not deceitful to disagree with your pro-Atheism opinions concerning religion. When the Pastor teaches the word of God at a Church service the doors are not locked, everyone is free to leave anytime, or if the teaching is on public airwaves everyone is free to change the channel, no here-and-now incentive exists to make any person stay and listen, unlike public higher education where graduation and future is on the line. I don't see why you are so afraid to admit since you do indeed believe that everyone should have their brainwashed with the "truth of evolution."

PA Poland said: Nope - brainwashing is essentially forced acceptance of an idea.

Ray M. said I defined "brainwashing" early on as "forcing someone to think a certain way." It appears you agree.

PA Poland said: Nope - again, twit : brainwashing is forced acceptance; reality-based education is NOT brainwashing the way sane and rational folk understand it. Oh, THAT'S RIGHT ! You're a posturing imbecile ! The only way for you to 'win' is to redefine words to fit your ridiculous 'interpretations'. You can 'define' as many words as you like; the rest of the world is under no obligation to accept your peculiar alterations of the language. You really SHOULD see someone about your tendency to halllucinate agreement where there is none.

As others have pointed out, there ARE creationuts that studied real-world science (IIRC, Johnathan Wells the Mooney, and Kurt Wise - who studied under Stephen J Gould)and GOT THEIR DEGREES anyway.

A global flood was rejected by Christians centuries ago when observations of the REAL WORLD did not fit what should be seen if there had been a world-wide flood.

Even St Augustine about 1700 years ago warned about your form of idiocy Ray.

phhht said: The trouble with your arguments, Ray, is that there are no gods. Not a one. Nowhere. We look and look, but what do we find? Nothing. Nobody can detect a god. Nobody can see one, hear one, feel one, smell one, or taste one. Gods have not the slightest perceptible effect on reality. The only reason to consider gods at all is because you loons keep insisting that they are real. But you got nothin' to back you but hot air and denial. You can no more support your claims than you can jump to the moon. Your gods are feckless and impotent, Ray, because they are imaginary. They are fictional, just like Harry Potter. They are not real

j. biggs said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Religions operate by brainwashing people. Education is the EXACT OPPOSITE of brainwashing. Until you admit this you are being disingenuous and deceitful.

It is not deceitful to disagree with your pro-Atheism opinions concerning religion. When the Pastor teaches the word of God at a Church service the doors are not locked, everyone is free to leave anytime, or if the teaching is on public airwaves everyone is free to change the channel, no here-and-now incentive exists to make any person stay and listen, unlike public higher education where graduation and future is on the line. I don't see why you are so afraid to admit since you do indeed believe that everyone should have their brainwashed with the "truth of evolution."

Ray what you neglect to mention is that religion is typically inherited.

Certainly there are exceptions but most generally children are brought up in the church, mosque, etc. that their parents attend. Children most definitely do not have a choice in the matter. Children can not get up and decide to leave service. Most of these kids will have sat through more than a decade of this before they are given a real choice as to whether or not to attend. By that point, they are already brainwashed. And if by some chance a kid decides to leave said church, there will be an immense amount of social pressure applied by the family to stay in the fold. In some cases children are shunned by their family and everyone else in the church for making a decision to follow another religion or no religion at all.

There in lies the difference. Evolution is a portion of the Biology curriculum in some U.S. high-schools. In fact it would most likely be possible to fail the evolution section and still pass the class and eventually graduate. No biology teacher will shun the student even if the student loudly proclaims, "Evilution is of the devil." Yes the student will still be expected to know the material and the teacher probably won't be asking them to join the science club, but shunned?, not in the least. On top of this, the evolution section (if there even is one) will be covered in a few weeks.

The first paragraph illustrates years of indoctrination and brainwashing. The second illustrates a brief presentation of an important theory of biology within an educational framework. I know you won't (or will at least pretend not to) know the difference. But really, Ray, all this blathering really makes you look more loony than the majority of creo-trolls that comment here. (However, Athiestoclast aka Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr still has you beat)

phhht said: Well, Ray? Catalepsy got your tongue? Failure to respond means you have lost the argument.

phhht said: The trouble with your arguments, Ray, is that there are no gods. Not a one. Nowhere. We look and look, but what do we find? Nothing. Nobody can detect a god. Nobody can see one, hear one, feel one, smell one, or taste one. Gods have not the slightest perceptible effect on reality. The only reason to consider gods at all is because you loons keep insisting that they are real. But you got nothin' to back you but hot air and denial. You can no more support your claims than you can jump to the moon. Your gods are feckless and impotent, Ray, because they are imaginary. They are fictional, just like Harry Potter. They are not real

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: Well, Ray? Catalepsy got your tongue? Failure to respond means you have lost the argument.

phhht said: The trouble with your arguments, Ray, is that there are no gods. Not a one. Nowhere. We look and look, but what do we find? Nothing. Nobody can detect a god. Nobody can see one, hear one, feel one, smell one, or taste one. Gods have not the slightest perceptible effect on reality. The only reason to consider gods at all is because you loons keep insisting that they are real. But you got nothin' to back you but hot air and denial. You can no more support your claims than you can jump to the moon. Your gods are feckless and impotent, Ray, because they are imaginary. They are fictional, just like Harry Potter. They are not real

Once again: millions and millions of Christians and Creationists completely disagree.

Ray Martinez said:

j. biggs said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Religions operate by brainwashing people. Education is the EXACT OPPOSITE of brainwashing. Until you admit this you are being disingenuous and deceitful.

It is not deceitful to disagree with your pro-Atheism opinions concerning religion. When the Pastor teaches the word of God at a Church service the doors are not locked, everyone is free to leave anytime, or if the teaching is on public airwaves everyone is free to change the channel, no here-and-now incentive exists to make any person stay and listen, unlike public higher education where graduation and future is on the line. I don't see why you are so afraid to admit since you do indeed believe that everyone should have their brainwashed with the "truth of evolution."

Ray what you neglect to mention is that religion is typically inherited.

There are COUNTLESS testimonies of Atheists who became Christians. If fact, we all were Atheists before conversion. God has no grandchildren as one Theologian has rightly observed.

Certainly there are exceptions but most generally children are brought up in the church, mosque, etc. that their parents attend. Children most definitely do not have a choice in the matter. Children can not get up and decide to leave service. Most of these kids will have sat through more than a decade of this before they are given a real choice as to whether or not to attend. By that point, they are already brainwashed. And if by some chance a kid decides to leave said church, there will be an immense amount of social pressure applied by the family to stay in the fold. In some cases children are shunned by their family and everyone else in the church for making a decision to follow another religion or no religion at all.

We were not talking about children or minors, but adults in college. Children in every aspect of society have no choice but to do what their parents tell them to do. This of course includes Atheist families who poison their children's mind against religion.

There in lies the difference. Evolution is a portion of the Biology curriculum in some U.S. high-schools. In fact it would most likely be possible to fail the evolution section and still pass the class and eventually graduate. No biology teacher will shun the student even if the student loudly proclaims, "Evilution is of the devil." Yes the student will still be expected to know the material and the teacher probably won't be asking them to join the science club, but shunned?, not in the least. On top of this, the evolution section (if there even is one) will be covered in a few weeks.

We were talking about higher education where graduation and future is on the line, especially if a scholarship is involved or little money. These students are forced to bow to Darwin. It's hard to understand what you don't understand?

The first paragraph illustrates years of indoctrination and brainwashing. The second illustrates a brief presentation of an important theory of biology within an educational framework. I know you won't (or will at least pretend not to) know the difference. But really, Ray, all this blathering really makes you look more loony than the majority of creo-trolls that comment here. (However, Athiestoclast aka Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr still has you beat)

Again, your entire argument fails because the issue was not children but adults in college. And I'm not the least bit insulted to be viewed as loony by a person who thinks the wonders of nature produced themself while tethered to a genuine element of chance. In fact, I'm relieved to be rejected by your kind.

RPST said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: Well, Ray? Catalepsy got your tongue? Failure to respond means you have lost the argument.

phhht said: The trouble with your arguments, Ray, is that there are no gods. Not a one. Nowhere. We look and look, but what do we find? Nothing. Nobody can detect a god. Nobody can see one, hear one, feel one, smell one, or taste one. Gods have not the slightest perceptible effect on reality. The only reason to consider gods at all is because you loons keep insisting that they are real. But you got nothin' to back you but hot air and denial. You can no more support your claims than you can jump to the moon. Your gods are feckless and impotent, Ray, because they are imaginary. They are fictional, just like Harry Potter. They are not real

Once again: millions and millions of Christians and Creationists completely disagree.

Ray bases the validity of his religion on the same footing as one might use to support the existence of bigfoot, ghosts, ESP or alien abduction. Lots and lots of people agree with my imaginary BS, so there MUST be something to it. World doesn't work that way, Ray. Your delusions are delusional. It doesn't matter how many people you define as somehow agreeing with you, you still have no argument and no evidence to declare your fantasies real. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence. Goodbye.

Lying Troll lied:

RPST said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: Well, Ray? Catalepsy got your tongue? Failure to respond means you have lost the argument.

phhht said: The trouble with your arguments, Ray, is that there are no gods. Not a one. Nowhere. We look and look, but what do we find? Nothing. Nobody can detect a god. Nobody can see one, hear one, feel one, smell one, or taste one. Gods have not the slightest perceptible effect on reality. The only reason to consider gods at all is because you loons keep insisting that they are real. But you got nothin' to back you but hot air and denial. You can no more support your claims than you can jump to the moon. Your gods are feckless and impotent, Ray, because they are imaginary. They are fictional, just like Harry Potter. They are not real

Once again: millions and millions of Christians and Creationists completely disagree.

Ray bases the validity of his religion on the same footing as one might use to support the existence of bigfoot, ghosts, ESP or alien abduction. Lots and lots of people agree with my imaginary BS, so there MUST be something to it. World doesn't work that way, Ray. Your delusions are delusional. It doesn't matter how many people you define as somehow agreeing with you, you still have no argument and no evidence to declare your fantasies real. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence. Goodbye.

We are Christians and Creationists because our explanation of evidence is far superior than your explanation of the same evidence.

Ray Martinez said: We are Christians and Creationists because our explanation of evidence is far superior than your explanation of the same evidence.

Ray Martinez said:

RPST said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: Well, Ray? Catalepsy got your tongue? Failure to respond means you have lost the argument.

phhht said: The trouble with your arguments, Ray, is that there are no gods. Not a one. Nowhere. We look and look, but what do we find? Nothing. Nobody can detect a god. Nobody can see one, hear one, feel one, smell one, or taste one. Gods have not the slightest perceptible effect on reality. The only reason to consider gods at all is because you loons keep insisting that they are real. But you got nothin' to back you but hot air and denial. You can no more support your claims than you can jump to the moon. Your gods are feckless and impotent, Ray, because they are imaginary. They are fictional, just like Harry Potter. They are not real

Once again: millions and millions of Christians and Creationists completely disagree.

Ray bases the validity of his religion on the same footing as one might use to support the existence of bigfoot, ghosts, ESP or alien abduction. Lots and lots of people agree with my imaginary BS, so there MUST be something to it. World doesn't work that way, Ray. Your delusions are delusional. It doesn't matter how many people you define as somehow agreeing with you, you still have no argument and no evidence to declare your fantasies real. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence. Goodbye.

We are Christians and Creationists because our explanation of evidence is far superior than your explanation of the same evidence.

prongs said: The message is, "I have knowledge of impending doom. I can't tell you how, because you wouldn't believe me, and you would laugh at me. But I know it is true. And if you ignore it, you will perish. I don't want you to perish. How can I convince you to see what I have seen, to know what I know? I don't want you to perish." This is the theme of many a good science fiction movie. It is the theme of Christianity, if you like. C.S. Lewis was perhaps the best proponent expressing this idea, in a Christian context. He had a way with words, and was affable and endearing.

Carl Drews said:

prongs said: The message is, "I have knowledge of impending doom. I can't tell you how, because you wouldn't believe me, and you would laugh at me. But I know it is true. And if you ignore it, you will perish. I don't want you to perish. How can I convince you to see what I have seen, to know what I know? I don't want you to perish." This is the theme of many a good science fiction movie. It is the theme of Christianity, if you like. C.S. Lewis was perhaps the best proponent expressing this idea, in a Christian context. He had a way with words, and was affable and endearing.

I like prongs' paraphrase here as a combination of John 3:16 plus the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20 and Acts 1:7-8). Note that one particular sentence is repeated: "I don't want you to perish." Nice word-smithing, prongs! Some parents are afraid that their children will perish spiritually in a public school. I didn't.

DS said: So that would be a no. You can't construct a meaningful sentence. You can't explain what you meant and you can't present any coherent argument. Got it. And just for the record, I am not the only one who had no idea what you were talking about. It is not my fault that you cannot be understood. Take some responsibility for your incoherence at least.

DS said: Well it seems that Marilyn is still trying to figure out what she meant. Sure hope she isn't the one teaching a home school. In the meantime I have to admit that she is absolutely right. There is no reason whatsoever why someone who believes in god should not study science as well. But that was the entire point of this thread in the first place. Why home school children just to prevent them from learning science and dealing with reality? If you lie to them and cheat them out of a real education you aren't doing them any favors. What ever happened to "teach the controversy"? I guess that only applied to kids who were being taught science in the first place.

Dave Lovell said:

Marilyn said: I'm just trying so see if a point of view can be seen to more understand why anyone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning.

And regardless of what you are trying to say, surely it is necessary to establish there is a need for a life saving warning in the first place. A fire in a crowded building would potentially be a dangerous situation requiring a warning, but shouting "FIRE!" in such a place would be a potentially reckless act. I think I would need to both see the fire and establish its nature before running the risk of creating unwarranted panic; for example birthday candles on a cake would probably not merit the issuing of a warning even if I saw it with my own eyes. I certainly would not scream "FIRE!" simply because someone told me there was one, especially if that someone told me they only knew there must be one because somebody had told her that there used to be one a couple of thousand years ago. It seems you think it would be a good idea.

DS said:

Dave Lovell said:

Marilyn said: I'm just trying so see if a point of view can be seen to more understand why anyone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning.

And regardless of what you are trying to say, surely it is necessary to establish there is a need for a life saving warning in the first place. A fire in a crowded building would potentially be a dangerous situation requiring a warning, but shouting "FIRE!" in such a place would be a potentially reckless act. I think I would need to both see the fire and establish its nature before running the risk of creating unwarranted panic; for example birthday candles on a cake would probably not merit the issuing of a warning even if I saw it with my own eyes. I certainly would not scream "FIRE!" simply because someone told me there was one, especially if that someone told me they only knew there must be one because somebody had told her that there used to be one a couple of thousand years ago. It seems you think it would be a good idea.

Precisely. If Marilyn is trying to say that preaching in school is OK because it is done with the best of intentions, then no, I would have to disagree. If however she is trying to say something else, she is going to have to enlighten us as to what that might be. EIther way, she doesn't seem much interested in the actual topic here. Perhaps she was home schooled and her englishes is not too good. Perhaps that is the point. As to why someone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning, perhaps it might be because innocent bystanders might get killed. Such as when warnings about global warming are ignored. Such as when the ecological and evolutionary consequences of human actions are allowed to ruin the environment, regardless of the warnings of science. Perhaps when the lessons of history concerning the abuses of religion are ignored and once again there are holy wars, jihads, witch hunts and inquisitions. Perhaps those are the warnings she is referring to.

harold said:

Marilyn said:

EvoDevo said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said:

phhht said:

Marilyn said: Phhht said "But you bleating gibberers can’t propose any reasonable alternative." I ask I often wonder what your answer to it all is? Possibly left to own evolution devices things survive but to what ideal and to what end, to what direction. Is your ideal to stop people from believing in God and take a more blind route through life? Or do you think believing in God interferes with the more natural way of progress? Please explain your disrespect of other peoples way of addressing life's issues. What ideal do you expect from life.

I have no "answer to it all." I don't even understand the question. As far as I can see, there are no "ideals", no "end", no "direction," neither in evolution nor in anything else. What makes you think otherwise? I disrespect ways of "addressing life's issues" when those ways apparently depend not on reality, but on delusion. I disrespect religion because as far as I can tell, it is is based on the campfire superhero stories of Middle Eastern goatherds, presented with great solemn pomp as unjustified, unverifiable, implausible truth. And I find religious belief laughably silly. I mean, you expect me to swallow the notion of an invisible, immortal superman with magical powers who hears my thoughts and grants my wishes? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you ever wish for something that you cannot fulfil for your self? What do you think of the instruction - If you fell too many trees it will effect the eco system and so destroy the planet -. If you were to give those instructions how much effort would you put into it get the message across and stress the consequences. How would you react if blatantly no notice was taken. Of course there are other things that effect the safety of the planet beyond our control, but I'm talking about a warning instruction.

I don't understand the points of your questions. Can you restate them or expand on them or somehow clarify them?

She's trying to get you to convert.

I'm just trying so see if a point of view can be seen to more understand why anyone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning.

I'm having a hard time understanding you as well, Marilyn. As I have mentioned before, this blog, and this thread, are not about "religion versus atheism". Some of the pro-science posters here are religious. The thread is about a religious home-schooler teaching science correctly. The issue here is the specific issue of science versus science denial in schools. The motivations for science denial are usually couched in religious terms, but it is usually also motivated by a social and political agenda, sometimes quite crassly so (for example, "religious" climate change denial by figures obviously close to the fossil fuel industry). Please try remain on the topic.

Dave Luckett said: "I’m just trying so see if a point of view can be seen to more understand why anyone would be angry at ignorance to a life saving warning." Look, Marilyn, I am not poking fun at you. Please believe me. Only I really don't understand your meaning, here. Do you mean "I'm trying to see whether a point of view is so important to you that you take offence at a warning that it is life-threatening"? Or do you mean "I'm trying to understand what it is about my life-saving warning that makes you feel angry"? Or do you mean "I'm trying to understand why anyone would be angry at someone else for being ignorant of a life-saving warning"? Or do you mean something completely different? Because, if you read your sentence exactly as you wrote it, word by word, you'll see that it doesn't actually make sense. I am guessing at what you meant, and I might have gotten it completely wrong.

Marilyn,

Thanks for reposting my responses so everyone could easily see that you were non responsive. Thanks for finally clarifying what you meant by your original question and removing any confusion.

As for your questions about god, no I can't imagine why anyone would get angry at a child, one who could not tell the difference between right and wrong because you never bothered to teach them, when they were deliberately exposed to a threat they did not understand and placed in imminent danger by allowing a known liar to have access to them and try to fool them. You would be arrested and have the kids taken away from you if you acted that way today. Your god must be a deceitful moron.

As for your musings about gamma ray bursts, they may be good for determining the periodicity of a pulsar, but that's about all. Trying to decode them for moral advice is insane. Even if they were a message from aliens, why should you assume that they are morally superior to humans? Seems like you will do anything to avoid actually making amoral choice of your own.

I have decided that it is worthless trying to haver a real conversation with you. Further responses to you by me, if any, will be on the bathroom wall. Have a nice life.

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

RPST said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: Well, Ray? Catalepsy got your tongue? Failure to respond means you have lost the argument.

phhht said: The trouble with your arguments, Ray, is that there are no gods. Not a one. Nowhere. We look and look, but what do we find? Nothing. Nobody can detect a god. Nobody can see one, hear one, feel one, smell one, or taste one. Gods have not the slightest perceptible effect on reality. The only reason to consider gods at all is because you loons keep insisting that they are real. But you got nothin' to back you but hot air and denial. You can no more support your claims than you can jump to the moon. Your gods are feckless and impotent, Ray, because they are imaginary. They are fictional, just like Harry Potter. They are not real

Once again: millions and millions of Christians and Creationists completely disagree.

Ray bases the validity of his religion on the same footing as one might use to support the existence of bigfoot, ghosts, ESP or alien abduction. Lots and lots of people agree with my imaginary BS, so there MUST be something to it. World doesn't work that way, Ray. Your delusions are delusional. It doesn't matter how many people you define as somehow agreeing with you, you still have no argument and no evidence to declare your fantasies real. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence. Goodbye.

We are Christians and Creationists because our explanation of evidence is far superior than your explanation of the same evidence.

How would YOU know ? You're slack-witted enough to 'think' that LEARNING = BRAINWASHING ! Since you REFUSE to learn anything, your opinions are baseless, and thus IRRELEVANT. So how, EXACTLY, did you 'determine' that your blubberings about the unknowable whim of an unknowable Magical Sky Pixie are a "superior explanation", given that you are willfully IGNORANT of, well, pretty much everything ? Your 'explanation' (ie, 'GODDIDIT !!!1!!111!!!1!) is merely a glorification of ignorance. A meaningless sound willfully stupid creationuts bleat when confronted by anything beyond their incredibly limited understanding. It can only come close to SOUNDING useful when people are ignorant of reality-based mechanisms. Which may explain why you are so afraid of education - the more people learn, the less relevant (and more ridiculous) your addle-pated rants become. Even Christians 1700+ years ago would call you a loon, Ray : "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]" Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) You do this pretty much every time you open your mouth Ray. Since you REFUSE to learn anything about the real world (since you 'think' that 'learning' is 'brainwashing'), you constantly talk nonsense about every field of science you gibber about. You whined and evaded that I somehow 'misrepresented St Augustine' elsewhere on this board; now where, EXACTLY, did I misrepresent what he was talking about ?

Marilyn said: OK..... Well... I wonder why you think it so unreal that God would be so angry at Eve for disobeying him on such an important warning, if a person doesn't believe in God then they still might see the point behind it.

Further more, my thoughts, that may not be of interest but... When I hear of Gamma Ray Bursts seen from far across the Galaxy I think to myself it could be a civilization not much different than ourselves or different whatever, sending a message or communicating "Don't mess with nuclear bombs that will destroy the planet and yourselves and all the animals that have a right to their place on it" I see it as a warning just like the warnings in the ancient writings done in the best way they could for us to learn a good way to survive on this planet. In other words "Don't kick the legs from under your chair".

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: We are Christians and Creationists because our explanation of evidence is far superior than your explanation of the same evidence.

But your "explanation" can't actually get anything done, Ray. Your gods have no perceptible effect on reality, so they're completely impotent. They can't be used to make reliable predictions. Thye can't even make themselves necessary to science, technology, engineering, or math. They're USELESS. Apart from that inconvenient truth, your explanation is every bit as good as ours.

Ray Martinez (responding to PA Poland) wrote: Your egregious misrepresentation of Augustine is clearly seen in the fact that your portrayal assumes that he supports your Atheist-Evolutionist view of Scripture. Quoting Augustine while asserting the same refutes me---a person who believes what he believed---while thinking his view supports your Atheist-Evolutionist view, shows how incredibly ignorant or naive you actually are. Augustine was an early Church Father and scriptural literalist. He believed reality, animate and inanimate, was created. When he lived neither Atheism as we know it today nor evolution as we know it today had any existence. I assume you reject my claim that you are ignorant. If I'm wrong, then produce an explanation of the Augustine quote that accounts for the fact that he was a Creationist who accepted reality created, and the fact that your worldview did not exist when he lived. You can't produce any such explanation because you're quote-mining. Augustine was simply cautioning Christians to remember that non-believers believe differently about the world. He derided these ordinary believers for presenting their subjective view of Scripture to be the objective view of Scripture concerning the universe and world in a context that says secular people will disagree and then attribute these false views to be the view of the sacred authors. Augustine was arguing scriptural and secular cosmology are perceived to disagree, so don't focus on the issue at the expense of the important issues: resurrection, eternal life, and heaven. He was, in essence, expounding that if a Christian---who's perceived to speak in behalf of Scripture---makes cosmology mistakes, then these perceived mistakes will then be attributed to the sacred authors which will then discredit their authority in the weighty matters of salvation.

phhht said: Well Ray? You just can't bring yourself to face the fact that all your gods and ghosts and immaterial imaginings aren't real. They have no power in reality, because they don't exist. You just hallucinate them.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: We are Christians and Creationists because our explanation of evidence is far superior than your explanation of the same evidence.

But your "explanation" can't actually get anything done, Ray. Your gods have no perceptible effect on reality, so they're completely impotent. They can't be used to make reliable predictions. Thye can't even make themselves necessary to science, technology, engineering, or math. They're USELESS. [....snip....]

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: Well Ray? You just can't bring yourself to face the fact that all your gods and ghosts and immaterial imaginings aren't real. They have no power in reality, because they don't exist. You just hallucinate them.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: We are Christians and Creationists because our explanation of evidence is far superior than your explanation of the same evidence.

But your "explanation" can't actually get anything done, Ray. Your gods have no perceptible effect on reality, so they're completely impotent. They can't be used to make reliable predictions. Thye can't even make themselves necessary to science, technology, engineering, or math. They're USELESS. [....snip....]

Phhht, our Atheist-Evolutionist, feels compelled to repeat, over and over, the well known claims of Atheism and Evolutionism. One could only wonder why?

phhht said: Ray Martinez, our well-known loony immaterialist, is unable to address the facts of reality, and there is no reason to wonder why. He can't.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: We are Christians and Creationists because our explanation of evidence is far superior than your explanation of the same evidence.

But your "explanation" can't actually get anything done, Ray. Your gods have no perceptible effect on reality, so they're completely impotent. They can't be used to make reliable predictions. Thye can't even make themselves necessary to science, technology, engineering, or math. They're USELESS. Apart from that inconvenient truth, your explanation is every bit as good as ours.

apokryltaros said: ....Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who's trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

phhht said: So Ray, how come your all-powerful gods can't do shit? How come they can't tie a shoe, jump a rope, cook a meal, or have any other effect on reality? How do you explain that to yourself?

Isn't it because your impotent gods are not real, Ray? Isn't it because your helpless deities exist nowhere but in your head?

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: So Ray, how come your all-powerful gods can't do shit? How come they can't tie a shoe, jump a rope, cook a meal, or have any other effect on reality? How do you explain that to yourself?

Christ has millions and millions of people who attend Church, tithe, give of their time, perform good works, pray, fast, and some even forsake the security of the West and modern conveniences, and re-locate to Third World countries to teach them the Gospel.

Isn't it because your impotent gods are not real, Ray? Isn't it because your helpless deities exist nowhere but in your head?

Imagine that; Christians do all that is seen in my previous comments because they are horribly deluded, having a relationship with a non-existent Saviour!

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said: ....Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who's trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin's main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

It seems that my argument above really bothers Apokryltaros (an Atheist-Evolutionist).

phhht said: Oh, and how's it going with your efforts to find a way to detect design? Still nothing, huh?

So Ray, how come your all-powerful gods can’t do shit?

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

RPST said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said: Well, Ray? Catalepsy got your tongue? Failure to respond means you have lost the argument.

phhht said: The trouble with your arguments, Ray, is that there are no gods. Not a one. Nowhere. We look and look, but what do we find? Nothing. Nobody can detect a god. Nobody can see one, hear one, feel one, smell one, or taste one. Gods have not the slightest perceptible effect on reality. The only reason to consider gods at all is because you loons keep insisting that they are real. But you got nothin' to back you but hot air and denial. You can no more support your claims than you can jump to the moon. Your gods are feckless and impotent, Ray, because they are imaginary. They are fictional, just like Harry Potter. They are not real

Once again: millions and millions of Christians and Creationists completely disagree.

Ray bases the validity of his religion on the same footing as one might use to support the existence of bigfoot, ghosts, ESP or alien abduction. Lots and lots of people agree with my imaginary BS, so there MUST be something to it. World doesn't work that way, Ray. Your delusions are delusional. It doesn't matter how many people you define as somehow agreeing with you, you still have no argument and no evidence to declare your fantasies real. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence. Goodbye.

We are Christians and Creationists because our explanation of evidence is far superior than your explanation of the same evidence.

How would YOU know ? You're slack-witted enough to 'think' that LEARNING = BRAINWASHING ! Since you REFUSE to learn anything, your opinions are baseless, and thus IRRELEVANT. So how, EXACTLY, did you 'determine' that your blubberings about the unknowable whim of an unknowable Magical Sky Pixie are a "superior explanation", given that you are willfully IGNORANT of, well, pretty much everything ? Your 'explanation' (ie, 'GODDIDIT !!!1!!111!!!1!) is merely a glorification of ignorance. A meaningless sound willfully stupid creationuts bleat when confronted by anything beyond their incredibly limited understanding. It can only come close to SOUNDING useful when people are ignorant of reality-based mechanisms. Which may explain why you are so afraid of education - the more people learn, the less relevant (and more ridiculous) your addle-pated rants become. Even Christians 1700+ years ago would call you a loon, Ray : "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]" Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) You do this pretty much every time you open your mouth Ray. Since you REFUSE to learn anything about the real world (since you 'think' that 'learning' is 'brainwashing'), you constantly talk nonsense about every field of science you gibber about. You whined and evaded that I somehow 'misrepresented St Augustine' elsewhere on this board; now where, EXACTLY, did I misrepresent what he was talking about ?

Your egregious misrepresentation of Augustine is clearly seen in the fact that your portrayal assumes that he supports your Atheist-Evolutionist view of Scripture. Quoting Augustine while asserting the same refutes me---a person who believes he what he believed---while thinking his view supports your Atheist-Evolutionist view, shows how incredibly ignorant or naive you actually are.

Augustine was an early Church Father, and scriptural literalist. He believed reality, animate and inanimate, was created. When he lived neither Atheism as we know it today nor evolution as we know it today had any existence. I assume you reject my claim that you are ignorant. If I'm wrong, then produce an explanation of the Augustine quote that accounts for the fact that he was a Creationist who accepted reality created, and the fact that your worldview did not exist when he lived. You can't produce any such explanation because you're quote-mining.

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said: ....Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who's trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin's main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

It seems that my argument above really bothers Apokryltaros (an Atheist-Evolutionist). I'm a Christian, and you're a lying idiot.

So how's it going, Ray, in your fevered search for something - anything! - your gods can do to affect the real world?

Don't try that shit about how everybody believe in gods, Ray. That won't fly, as I have explained. You need unambiguous, empirical evidence.

But you have not a single, solitary shred of such evidence, do you, Ray. Evidence like that fills the world to overflowing with proof of the real, but you got nothing.

Is there an alternative explanation for why there is no evidence for the gods you cling to so doggedly? Of course there is, and it is a common-sense one: your gods are fictional, just like Harry Potter. That is why you have no evidence, Ray. Your gods are not real.

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said: ....Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who's trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin's main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said "Creationists" and "IDists" accept Darwin's MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin's and Dawkins's bed. In short, the persons who you hate the most are nonetheless in your camp, not mine. This explains the anger and profanity seen in your reply above.

It seems that my argument above really bothers Apokryltaros (an Atheist-Evolutionist). I'm a Christian, and you're a lying idiot.

Both Dembski and Ken Ham claim to be Christians as well. My only point: both you and them are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins. We believe Darwin and Dawkins are real Atheists. Objective thinkers know that real Christians do not lie on their backs while in bed with Atheists. Since no God exists Atheists MUST believe in the concept of evolution to explain the existence of species, unlike Christians. You're in the worst possible position and predicament. That said, I am quite relieved to be thought of as a "lying idiot" by a person like yourself. Ray (Christian; anti-selectionist/species immutabilist)

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said: ....Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who's trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin's main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said "Creationists" and "IDists" accept Darwin's MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin's and Dawkins's bed. In short, the persons who you hate the most are nonetheless in your camp, not mine. This explains the anger and profanity seen in your reply above.

It seems that my argument above really bothers Apokryltaros (an Atheist-Evolutionist). I'm a Christian, and you're a lying idiot.

Both Dembski and Ken Ham claim to be Christians as well. My only point: both you and them are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins. We believe Darwin and Dawkins are real Atheists. Objective thinkers know that real Christians do not lie on their backs while in bed with Atheists. Since no God exists Atheists MUST believe in the concept of evolution to explain the existence of species, unlike Christians. You're in the worst possible position and predicament. That said, I am quite relieved to be thought of as a "lying idiot" by a person like yourself. Ray (Christian; anti-selectionist/species immutabilist)

Since no evidence exists, creationists choose to believe in creationism for no good reason.

Since lots of good evidence exists, everyone is well justified in belief in evolution.

See Ray, you just can't get it through your head that evidence is the ONLY justification for any belief, ever. All other beliefs are arbitrary an subject to revision for any reason. That is all. You can go ahead shouting that so and so is really not a creationist all you want. Try arguing with them. No one here cares.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said: ....Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who's trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin's main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said "Creationists" and "IDists" accept Darwin's MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin's and Dawkins's bed. In short, the persons who you hate the most are nonetheless in your camp, not mine. This explains the anger and profanity seen in your reply above.

It seems that my argument above really bothers Apokryltaros (an Atheist-Evolutionist). I'm a Christian, and you're a lying idiot.

Both Dembski and Ken Ham claim to be Christians as well. My only point: both you and them are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins. We believe Darwin and Dawkins are real Atheists. Objective thinkers know that real Christians do not lie on their backs while in bed with Atheists. Since no God exists Atheists MUST believe in the concept of evolution to explain the existence of species, unlike Christians. You're in the worst possible position and predicament. That said, I am quite relieved to be thought of as a "lying idiot" by a person like yourself. Ray (Christian; anti-selectionist/species immutabilist)

Since no evidence exists, creationists choose to believe in creationism for no good reason.

Creationists, of course, completely disagree. Only Atheists and Evolutionists believe no evidence exists supporting Creationism.

Since lots of good evidence exists, everyone is well justified in belief in evolution.

Only Atheists and Evolutionists believe evidence supporting evolution exists.

See Ray, you just can't get it through your head that evidence is the ONLY justification for any belief, ever. All other beliefs are arbitrary an subject to revision for any reason. That is all. You can go ahead shouting that so and so is really not a creationist all you want. Try arguing with them. No one here cares.

DS, a staunch Evolutionist, has been forced to defend these "Creationists" and "DI-IDists," which means said persons do indeed believe evidence supporting Darwinian evolution exists. The same has been my only point (quote marks justified). Ray (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist, anti-selectionist/species immutabilist)

Fake Bigot For Jesus lied:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said: ....Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who's trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin's main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said "Creationists" and "IDists" accept Darwin's MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin's and Dawkins's bed.

In short, the persons who you hate the most are nonetheless in your camp, not mine. This explains the anger and profanity seen in your reply above.

Both Dembski and Ken Ham claim to be Christians as well. My only point: both you and them are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins.

We believe Darwin and Dawkins are real Atheists. Objective thinkers know that real Christians do not lie on their backs while in bed with Atheists. Since no God exists Atheists MUST believe in the concept of evolution to explain the existence of species, unlike Christians. You're in the worst possible position and predicament.

That said, I am quite relieved to be thought of as a "lying idiot" by a person like yourself.

Seriously, Ray Martinez, why should we consider you as something other than an annoying internet troll pretending to be a Bigot for Jesus? You don't write any screeds beyond your ranting posts, you don't try and fail to get your inanity published in journals, you demonstrate a total ignorance of science fueled by a total apathy to learning. So, why should we take you seriously?

Mr. Fink said: Seriously, Ray Martinez, why should we consider you as something other than an annoying internet troll pretending to be a Bigot for Jesus? You don't write any screeds beyond your ranting posts, you don't try and fail to get your inanity published in journals, you demonstrate a total ignorance of science fueled by a total apathy to learning. So, why should we take you seriously?

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said: ....Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who's trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin's main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said "Creationists" and "IDists" accept Darwin's MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin's and Dawkins's bed. In short, the persons who you hate the most are nonetheless in your camp, not mine. This explains the anger and profanity seen in your reply above.

It seems that my argument above really bothers Apokryltaros (an Atheist-Evolutionist).

I'm a Christian, and you're a lying idiot.

Both Dembski and Ken Ham claim to be Christians as well. My only point: both you and them are in bed with Darwin and Dawkins.

We believe Darwin and Dawkins are real Atheists. Objective thinkers know that real Christians do not lie on their backs while in bed with Atheists. Since no God exists Atheists MUST believe in the concept of evolution to explain the existence of species, unlike Christians. You're in the worst possible position and predicament. That said, I am quite relieved to be thought of as a "lying idiot" by a person like yourself. Ray (Christian; anti-selectionist/species immutabilist)

apokryltaros said:

Fake Bigot For Jesus lied:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said: ....Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who's trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin's main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said "Creationists" and "IDists" accept Darwin's MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin's and Dawkins's bed.

Then how come you don't accuse your fellow trolls, FL and SteveP of being apostate collaborators?

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said:

Fake Bigot For Jesus lied:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said: ....Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who's trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin's main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said "Creationists" and "IDists" accept Darwin's MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin's and Dawkins's bed.

Then how come you don't accuse your fellow trolls, FL and SteveP of being apostate collaborators?

Because I've never happened upon the right occasion to confront them with their "argue vehemently against evolution while accepting Darwin's main claim" contradiction. In response to pointing out the egregious contradiction that you are living, that is, a "Christian" who stands with Atheists against the Biblical explanation, you spew profanity and slander. In other words you become unglued as seen in just about every post you make in response to an opponent. The Atheists don't repsect you, to them you're nothing but a buffoon doing their bidding. And you're all too happy to play that role.

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said: ....Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who's trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin's main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said "Creationists" and "IDists" accept Darwin's MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin's and Dawkins's bed. In short, the persons who you hate the most are nonetheless in your camp, not mine. This explains the anger and profanity seen in your reply above.

Too bad for you that natural selection AND species mutability do indeed exist in nature.

Which is why most people accept the FACT that they exist; creationuts, IDiots and theoloons then claim the evidence means nothing (ie, 'reality-based processes CAN'T explain X !! ** I ** can't/won't see how known real-world processes can generate a Y !! Therefore, Magical Sky Pixie, God, 'Unnamed Intelligent Designer DIDIT !!!!!')

Dembski's WHOLE ROUTINE was whining that 'EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN X BECAUSE ** I ** CLAIM IT IS FAR TOO IMPROBABLE; THEREFORE, DESIGNERDIDIT !!!!'

He once stated that ID was just the Logos theology of the Gospel of John reinterpreted into information theoretic form - does THAT sound like something an atheist would do ? Or someone that supports evolution ?

Ham's whole routine was screaming about how wrong and evil evolution is (then lying about it and misrepresenting it at every turn) - not something that someone who believes in it would do.

Again, twit : selection has been observed to happen in the real world; by claiming it doesn't exist, you bring your faith to ridicule and scorn (not that your willful idiocy and belligerence don't do a much better job). Again, simpleton : that species are mutable has been known for quite some time. I HAVE MUTATED SPECIES MYSELF. As has anyone in the fields of molecular biology and developmental biology and evo-devo; by claiming that species are immutable, you show yourself to be completely ignorant of centuries of real world observations.

Ray Martinez said: The fact that you attempt to portray evolution as directly observed indicates that you cannot be trusted.

Ray Martinez said:

PA Poland said:

Ray Martinez said:

apokryltaros said:

Idiot babbled:

apokryltaros said: ....Ray Martinez is an idiot troll who's trying to pretend to be the most bigoted Creationist idiot in the whole wide world, in a perennially futile attempt to shock us.

The anger seen above is all because I point out, periodically, that credentialed Creationists and IDists, and non-credentialed Creationists and IDists, both accept Darwin's main conceptual and theoretical claim (fully material natural selection/species mutability). In this context I then ask how can these persons be considered Creationists, IDists, or anti-evolutionists?

Because they deny evolution for religious reasons, dumbshit.

Again, said "Creationists" and "IDists" accept Darwin's MAIN conceptual claim (natural selection/species mutability) to exist in nature. They do NOT deny evolution. The YEC Fundies and DI-IDiots are in Darwin's and Dawkins's bed. In short, the persons who you hate the most are nonetheless in your camp, not mine. This explains the anger and profanity seen in your reply above.

Too bad for you that natural selection AND species mutability do indeed exist in nature.

Except in your collective imagination, neither have any existence.

Which is why most people accept the FACT that they exist; creationuts, IDiots and theoloons then claim the evidence means nothing (ie, 'reality-based processes CAN'T explain X !! ** I ** can't/won't see how known real-world processes can generate a Y !! Therefore, Magical Sky Pixie, God, 'Unnamed Intelligent Designer DIDIT !!!!!')

You're claiming said persons really do not accept conceptual existence of natural selection and microevolution. This is not true. What they don't accept is unrestricted macroevolution and common descent (except in the case of Michael Behe).

Dembski's WHOLE ROUTINE was whining that 'EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN X BECAUSE ** I ** CLAIM IT IS FAR TOO IMPROBABLE; THEREFORE, DESIGNERDIDIT !!!!'

He is only talking about certain information and ultra-complex bio-chemical systems, the same presupposes adaptive evolution to have accomplished the less complex.

He once stated that ID was just the Logos theology of the Gospel of John reinterpreted into information theoretic form - does THAT sound like something an atheist would do ? Or someone that supports evolution ?

Dembski readily accepts natural selection to have produced everything except certain ultra-complex phenomena.

Ham's whole routine was screaming about how wrong and evil evolution is (then lying about it and misrepresenting it at every turn) - not something that someone who believes in it would do.

Ham accepts natural selection, microevolution and macroevolution within (not between) created kinds to explain new species.

Again, twit : selection has been observed to happen in the real world; by claiming it doesn't exist, you bring your faith to ridicule and scorn (not that your willful idiocy and belligerence don't do a much better job). Again, simpleton : that species are mutable has been known for quite some time. I HAVE MUTATED SPECIES MYSELF. As has anyone in the fields of molecular biology and developmental biology and evo-devo; by claiming that species are immutable, you show yourself to be completely ignorant of centuries of real world observations.

ALL evo scholars readily admit that evolution is NOT observed, but inferred after the alleged fact. The fact that you attempt to portray evolution as directly observed indicates that you cannot be trusted.