The War Before Kitzmas

Wow, and UD is almost the only ID blog left, apart from the Discovery Institute...

At least he keeps it all in perspective...*

Glen Davidson

*Sure, Barry, the world watches you with bated breath, wondering if nobility and brilliance will win against the dark forces arrayed against you.

Where's that slapfight gif when you need it.

ID/creationism has always had that seige mentality that is so characteristic of the evangelical fundamentalists. They have always been at war with not only secular society, but with mainstrasm churches as well. Ambushing others has always been a strategy in the way they attempt to push their religion onto secular society.

From time to time I can look in on the religion channels on television and see the rantings coming from the pulpits of these kinds of churches. During political seasons, these people are testing the political winds for anyone and anything that will get their dogmas into the institutions of government and public education.

This is were the Republican party has been pandering since the 1970s after the civil rights movement; and look at what it has reaped as a result. It is now ok to be a Republican and be openly racist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-science, anti-intellectual, and constantly beating the drum to go to war. When we look at the slate of Republican canditates running for major public offices during the last several election cycles, it is pretty clear that these sectarian right-wingers are major contributers to the kind of echo chamber thinking that is going on,

I don't see Arrington's mentality as anything out of the ordinary in his subculture; I think it is pretty typical. I have seen it frequently over the years just by listening to and reading how the leaders in his subculture talk to each other. There is a lot of fear and loathing that is kept churning among these sectarians; and that leads to a lot of irrational political actions that can be quite dangerous to any kind of society that values evidence and rationality in making major policy decisions.

I just posted an article that I saved and translated in 1993, it may still be of some interest. it can be found at Darwition.blogspot.no

Interesting that Barry used a verbatim quote from the Wikipedia article on "Quisling" without attribution.

UD is the ID equivalent of Andrew Schafly's Conservapedia.

And hey, both run by lawyers with tenuous grips on reality.

Barry K. Arrington has a day job as a conservative lawyer with homophobic tendencies, in Colorado, with professional association with charter schools. He uses similar language in that context.

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/153706/polis-fire-lawyer-for-maoist-style-thought-reform-camp-jab

There is a very obvious, if unconscious, conflict of interest here. The one group of people who benefit from ID are lawyers (possibly also right wing publishing houses, although that's less definitive). Don't get me wrong, this isn't a knock on lawyers. In the end, the good lawyers who defend our rights from creationists seeking to use tax dollars to advance their own religious and private political agenda benefit the most.

However, for people like TMLC, Freshwater's attorneys, and so on, it's also work, and publicity. You may lose the creationism case, and you may have trouble getting your bills paid by the likes of Freshwater or the Dover defendants, but if a right wing billionaire sees in the news that you attacked science, he or she may very well throw more profitable work your way.

It's actually pretty egregious in some ways. Claiming that you have the right to teach your own sectarian science denial in public schools, as "science", at taxpayer expense, is committing an obviously illegal act that will inevitably generate a lawsuit.

Post-modern American society is the greatest make work project for attorneys in the history of the world (although there have been others), but even within that context, the whole creation science/ID thing stands out as nothing but a fifty year effort at creating lawsuits.

But remember everyone, ID is not an ideological political movement!

That Wedge Document was nothing more than a couple of blokes yuk-yukking it around the office!

It's all about the science!

(I submit that Barry is a quisling who is feeding anti-ID propaganda through the backdoor of Sal in order to help bring down the scientific supremacy of Intelligent Design)

Arrington did something for Cordova that he doesn’t do for most people banned from UD, which was to send Sal an explanatory letter.. "I owe you an explanation for why you have been banned at UD. .... "

stevaroni said:

Arrington did something for Cordova that he doesn’t do for most people banned from UD, which was to send Sal an explanatory letter.. "I owe you an explanation for why you have been banned at UD. .... "

"And Lo, there will come a time when you will see them eat their own, for they are idiots." [1:1 Book of Steve]

Clucks? Turkeys don't cluck. (Or is that a fowl remark?)

Eh, Arrington's behaviour is typical creationist/conservative Christian two-facedness: They are always marching triumphantly over their adversaries' mangled corpses, and yet simultaneously fighting the most desperate of battles in which every man must do his duty, displaying not the merest hint of doubt or dissent.

Steve Watson said: Eh, Arrington's behaviour is typical creationist/conservative Christian two-facedness: They are always marching triumphantly over their adversaries' mangled corpses, and yet simultaneously fighting the most desperate of battles in which every man must do his duty, displaying not the merest hint of doubt or dissent.

You misunderstood. ID/YEC never had it so good as a scientific system for origins with a creator and/not Genesis.
In fact I just rewatched the famous Ham/Nye debate and it has 5 million hits. For subjects like this thats a lot of interest.In fact its greatly more who saw it. Ham won so much interst for YEC. Never before did YEC get such attention.
What is meant is about the bigger social wars, or culture wars, of which origins is a front.
I visit both blogs and they are great. Free speech and interesting subjects.
It seems folks here want the end of discussion as if that will save them.
Why not desire great numbers of blogs with hugh numbers of viewers.?? Doesn't everyone want to persuade everyone?
or is it the hope a single side, pushed bu institutions, will persuade the public. Please say it ain't so! Scary!

Robert Byers said: You misunderstood. ID/YEC never had it so good as a scientific system for origins with a creator and/not Genesis. In fact I just rewatched the famous Ham/Nye debate and it has 5 million hits. For subjects like this thats a lot of interest.In fact its greatly more who saw it. Ham won so much interst for YEC. Never before did YEC get such attention. What is meant is about the bigger social wars, or culture wars, of which origins is a front. I visit both blogs and they are great. Free speech and interesting subjects. It seems folks here want the end of discussion as if that will save them. Why not desire great numbers of blogs with hugh numbers of viewers.?? Doesn't everyone want to persuade everyone? or is it the hope a single side, pushed bu institutions, will persuade the public. Please say it ain't so! Scary!

Robert Byers said: In fact I just rewatched the famous Ham/Nye debate and it has 5 million hits.

Robert Byers said: You misunderstood. ID/YEC never had it so good as a scientific system for origins with a creator and/not Genesis. In fact I just rewatched the famous Ham/Nye debate and it has 5 million hits.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: In fact I just rewatched the famous Ham/Nye debate and it has 5 million hits.

Yeah. Just as a point of reference, "Pink Fluffy Unicorns Dancing on Rainbows" has 7.5 million hits. Just sayin'...

Comedy Gold!

Robert Byers said: ...Doesn't everyone want to persuade everyone? or is it the hope a single side, pushed bu institutions, will persuade the public. Please say it ain't so! Scary!

We are in a war. That is not a metaphor. We are fighting a war for the soul of Western Civilization, and we are losing, badly. In the summer of 2015 we find ourselves in a positon very similar to Germany’s position 70 years ago in the summer of 1945 - alone, demoralized, and besieged on all sides by a great awareness that constitutes an existential threat to ignorance, bigotry and even irrationality itself.

There, fixed it.

IOW, they are under attack by the sane, sensible, educated segment of society?

What I love is the "this is not a metaphor" bit. What in the name of Ghu does this fruit loop think a metaphor is, for chrissake?

Or is he in the bunker in his basement even as we speak, directing imaginary armies in the defence of the capital, shouting down the phone at the weather report, making crayon marks on maps of freaking Stalingrad, while jackbooted minions in coal scuttle helmets glance uneasily at one another in the background?

Metaphor? I've said it before, I'll say it again. Half the trouble with these drooling loons is that they have no clue what fictive metaphor is, and consequently their sense of narrative fiction is off-the-wall, outta the closet, down the street, three blocks away barking woof-woof howling doolally. They can't tell their rococo fantasies from reality.

"We are in a war," FFS. No, you're not, moron. If you were, somebody would have shot your ass by now, because you've already lost. But what you've lost is not a war, it's standing in public opinion. More and more the public aren't prepared to humor you any more. The actual debate you lost roughly a hundred years ago. The last time there was an actual, you know, war over whether a religion was right or not was probably in the seventeenth century. Guess who lost, even back then? That's right, it was religion itself. Guess what came of that?

It was called the Enlightenment. We're all a lot better off for it. Even you.

You go Barry, insist on ideological purity on all things. This will surely strengthen your position and aid in recruiting new allies. Onward Creationist Solider!

Robert Byers said: You misunderstood. ID/YEC never had it so good as a scientific system for origins with a creator and/not Genesis. In fact I just rewatched the famous Ham/Nye debate and it has 5 million hits. For subjects like this thats a lot of interest.In fact its greatly more who saw it. Ham won so much interst for YEC. Never before did YEC get such attention. What is meant is about the bigger social wars, or culture wars, of which origins is a front. I visit both blogs and they are great. Free speech and interesting subjects. It seems folks here want the end of discussion as if that will save them. Why not desire great numbers of blogs with hugh numbers of viewers.?? Doesn't everyone want to persuade everyone? or is it the hope a single side, pushed bu institutions, will persuade the public. Please say it ain't so! Scary!

Robert Byers said: You misunderstood. ID/YEC never had it so good as a scientific system for origins with a creator and/not Genesis. In fact I just rewatched the famous Ham/Nye debate and it has 5 million hits.

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

Robert Byers said: I visit both blogs and they are great. Free speech and interesting subjects. It seems folks here want the end of discussion as if that will save them. Why not desire great numbers of blogs with hugh numbers of viewers.?? Doesn't everyone want to persuade everyone?

The uncomprehending accuse others of misunderstanding. Case in point: nowhere in my post is there anything remotely like a call for the end of discussion.

Why is nobody talking about the real scandal here?

That Wesley has been restricted from enjoying popcorn?

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said: Why is nobody talking about the real scandal here? That Wesley has been restricted from enjoying popcorn?

eric said:

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

Robert Byers said: I visit both blogs and they are great. Free speech and interesting subjects. It seems folks here want the end of discussion as if that will save them. Why not desire great numbers of blogs with hugh numbers of viewers.?? Doesn't everyone want to persuade everyone?

The uncomprehending accuse others of misunderstanding. Case in point: nowhere in my post is there anything remotely like a call for the end of discussion.

I think what Robert is doing here is attributing to malice what can be explained by competence. Heh. IOW he is seeing the reduced number and readership of ID blogs, and blaming it some hidden or implied censorious action/desire on our part. To my mind, ID is failing as a political/social movement simply because after 20 years it hasn't delivered to creationists what it promised, so they are leaving it. It promised the fundies God back in schools, but didn't deliver on that. And it promised the more academic creationists a scientific (or at least academically defensible) foundation for design, and it hasn't delivered on that either. Dover and the efforts of groups and people like the NCSE and Zack K. and the people who run this blog certainly contributed to the failure of both goals. However ultimately the reduced interest is a result of creationist disappointment with the effort, not mainstream science attempts to censor it.

So I guess this means Phillip Johnson's "big tent" strategy is officially dead?

eric said:

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

Robert Byers said: I visit both blogs and they are great. Free speech and interesting subjects. It seems folks here want the end of discussion as if that will save them. Why not desire great numbers of blogs with hugh numbers of viewers.?? Doesn't everyone want to persuade everyone?

The uncomprehending accuse others of misunderstanding. Case in point: nowhere in my post is there anything remotely like a call for the end of discussion.

I think what Robert is doing here is attributing to malice what can be explained by competence. Heh. IOW he is seeing the reduced number and readership of ID blogs, and blaming it some hidden or implied censorious action/desire on our part. To my mind, ID is failing as a political/social movement simply because after 20 years it hasn't delivered to creationists what it promised, so they are leaving it. It promised the fundies God back in schools, but didn't deliver on that. And it promised the more academic creationists a scientific (or at least academically defensible) foundation for design, and it hasn't delivered on that either. Dover and the efforts of groups and people like the NCSE and Zack K. and the people who run this blog certainly contributed to the failure of both goals. However ultimately the reduced interest is a result of creationist disappointment with the effort, not mainstream science attempts to censor it.

Henry J said: IOW, they are under attack by the sane, sensible, educated segment of society?

To my mind, ID is failing as a political/social movement simply because after 20 years it hasn't delivered to creationists what it promised, so they are leaving it. It promised the fundies God back in schools, but didn't deliver on that. And it promised the more academic creationists a scientific (or at least academically defensible) foundation for design, and it hasn't delivered on that either. Dover and the efforts of groups and people like the NCSE and Zack K. and the people who run this blog certainly contributed to the failure of both goals. However ultimately the reduced interest is a result of creationist disappointment with the effort, not mainstream science attempts to censor it.

So here's the real score:

Cordova and Arrington are apparently supposed to be having this big "War Before Kitzmas", but in the end we don't even have provenance established for all that, and the links given didn't really offer a lot of blood and flames.

So maybe there's NOT a war, after all, but merely a small tempest in the teapot (a phenomenon which is quite familiar to both the Darwinists and the non-Darwinists, alike.)

Or even more likely, it's just a Slow News Day or something, and I've seen plenty of those too.

****

Meanwhile, just in time for "Kitzmas", ID just happens to be failing, (ID is *always* failing!), or so the Pandas preach.

Except when ID is not failing.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/09/following_dover099671.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/ten_myths_about101571.html

****

It is what it is; things are as they are.

Evolution is genuinely part of our national landscape, and Intelligent Design is genuinely part of our national landscape. Neither side, honestly, is going away anytime soon.

So Merry Christmas, baby! (Accept no substitutes!)

FL

Happy Solstice, moron.

phhht said: Happy Solstice, moron.

phhht said: Happy Solstice, moron.

FL said: ...and Intelligent Design is genuinely part of our national landscape. Neither side, honestly, is going away anytime soon.

So Merry Christmas, baby! (Accept no substitutes!)

Also, of course, the original meaning of Happy Holidays was just to cover Christmas and New Year's, since they occur so close together...it originally had nothing to do with certain other fun and somewhat similar holidays that occur at this time of year.

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

Robert Byers said: You misunderstood. ID/YEC never had it so good as a scientific system for origins with a creator and/not Genesis. In fact I just rewatched the famous Ham/Nye debate and it has 5 million hits. For subjects like this thats a lot of interest.In fact its greatly more who saw it. Ham won so much interst for YEC. Never before did YEC get such attention. What is meant is about the bigger social wars, or culture wars, of which origins is a front. I visit both blogs and they are great. Free speech and interesting subjects. It seems folks here want the end of discussion as if that will save them. Why not desire great numbers of blogs with hugh numbers of viewers.?? Doesn't everyone want to persuade everyone? or is it the hope a single side, pushed bu institutions, will persuade the public. Please say it ain't so! Scary!

The uncomprehending accuse others of misunderstanding. Case in point: nowhere in my post is there anything remotely like a call for the end of discussion. If anything, there is anticipation of the content of further discussion. So I am led to the conclusion that what we have here is a simple case of projection, that Robert Byers would end discussion were it in his power, and due to his internal desire to do so, sees that desire in others who show nothing of the sort. I hope that people do come to an understanding that viewpoints based on error, like young-earth creationism and its descendants, are not fit topics for public school science classrooms. This doesn't preclude them from being fascinating things to watch, much in the way train wrecks and auto accidents attract attention.

Robert Byers said: Since they use big words.

Creationism doesn’t censor but seeks equal time.

Robert Byers said: No. I insist freedom of speech/though is a natural right only confimed by constitutions and laws. Creationism doesn't censor but seeks equal time. Evolutionists, some, do seek censorship. The misunderstanding was only in reference to the war stuff. He meant the bigger war of western civilization and not the origin contentions. ID/YEC never had it so good in publicity and popularity since ideas came opposing God and genesis in the 1800's. Etc. These court cases are hilarious. Obscure judges in obscure towns striving to decide what science, who is or is not doing it, and what are they doing if not that. Since they use big words. As a natural law lover i rage against these courts striving to rule man and his conscience. As a creationist I love them. Ten years later it surely was better to have a famous "defeat" then a victory. Its not for me about teaching teenagers. ID/YEC has gained by the aspects of the exposure and we only need exposure. We can persuade ID and yEC0in its criticisms) is as thought out as any thing and so is science. Case closed for us and millions of us. Bring more cases and then a few more. I ask you guys. REALLY. Do you really think this court case helped you?? What would it be like if you had lost?? What would it look like? Predictions please. In any story of mankind i ever read court cases don't help if they are not part of the public mind and movement. Merry Kitmas. We are quite merry. Truly. I only later fit involved in these things or on the border of the timeline. Not just me.

FL said: So maybe there's NOT a war, after all, but merely a small tempest in the teapot

Robert Byers said: These court cases are hilarious. Obscure judges in obscure towns striving to decide what science, who is or is not doing it, and what are they doing if not that. Since they use big words.

I ask you guys. REALLY. Do you really think this court case helped you?? What would it be like if you had lost?? What would it look like? Predictions please.

Mike Elzinga said: What I find amusing is the fact that not one ID/creationist - leaders and followers alike - has any comprehension of the fact that their CSI "mathematics" ...

booby asked:

"I ask you guys. REALLY. Do you really think this court case helped you?? What would it be like if you had lost??"

Well here you go booby:

http://www.ycp.edu/offices-and-services/advancement/communications/cultural-series/special-events/what-if-intelligent-design-had-won/

Enjoy. And merry Kitzmas.

Robert Byers said: I ask you guys. REALLY. Do you really think this court case helped you?? What would it be like if you had lost?? What would it look like? Predictions please.

Robert Byers said: I ask you guys. REALLY. Do you really think this court case helped you?? What would it be like if you had lost?? What would it look like? Predictions please.

Just Bob said:

Robert Byers said: Since they use big words.

No further comment needed.

Robert Byers said: Ten years later it surely was better to have a famous “defeat” then a victory.

And soon enough we’d have an entire generation that has the science literacy of the city council of Woodland, North Carolina, which recently denied a zoning variance to a large solar installation because of worries that would act like a sunlight magnet and interfere with photosynthesis in the area.

Jose Fly said: So I guess this means Phillip Johnson's "big tent" strategy is officially dead?

Daniel said:

FL said: ...and Intelligent Design is genuinely part of our national landscape. Neither side, honestly, is going away anytime soon.

...For ID to go away, it first would need to arrive. This is delusion in the extreme, and it is a constant source of amazement for me.

Robert Byers said: I ask you guys. REALLY. Do you really think this court case helped you??

What would it be like if you had lost??

eric said:

Robert Byers said: I ask you guys. REALLY. Do you really think this court case helped you??

Yes.

What would it be like if you had lost??

At a minimum, high school students in Dover, PA would have some of their class time wasted learning creationism. And they would've learned, pace Behe and the defense legal team, that Astrology counts as science. But my guess is that, had Jones ruled the other way, creationists in many other districts across the US would've tried the same thing, so the ruling's impact would not have been limited to Dover.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: I ask you guys. REALLY. Do you really think this court case helped you?? What would it be like if you had lost?? What would it look like? Predictions please.

Astrology. In science class. And Alien abductions. And required reading would be The Elders of Zion, The DaVinchi Code, and Chariots of the Gods. Because when facts don't matter anymore, why not. And soon enough we'd have an entire generation that has the science literacy of the city council of Woodland, North Carolina, which recently denied a zoning variance to a large solar installation because of worries that would act like a sunlight magnet and interfere with photosynthesis in the area. Depressingly, one of the local residents who testified about the evils of sun suckers was a woman named Jane Mann, who also questioned the high number of cancer deaths in the area, saying no one could tell her that solar panels didn’t cause cancer. Jane Mann is a retired Northampton science teacher. I wonder what her biology classes were like? You can't make this shit up.

TomS said: Except that there was a school board election after the trial. If the result of that were the same, would there be anyone to carry on the case on appeal?

SLC said: Hey, let's not forget Worlds in Collision by the late Immanuel Velikovsky.

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Hey, let's not forget Worlds in Collision by the late Immanuel Velikovsky.

More believable would be When Worlds Collide by Wylie and Balmer.

SLC said: Up until rather recently, the scenario depicted in WWC was considered scientifically virtually impossible because it was believed that there were few if any rogue planets. However, it appears that not only are there rogue planets as described in WWC, they may number in the billions in the Milky Way galaxy so the chances of such a planet entering our solar system is significantly greater then zero.

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Hey, let's not forget Worlds in Collision by the late Immanuel Velikovsky.

More believable would be When Worlds Collide by Wylie and Balmer.

FL must be absolutely totally divorced from reality. Behe isn't doing anything. Dembski is doing other things now. There is still some mischief with Schools but ID is never mentioned. ID went into heart failure after Dover and has been failing ever since. The fact that the only links he could find point to the DI shows how sad it is. Even Fox wont mention it.

harold said:

Creationism doesn’t censor but seeks equal time.

It is implied censorship to demand equal time in science class when you haven't earned it. It's an implied censorship of the real science that could be taught, and of everyone else's equally valid different religious opinions. But anyway, Merry Christmas to Robert Byers and FL, assuming you guys both celebrate Christmas. Winter solstice generosity and cheer to everyone.

Robert Byers said: What holiday led to the tree? Christmas.

you is right booby its censorship you must be teachin evolution in sunday school every day in every way or its censorship them is you rules you must be livin by em booby

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: What holiday led to the tree? Christmas.

Wrong again, Robert Byers. The holiday that led to christmas was the celebration of winter solstice. That celebration, pagan as can be, predated christmas by thousands of years.

The pagan Scandinavian and Germanic people of northern Europe celebrated a twelve-day "midwinter" (winter solstice) holiday called Yule (also called Jul, Julblot, jólablót, midvinterblot, julofferfest). Many modern Christmas traditions, such as the Christmas tree, the Christmas wreath, the Yule log, and others, are direct descendents of Yule customs. -- Wikipedia

phhht said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: What holiday led to the tree? Christmas.

Wrong again, Robert Byers. The holiday that led to christmas was the celebration of winter solstice. That celebration, pagan as can be, predated christmas by thousands of years.

The pagan Scandinavian and Germanic people of northern Europe celebrated a twelve-day "midwinter" (winter solstice) holiday called Yule (also called Jul, Julblot, jólablót, midvinterblot, julofferfest). Many modern Christmas traditions, such as the Christmas tree, the Christmas wreath, the Yule log, and others, are direct descendents of Yule customs. -- Wikipedia

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: These court cases are hilarious. Obscure judges in obscure towns striving to decide what science, who is or is not doing it, and what are they doing if not that. Since they use big words.

Yet another subject you know nothing about. Judges, at all levels, have to decide what "science" is and isn't every day.

I ask you guys. REALLY. Do you really think this court case helped you?? What would it be like if you had lost?? What would it look like? Predictions please.

I was hoping that this might be available online by now. http://www.ycp.edu/news-and-events/news-stories/name-33296-en.html http://www.ycp.edu/offices-and-services/advancement/communications/cultural-series/special-events/what-if-intelligent-design-had-won/

Robert Byers said: What holiday led to the tree? Christmas.

Hey Robert, if "Jesus is the reason for the season" does that mean there wasn't any winter before Jesus?

eric said:

Robert Byers said: I ask you guys. REALLY. Do you really think this court case helped you??

Yes.

What would it be like if you had lost??

At a minimum, high school students in Dover, PA would have some of their class time wasted learning creationism. And they would've learned, pace Behe and the defense legal team, that Astrology counts as science. But my guess is that, had Jones ruled the other way, creationists in many other districts across the US would've tried the same thing, so the ruling's impact would not have been limited to Dover.

Robert Byers said:

eric said:

Robert Byers said: I ask you guys. REALLY. Do you really think this court case helped you??

Yes.

What would it be like if you had lost??

At a minimum, high school students in Dover, PA would have some of their class time wasted learning creationism. And they would've learned, pace Behe and the defense legal team, that Astrology counts as science. But my guess is that, had Jones ruled the other way, creationists in many other districts across the US would've tried the same thing, so the ruling's impact would not have been limited to Dover.

You make my point. A few kids!! It made no negative difference to ID/YEC. Surely it either helped or was nuetral while the iD movement gain steam and here it is.

SLC said: Up until rather recently, the scenario depicted in WWC was considered scientifically virtually impossible because it was believed that there were few if any rogue planets. However, it appears that not only are there rogue planets as described in WWC, they may number in the billions in the Milky Way galaxy so the chances of such a planet entering our solar system is significantly greater then zero. Interesting how science sometimes validates science fiction stories. There is still something of a problem with the story as it proposes a gas giant about the size of Uranus with a moon about the size of the Earth. None of the moons in the Solar System are anywhere near the size of the Earth. There is also a problem with the assumption that the collision of Bronson Alpha, the gas giant with the Earth would cause Bronson Beta, the earth-like planet to be detached from its orbit around Alpha and fall into orbit around the Sun.

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Hey, let's not forget Worlds in Collision by the late Immanuel Velikovsky.

More believable would be When Worlds Collide by Wylie and Balmer.

phhht said:

phhht said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: What holiday led to the tree? Christmas.

Wrong again, Robert Byers. The holiday that led to christmas was the celebration of winter solstice. That celebration, pagan as can be, predated christmas by thousands of years.

The pagan Scandinavian and Germanic people of northern Europe celebrated a twelve-day "midwinter" (winter solstice) holiday called Yule (also called Jul, Julblot, jólablót, midvinterblot, julofferfest). Many modern Christmas traditions, such as the Christmas tree, the Christmas wreath, the Yule log, and others, are direct descendents of Yule customs. -- Wikipedia

So the so-called "Christmas tree" should in fact be called a Jule tree, right Robert Byers? In fact, it's only a Yule tree and denying that or censoring it IS stealing the cultural identity and rights of those who created and decided what the tree is. Right, Byers?

harold said: It is implied censorship to demand equal time in science class when you haven't earned it. It's an implied censorship of the real science that could be taught, and of everyone else's equally valid different religious opinions.

Just Bob said: Hey Robert, if "Jesus is the reason for the season" does that mean there wasn't any winter before Jesus?

Robert Byers said: You make my point. A few kids!!

It made no negative difference to ID/YEC. Surely it either helped or was nuetral while the iD movement gain steam and here it is.

Matt G said:

Just Bob said: Hey Robert, if "Jesus is the reason for the season" does that mean there wasn't any winter before Jesus?

And all this time I thought it was the tilt of the Earth's axis! Silly me.

Robert Byers said:

harold said: It is implied censorship to demand equal time in science class when you haven't earned it. It's an implied censorship of the real science that could be taught, and of everyone else's equally valid different religious opinions.

Implied censorship?? No. censorship is what it is. Denial of equal time is censorship if whats denied. creationism is not censoring or seeking it.

phhht said:

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: What holiday led to the tree? Christmas.

Wrong again, Robert Byers. The holiday that led to christmas was the celebration of winter solstice. That celebration, pagan as can be, predated christmas by thousands of years.

The pagan Scandinavian and Germanic people of northern Europe celebrated a twelve-day "midwinter" (winter solstice) holiday called Yule (also called Jul, Julblot, jólablót, midvinterblot, julofferfest). Many modern Christmas traditions, such as the Christmas tree, the Christmas wreath, the Yule log, and others, are direct descendents of Yule customs. -- Wikipedia

And a Festivus for the rest of us.

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Up until rather recently, the scenario depicted in WWC was considered scientifically virtually impossible because it was believed that there were few if any rogue planets. However, it appears that not only are there rogue planets as described in WWC, they may number in the billions in the Milky Way galaxy so the chances of such a planet entering our solar system is significantly greater then zero. Interesting how science sometimes validates science fiction stories. There is still something of a problem with the story as it proposes a gas giant about the size of Uranus with a moon about the size of the Earth. None of the moons in the Solar System are anywhere near the size of the Earth. There is also a problem with the assumption that the collision of Bronson Alpha, the gas giant with the Earth would cause Bronson Beta, the earth-like planet to be detached from its orbit around Alpha and fall into orbit around the Sun.

W. H. Heydt said:

SLC said: Hey, let's not forget Worlds in Collision by the late Immanuel Velikovsky.

More believable would be When Worlds Collide by Wylie and Balmer.

I didn't say that Wylie and Balmer were correct, or even plausible, just that their work was more believable than Velikovsky. This is probably due to two things, the first being the way Velikovsky has planets in a cosmic game of billiards all over the solar system. The second is that Wylie and Balmer were aware that thay were writing fiction.

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: What holiday led to the tree? Christmas.

Wrong again, Robert Byers. The holiday that led to christmas was the celebration of winter solstice. That celebration, pagan as can be, predated christmas by thousands of years.

SLC said: Furthermore, the date December 25 was chosen because that would place January 1 of the following year on the 8th day following December 25 (i.e. someone born on December 25 would be 8 days old on January 1). That that would place Yeshua ben Yusef of Nazareth's bris on January 1 and according to Stephen Jay Gould, that was the idea.

phhht said: I thought Yeshua was supposed to be born in tax time, around the first week of November.

Robert Byers said: What holiday led to the tree? Christmas.

Wrong again, Robert Byers. The holiday that led to christmas was the celebration of winter solstice. That celebration, pagan as can be, predated christmas by thousands of years.

SLC said: Furthermore, the date December 25 was chosen because that would place January 1 of the following year on the 8th day following December 25 (i.e. someone born on December 25 would be 8 days old on January 1). That that would place Yeshua ben Yusef of Nazareth's bris on January 1 and according to Stephen Jay Gould, that was the idea.

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: What holiday led to the tree? Christmas.

Wrong again, Robert Byers. The holiday that led to christmas was the celebration of winter solstice. That celebration, pagan as can be, predated christmas by thousands of years.

I was banned, by Barry Arrington, for making the following post at Uncommon Descent:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424

"The utter hypocrisy of a website full of Christians who spend every waking moment, of every waking day, showing the evil of Materialism while accepting its main scientific claim: natural selection causing species mutability.

How do we explain such an egregious contradiction?

Ignorance?

Delusion?

Whatever the case, contrary to their belief about them self, one can rightfully use the fact of acceptance to say these persons are NOT following Christ."

When I attempted to post messages the next day none of them posted.

Daniel said:

FL said: ...and Intelligent Design is genuinely part of our national landscape. Neither side, honestly, is going away anytime soon.

I honestly sometimes wonder how can one person function while living in such an alternate reality. I am genuinely surprised at the level of delusion this sentece encapsulates.

Ray Martinez said: I was banned, by Barry Arrington, for making the following post at Uncommon Descent: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424 "The utter hypocrisy of a website full of Christians who spend every waking moment, of every waking day, showing the evil of Materialism while accepting its main scientific claim: natural selection causing species mutability. How do we explain such an egregious contradiction? Ignorance? Delusion? Whatever the case, contrary to their belief about them self, one can rightfully use the fact of acceptance to say these persons are NOT following Christ." When I attempted to post messages the next day none of them posted.

You're mistaken, Dale. They are neither insane nor are they cons. They're inane, not insane. It's very tempting to assume that this lot must be out of their minds or lying; one or both are no doubt true for some of them. But most real people are more complex than this.

These particular people do have some major moral character flaws but these have been widely discussed by others. Again, I honestly feel sorry for people like Robert, Floyd, and Ray. They seem honestly to believe that science is some kind of gotcha game.

Dale said: FL is simply a fraud like all other creationist hypocrites who come here frequently, including Robert Byers and Ray Martinez. Nothing they say is genuine. Anyone who reads the Bible and claims for a second it is a legitimate source of scientific truth is insane or a con artist.

LOL At Ray's passive-aggressive BS.

Sorry, Ray, that you got kicked to the curb for daring to pull back a flap of the Big Tent.

C'est la vie.

Ray Martinez said:

Dale said: FL is simply a fraud like all other creationist hypocrites who come here frequently, including Robert Byers and Ray Martinez. Nothing they say is genuine. Anyone who reads the Bible and claims for a second it is a legitimate source of scientific truth is insane or a con artist.

Since this is a Wesley R. Elsberry topic, that is, a person who claims to be a Christian and church-goer, I think we should let him handle this comment?

It is interesting the big tent has no idea what is "for" or "against" - some deny any change, others allow change within species, others change within higher taxa, very few allow humans to share common ancestry with other animals, but it happens. Earth less than 10K, no problem, earth fixed in the center of the solar system, that too. You can pretty much believe anything about the natural world you want - evidence not required. I can imagine their theological agreement would be even less likely than their scientific. Other than hating the word evolution, is there anything else in common among them?

Hey Ray, still denying natural selection? Can't get anyone to go along with you on that one I guess. Yea, that figures. Well here is a short clip on just that subject:

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/making-fittest-natural-selection-and-adaptation

Now Ray, if yoiu can come up with a better explanation for the pattern observed, I'd be happy to listen. In fact, if you want to got the the bathroom wall to discuss it, I'd be more than happy to do so. But this thread is about Kitzmiller, so it really wouldn't be appropriate here. Not even those jack asses denied natural selection, as far as I know.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dale said: FL is simply a fraud like all other creationist hypocrites who come here frequently, including Robert Byers and Ray Martinez. Nothing they say is genuine. Anyone who reads the Bible and claims for a second it is a legitimate source of scientific truth is insane or a con artist.

Since this is a Wesley R. Elsberry topic, that is, a person who claims to be a Christian and church-goer, I think we should let him handle this comment?

Because YOU sure can't handle it, right Ray?

DS said: Hey Ray, still denying natural selection? Can't get anyone to go along with you on that one I guess. Yea, that figures. Well here is a short clip on just that subject: http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/making-fittest-natural-selection-and-adaptation Now Ray, if yoiu can come up with a better explanation for the pattern observed, I'd be happy to listen. In fact, if you want to got the the bathroom wall to discuss it, I'd be more than happy to do so. But this thread is about Kitzmiller, so it really wouldn't be appropriate here. Not even those jack asses denied natural selection, as far as I know.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dale said: FL is simply a fraud like all other creationist hypocrites who come here frequently, including Robert Byers and Ray Martinez. Nothing they say is genuine. Anyone who reads the Bible and claims for a second it is a legitimate source of scientific truth is insane or a con artist.

Since this is a Wesley R. Elsberry topic, that is, a person who claims to be a Christian and church-goer, I think we should let him handle this comment?

Because YOU sure can't handle it, right Ray?

You snipped how I handled it. Wonder why?

The only thing I want to say is that Dale’s comment corresponds to what Atheists are known to believe. And since everyone already knows what Atheists think of the Bible one can only wonder what the point is?

Ray Martinez said: "The utter hypocrisy of a website full of Christians who spend every waking moment, of every waking day, showing the evil of Materialism while accepting its main scientific claim: natural selection causing species mutability." ... Whatever the case, contrary to their belief about them self, one can rightfully use the fact of acceptance to say these persons are NOT following Christ."

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Hey Ray, still denying natural selection? Can't get anyone to go along with you on that one I guess. Yea, that figures. Well here is a short clip on just that subject: http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/making-fittest-natural-selection-and-adaptation Now Ray, if yoiu can come up with a better explanation for the pattern observed, I'd be happy to listen. In fact, if you want to got the the bathroom wall to discuss it, I'd be more than happy to do so. But this thread is about Kitzmiller, so it really wouldn't be appropriate here. Not even those jack asses denied natural selection, as far as I know.

I don't deny natural selection; rather, I reject it. "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural selection, but signally failed" (Darwin, Autobio:124). Looks like I'm in good company. Ray

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dale said: FL is simply a fraud like all other creationist hypocrites who come here frequently, including Robert Byers and Ray Martinez. Nothing they say is genuine. Anyone who reads the Bible and claims for a second it is a legitimate source of scientific truth is insane or a con artist.

Since this is a Wesley R. Elsberry topic, that is, a person who claims to be a Christian and church-goer, I think we should let him handle this comment?

Because YOU sure can't handle it, right Ray?

You snipped how I handled it. Wonder why?

You mean this:

The only thing I want to say is that Dale’s comment corresponds to what Atheists are known to believe. And since everyone already knows what Atheists think of the Bible one can only wonder what the point is?

If you think that is "handling it", you're even dumber than I thought.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said: "The utter hypocrisy of a website full of Christians who spend every waking moment, of every waking day, showing the evil of Materialism while accepting its main scientific claim: natural selection causing species mutability." ... Whatever the case, contrary to their belief about them self, one can rightfully use the fact of acceptance to say these persons are NOT following Christ."

So, Ray, how many True Christians do you think there are in the world who utterly reject "species mutability"?

phhht said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dale said: FL is simply a fraud like all other creationist hypocrites who come here frequently, including Robert Byers and Ray Martinez. Nothing they say is genuine. Anyone who reads the Bible and claims for a second it is a legitimate source of scientific truth is insane or a con artist.

Since this is a Wesley R. Elsberry topic, that is, a person who claims to be a Christian and church-goer, I think we should let him handle this comment?

Because YOU sure can't handle it, right Ray?

You snipped how I handled it. Wonder why?

You mean this:

The only thing I want to say is that Dale’s comment corresponds to what Atheists are known to believe. And since everyone already knows what Atheists think of the Bible one can only wonder what the point is?

If you think that is "handling it", you're even dumber than I thought.

And if you can "handle it," why do you call on Elsberry to handle it for you? It's because you have no evidence for the reality of your gods, isn't it, Ray. You cannot face that simple fact. You cannot explain it away or bible it away or handle it in any other sane way. You cannot back up your loony assertions with even a speck of verifiable evidence, can you. No, of course you can't. You're an incompetent loony, just like Flawd and Robert Byers and all the other halfwits who come here to dribble and rant.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Dale said: FL is simply a fraud like all other creationist hypocrites who come here frequently, including Robert Byers and Ray Martinez. Nothing they say is genuine. Anyone who reads the Bible and claims for a second it is a legitimate source of scientific truth is insane or a con artist.

Since this is a Wesley R. Elsberry topic, that is, a person who claims to be a Christian and church-goer, I think we should let him handle this comment?

Because YOU sure can't handle it, right Ray?

You snipped how I handled it. Wonder why?

You mean this:

The only thing I want to say is that Dale’s comment corresponds to what Atheists are known to believe. And since everyone already knows what Atheists think of the Bible one can only wonder what the point is?

If you think that is "handling it", you're even dumber than I thought.

And if you can "handle it," why do you call on Elsberry to handle it for you? It's because you have no evidence for the reality of your gods, isn't it, Ray. You cannot face that simple fact. You cannot explain it away or bible it away or handle it in any other sane way. You cannot back up your loony assertions with even a speck of verifiable evidence, can you. No, of course you can't. You're an incompetent loony, just like Flawd and Robert Byers and all the other halfwits who come here to dribble and rant.

When you ask for evidence of God, and when your request is fulfilled, all you say in response: where is the evidence? You're a one trick rhetorical pony; you're the Robert Byers on the other side of the street. I'm surprised Matt Young tolerates you. Since he does tolerate you the same indicates that he likes your one trick pony. The larger point is that you guys don't know what evidence is or what evidence looks like. You're completely brainwashed by nonsense (= natural selection). Atheists have no choice but to believe in evolution because in their minds no God exists to cause any thing to exist. But the same is not true concerning Christians. We know the God of the Bible exists. Observation of design in nature is one of the ways we know.

The message that got me banned at UD places Wesley Elsberry in the exact same predicament.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424

Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

Ray Martinez said:

Dale said: FL is simply a fraud like all other creationist hypocrites who come here frequently, including Robert Byers and Ray Martinez. Nothing they say is genuine. Anyone who reads the Bible and claims for a second it is a legitimate source of scientific truth is insane or a con artist.

Since this is a Wesley R. Elsberry topic, that is, a person who claims to be a Christian and church-goer, I think we should let him handle this comment? The only thing I want to say is that Dale's comment corresponds to what Atheists are known to believe. And since everyone already knows what Atheists think of the Bible one can only wonder what the point is?

RJ said: You're mistaken, Dale. They are neither insane nor are they cons. They're inane, not insane. It's very tempting to assume that this lot must be out of their minds or lying; one or both are no doubt true for some of them. But most real people are more complex than this. These particular people do have some major moral character flaws but these have been widely discussed by others. Again, I honestly feel sorry for people like Robert, Floyd, and Ray. They seem honestly to believe that science is some kind of gotcha game.

Ray Martinez said: The message that got me banned at UD places Wesley Elsberry in the exact same predicament. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424 Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

Ray Martinez said: Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The message that got me banned at UD places Wesley Elsberry in the exact same predicament. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424 Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

Like I care. I notice you dodge and dance and duck and run. You CANNOT cite a single speck of testable evidence for the reality of your gods. That's because your gods are NOT real, Ray.

Ray Martinez said: The message that got me banned at UD places Wesley Elsberry in the exact same predicament. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424 Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

Ray Martinez said: I don't deny natural selection; rather, I reject it. Ray

Dale said:

Ray Martinez said: I don't deny natural selection; rather, I reject it. Ray

I rest my case; that is a totally meaningless statement. I both deny and reject Christianity; to do one you must do the other. [snip....]

Ray Martinez said:

Dale said:

Ray Martinez said: I don't deny natural selection; rather, I reject it. Ray

I rest my case; that is a totally meaningless statement. I both deny and reject Christianity; to do one you must do the other. [snip....]

"deny" indicates true but reject for other reasons. "reject" indicates false based on lack of evidence.

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: The message that got me banned at UD places Wesley Elsberry in the exact same predicament. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424 Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

So you reject gravity too; it disallows god any role in the directing the heavens? Or do you just reject science altogether?

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said:

Ray Martinez said: The message that got me banned at UD places Wesley Elsberry in the exact same predicament. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424 Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

So you reject gravity too; it disallows god any role in the directing the heavens? Or do you just reject science altogether?

Our beef is with evolution, not science; and gravity is designed. Newton conceived the laws of gravity as designed.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The message that got me banned at UD places Wesley Elsberry in the exact same predicament. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424 Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

Like I care. I notice you dodge and dance and duck and run. You CANNOT cite a single speck of testable evidence for the reality of your gods. That's because your gods are NOT real, Ray.

Ray Martinez said: I don't deny natural selection; rather, I reject it. "deny" indicates true but reject for other reasons. "reject" indicates false based on lack of evidence. Our beef is with evolution, not science; and gravity is designed. Newton conceived the laws of gravity as designed.

Dale said:

Ray Martinez said: Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

Christ does not allow us anything and has not done so in over 1900 years....

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The message that got me banned at UD places Wesley Elsberry in the exact same predicament. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424 Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

Like I care. I notice you dodge and dance and duck and run. You CANNOT cite a single speck of testable evidence for the reality of your gods. That's because your gods are NOT real, Ray.

Wesley Elsberry disagrees. He has been posting here at Panda's Thumb as a Christian scholar for very many years and you don't know that? The same indicates that you are blind? or Elsberry is not what he claims?

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The message that got me banned at UD places Wesley Elsberry in the exact same predicament. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424 Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

Like I care. I notice you dodge and dance and duck and run. You CANNOT cite a single speck of testable evidence for the reality of your gods. That's because your gods are NOT real, Ray.

Wesley Elsberry disagrees. He has been posting here at Panda's Thumb as a Christian scholar for very many years and you don't know that? The same indicates that you are blind? or Elsberry is not what he claims?

Dale said:

Ray Martinez said: I don't deny natural selection; rather, I reject it. "deny" indicates true but reject for other reasons. "reject" indicates false based on lack of evidence. Our beef is with evolution, not science; and gravity is designed. Newton conceived the laws of gravity as designed.

How was gravity designed? When you assert something as fact that is not true or can even be verified, that is the very definition of a LIE. And also you lied about the basic definition of commonly known and used English WORDS. You are finished!

Ray Martinez said:

Dale said:

Ray Martinez said: I don't deny natural selection; rather, I reject it. "deny" indicates true but reject for other reasons. "reject" indicates false based on lack of evidence. Our beef is with evolution, not science; and gravity is designed. Newton conceived the laws of gravity as designed.

How was gravity designed? When you assert something as fact that is not true or can even be verified, that is the very definition of a LIE. And also you lied about the basic definition of commonly known and used English WORDS. You are finished!

We know gravity designed the same way Newton knew gravity as designed. When Newton lived everyone was a Creationist, that is, a person who observed design in nature. So the problem is your inability to observe design in nature.

If gravity were "designed", then why not natural selection? why not evolution?

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The message that got me banned at UD places Wesley Elsberry in the exact same predicament. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424 Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

Like I care. I notice you dodge and dance and duck and run. You CANNOT cite a single speck of testable evidence for the reality of your gods. That's because your gods are NOT real, Ray.

Wesley Elsberry disagrees. He has been posting here at Panda's Thumb as a Christian scholar for very many years and you don't know that? The same indicates that you are blind? or Elsberry is not what he claims?

I'll let Elsberry speak for himself, Ray. It's more than you can do. Quit trying to hide behind Elsberry. Admit that you cannot show how your gods are real. You cannot cite even an iota of testable evidence for your beliefs. Your beliefs may be due to pathology for all you know. What we can say with certainty is that gods are no more real than vampires or superheroes. We can say that because there is not the slightest speck of testable evidence to the contrary.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Hey Ray, still denying natural selection? Can't get anyone to go along with you on that one I guess. Yea, that figures. Well here is a short clip on just that subject: http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/making-fittest-natural-selection-and-adaptation Now Ray, if yoiu can come up with a better explanation for the pattern observed, I'd be happy to listen. In fact, if you want to got the the bathroom wall to discuss it, I'd be more than happy to do so. But this thread is about Kitzmiller, so it really wouldn't be appropriate here. Not even those jack asses denied natural selection, as far as I know.

I don't deny natural selection; rather, I reject it. "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural selection, but signally failed" (Darwin, Autobio:124). Looks like I'm in good company. Ray

You can see gravity?

Why is it called the "design inference", if it is directly observable?

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The message that got me banned at UD places Wesley Elsberry in the exact same predicament. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424 Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

Like I care. I notice you dodge and dance and duck and run. You CANNOT cite a single speck of testable evidence for the reality of your gods. That's because your gods are NOT real, Ray.

Wesley Elsberry disagrees. He has been posting here at Panda's Thumb as a Christian scholar for very many years and you don't know that? The same indicates that you are blind? or Elsberry is not what he claims?

I'll let Elsberry speak for himself, Ray. It's more than you can do. Quit trying to hide behind Elsberry. Admit that you cannot show how your gods are real. You cannot cite even an iota of testable evidence for your beliefs. Your beliefs may be due to pathology for all you know. What we can say with certainty is that gods are no more real than vampires or superheroes. We can say that because there is not the slightest speck of testable evidence to the contrary.

Design observed infers the work of Intelligence.

The concept of design is directly observed to exist in nature.

Ray Martinez said: Atheists have no choice but to believe in evolution because in their minds no God exists to cause any thing to exist. But the same is not true concerning Christians. We know the God of the Bible exists. Observation of design in nature is one of the ways we know.

Michael Fugate said: You can see gravity? Why is it called the "design inference", if it is directly observable?

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said: You can see gravity? Why is it called the "design inference", if it is directly observable?

Where did you obtain the idea that "The Design Inference" was about gravity?

We know gravity [was] designed the same way Newton knew gravity [w]as designed.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The message that got me banned at UD places Wesley Elsberry in the exact same predicament. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424 Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

Like I care. I notice you dodge and dance and duck and run. You CANNOT cite a single speck of testable evidence for the reality of your gods. That's because your gods are NOT real, Ray.

Wesley Elsberry disagrees. He has been posting here at Panda's Thumb as a Christian scholar for very many years and you don't know that? The same indicates that you are blind? or Elsberry is not what he claims?

I'll let Elsberry speak for himself, Ray. It's more than you can do. Quit trying to hide behind Elsberry. Admit that you cannot show how your gods are real. You cannot cite even an iota of testable evidence for your beliefs. Your beliefs may be due to pathology for all you know. What we can say with certainty is that gods are no more real than vampires or superheroes. We can say that because there is not the slightest speck of testable evidence to the contrary.

Design observed infers the work of Intelligence.

But inference may be mistaken. That is why we must have testable evidence.

The concept of design is directly observed to exist in nature.

A baseless assertion. Tell me how you know your "observation" of design is anything more than hallucination, or wishful thinking. Can you detect design? Can you even define it? I don't care about your silly objections to the theory of evolution, Ray. They are worth no more than your silly beliefs in invisible, immortal gods with magical powers. Come back when you got some testable evidence, Ray.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said: You can see gravity? Why is it called the "design inference", if it is directly observable?

Where did you obtain the idea that "The Design Inference" was about gravity?

Gee, stupid, maybe from this:

We know gravity [was] designed the same way Newton knew gravity [w]as designed.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: The message that got me banned at UD places Wesley Elsberry in the exact same predicament. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-19/#comment-578424 Are we to believe Christ allows a follower to accept the main scientific claim of an interpretive philosophy (Materialism) that disallows His Father any role in biological production?

Like I care. I notice you dodge and dance and duck and run. You CANNOT cite a single speck of testable evidence for the reality of your gods. That's because your gods are NOT real, Ray.

Wesley Elsberry disagrees. He has been posting here at Panda's Thumb as a Christian scholar for very many years and you don't know that? The same indicates that you are blind? or Elsberry is not what he claims?

I'll let Elsberry speak for himself, Ray. It's more than you can do. Quit trying to hide behind Elsberry. Admit that you cannot show how your gods are real. You cannot cite even an iota of testable evidence for your beliefs. Your beliefs may be due to pathology for all you know. What we can say with certainty is that gods are no more real than vampires or superheroes. We can say that because there is not the slightest speck of testable evidence to the contrary.

Design observed infers the work of Intelligence.

But inference may be mistaken. That is why we must have testable evidence.

The concept of design is directly observed to exist in nature.

A baseless assertion. Tell me how you know your "observation" of design is anything more than hallucination, or wishful thinking. Can you detect design? Can you even define it? I don't care about your silly objections to the theory of evolution, Ray. They are worth no more than your silly beliefs in invisible, immortal gods with magical powers. Come back when you got some testable evidence, Ray.

Design is a noun, and non-fictitious nouns are observed to exist. So why is design any different?

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Michael Fugate said: You can see gravity? Why is it called the "design inference", if it is directly observable?

Where did you obtain the idea that "The Design Inference" was about gravity?

Gee, stupid, maybe from this:

We know gravity [was] designed the same way Newton knew gravity [w]as designed.

Where did I say "The Design Inference" was about gravity?

We know gravity [was] designed the same way Newton knew gravity [w]as designed.

eric said:

Robert Byers said: You make my point. A few kids!!

I'm going to mangle this because I'm doing it by memory, but there's a somewhat famous quote that applies here: should I stand by and allow a small violation of my constitutional rights, just because it is small? No!

It made no negative difference to ID/YEC. Surely it either helped or was nuetral while the iD movement gain steam and here it is.

Well you are welcome to your opinion on whether Dover helped or hurt ID. But are you really saying that a win for ID at Dover would have done nothing more to help your cause than the loss did?

"Design observed infers the work of Intelligence."

False. Let me give just one counter example, which suffices to refute this claim.

The two opposite direction spirals observed in the seed head of the sunflower comprise a design. Their numbers conform to adjacent elements in the Fibonacci Series. They are the direct consequence of packing seeds in the most efficient way, something which we would expect of Natural Selection. No divine intelligence required.

Claim refuted. Argument toppled. "Intelligent Design" destroyed (by Natural Design, which requires no Designer).

eric said:

Robert Byers said:

harold said: It is implied censorship to demand equal time in science class when you haven't earned it. It's an implied censorship of the real science that could be taught, and of everyone else's equally valid different religious opinions.

Implied censorship?? No. censorship is what it is. Denial of equal time is censorship if whats denied. creationism is not censoring or seeking it.

State curricula are set politically based on a wide variety of factors, and involves racking and stacking more educational priorities than could ever be reasonably covered in a given time period. IOW: too much material, not enough class time, something's gotta go or get less time, that's just the way it is. You can call it censorship if you like, but IMO if your pet priority ends up on the cutting room floor, its not censorship, it's just the inevitable outcome of hard choices having to be made in the face of limited time/resources. The issue with creationism is that it runs afoul of the first amendment. It's state promotion of a specific religious belief which doesn't pass the Lemon test. That makes including it in public school criteria unconstitutional. But as the courts have said, the states are free to make crappy and idiotic secular choices about what to cover in their curricula, and that isn't legal or illegal censorship, its just the way the state policy cookie crumbles. If some state decides that junior-level Biology classes will spend 20+ weeks studying the human appendix under microscope and cover nothing else, we can voice our opinion that this is a really bad choice. We can laugh and point. We can feel sorry for the kids getting shortchanged on their education. We can work to recall the school board and replace them with more sane people. But if we sue on the grounds that what they're doing is censoring evolution (or censoring some other biological topic which is not the human appendix), we're going to lose that fight Because while two entire semesters spent looking at the human appendix may be an incredibly stupid decision, its not an incredibly stupid illegally censorious decision.

Robert Byers said: Why do you run from the censorship label? Creationism is uniquely censored. What else is?

Why do you run from the censorship label? Creationism is uniquely censored. What else is?

Why do you run from the censorship label? Creationism is uniquely censored. What else is?

Why do you run from the censorship label? Creationism is uniquely censored. What else is?

Why do you run from the censorship label? Creationism is uniquely censored. What else is?

Robert Byers said: Creationism is uniquely censored.

Ray Martinez said: As to your point: Is truth dependent on popularity or the number of adherents?

Ray Martinez said: The concept of design is directly observed to exist in nature.

Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Ray Martinez said:

Dale said: FL is simply a fraud like all other creationist hypocrites who come here frequently, including Robert Byers and Ray Martinez. Nothing they say is genuine. Anyone who reads the Bible and claims for a second it is a legitimate source of scientific truth is insane or a con artist.

Since this is a Wesley R. Elsberry topic, that is, a person who claims to be a Christian and church-goer, I think we should let him handle this comment? The only thing I want to say is that Dale's comment corresponds to what Atheists are known to believe. And since everyone already knows what Atheists think of the Bible one can only wonder what the point is?

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Creationism is uniquely censored.

Exactly. Because currently, Creationism is the only unscientific explanation of origins that is trying to wedge its way into the science curriculum. If another unscientific explanation tried to do the same thing, it too would be "censored" and Creationism would no longer be unique

Robert Byers said: Why do you run from the censorship label?

I say there is no moral or legal right to censor creationism or anything by invoking the American constitution.

this is a error and simply court cases need to be brought to fix it.

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Creationism is uniquely censored.

Exactly. Because currently, Creationism is the only unscientific explanation of origins that is trying to wedge its way into the science curriculum.

Robert Byers said: I say there is no moral or legal right to censor creationism or anything by invoking the American constitution.

Glen Davidson said: So much for the idea that what you see is what you get. Trying again:

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: These court cases are hilarious. Obscure judges in obscure towns striving to decide what science, who is or is not doing it, and what are they doing if not that. Since they use big words.

Yet another subject you know nothing about. Judges, at all levels, have to decide what "science" is and isn't every day.

I ask you guys. REALLY. Do you really think this court case helped you?? What would it be like if you had lost?? What would it look like? Predictions please.

I was hoping that this might be available online by now. http://www.ycp.edu/news-and-events/news-stories/name-33296-en.html http://www.ycp.edu/offices-and-services/advancement/communications/cultural-series/special-events/what-if-intelligent-design-had-won/

I bet they don't. Anyways this one had no right and knew nothing and proved it by his decision points. Anyways he further said it was illegal because it was a religious conclusion. Beyond the pale to give any respect to him. More cases pleaee and then some more.

TomS said: I don't know enough about climate-change denial to say whether there is "censorship".

"Anyone thinking that there is an open flow of ideas in climate science is 100 percent wrong." -- Michaels and Knappenberger, Cato

FL said:

TomS said: I don't know enough about climate-change denial to say whether there is "censorship".

But you already know that there is censorship going on there. Demonstrated fact, already. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/roger-pielke-jr-being-investigated-by-representative-grijalva-for-presenting-inconvenient-data/ http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-science-no-dissent-allowed

"Anyone thinking that there is an open flow of ideas in climate science is 100 percent wrong." -- Michaels and Knappenberger, Cato

FL

Won't someone think of the popcorn ?

RJ said: You're mistaken, Dale. They are neither insane nor are they cons. They're inane, not insane. It's very tempting to assume that this lot must be out of their minds or lying; one or both are no doubt true for some of them. But most real people are more complex than this. These particular people do have some major moral character flaws but these have been widely discussed by others. Again, I honestly feel sorry for people like Robert, Floyd, and Ray. They seem honestly to believe that science is some kind of gotcha game.

So Floyd is a climate denier and conspiracy nut job. Color me surprised. Well since the topic of this thread is Kitzmiller, I presume that his crap will once again be bounced to the bathroom wall and that he will once again bitch and moan about "censorship". He must really be pissed that all of the nations of the world agree that something must be done. Oh well, at least his track record of being wrong about every single thing is still intact.

DS said: So Floyd is a climate denier and conspiracy nut job. Color me surprised.

FL said:

TomS said: I don't know enough about climate-change denial to say whether there is "censorship".

But you already know that there is censorship going on there. Demonstrated fact, already. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/roger-pielke-jr-being-investigated-by-representative-grijalva-for-presenting-inconvenient-data/ http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-science-no-dissent-allowed

"Anyone thinking that there is an open flow of ideas in climate science is 100 percent wrong." -- Michaels and Knappenberger, Cato

FL

Damn, we need some new crazies around here. Somebody woke up all the old ones, but they have no new zaniness to offer, just the same, tired bogosity.

Come on, somebody bring us a whole NEW proof that Evolution Can't Be True!

TomS said:

FL said:

TomS said: I don't know enough about climate-change denial to say whether there is "censorship".

But you already know that there is censorship going on there. Demonstrated fact, already. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/roger-pielke-jr-being-investigated-by-representative-grijalva-for-presenting-inconvenient-data/ http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-science-no-dissent-allowed

"Anyone thinking that there is an open flow of ideas in climate science is 100 percent wrong." -- Michaels and Knappenberger, Cato

FL

So, you disagree with the poster who said that creationism is uniquely censored. I will leave it to you two to continue on this disagreement.

FL said:

TomS said:

FL said:

TomS said: I don't know enough about climate-change denial to say whether there is "censorship".

But you already know that there is censorship going on there. Demonstrated fact, already. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/roger-pielke-jr-being-investigated-by-representative-grijalva-for-presenting-inconvenient-data/ http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-science-no-dissent-allowed

"Anyone thinking that there is an open flow of ideas in climate science is 100 percent wrong." -- Michaels and Knappenberger, Cato

FL

So, you disagree with the poster who said that creationism is uniquely censored. I will leave it to you two to continue on this disagreement.

All I know is that professional, qualified scientist SUPPORTERS of the Global Warming Religion are getting bullied, censored, and witch-hunted merely for offering scientific dissent regarding one or two mere **portions** of the global warming gig. Of course, such anti-science censorship is perfectly acceptable to Pandas. FL

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone. Can you name something that did not evolve?

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone. Can you name something that did not evolve?

So Ray, still no evidence for the existence of your gods? No, of course not. There is no such evidence. That's because your God is no more real than Dracula.

Just Bob said: Damn, we need some new crazies around here. Somebody woke up all the old ones, but they have no new zaniness to offer, just the same, tired bogosity. Come on, somebody bring us a whole NEW proof that Evolution Can't Be True!

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Damn, we need some new crazies around here. Somebody woke up all the old ones, but they have no new zaniness to offer, just the same, tired bogosity. Come on, somebody bring us a whole NEW proof that Evolution Can't Be True!

Since in their minds no God exists to cause anything to exist, Atheists have no choice but to believe in evolution.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone. Can you name something that did not evolve?

So Ray, still no evidence for the existence of your gods? No, of course not. There is no such evidence. That's because your God is no more real than Dracula.

Everyone else knows the evidence is massive---that's why we are Christians: faith is based on fact.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone. Can you name something that did not evolve?

So Ray, still no evidence for the existence of your gods? No, of course not. There is no such evidence. That's because your God is no more real than Dracula.

Everyone else knows the evidence is massive---that's why we are Christians: faith is based on fact.

Bwahaha! Name one fact I can test for myself to confirm the existence of gods.

phhht said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone. Can you name something that did not evolve?

So Ray, still no evidence for the existence of your gods? No, of course not. There is no such evidence. That's because your God is no more real than Dracula.

Everyone else knows the evidence is massive---that's why we are Christians: faith is based on fact.

Bwahaha! Name one fact I can test for myself to confirm the existence of gods.

You can't do it, can you, blowhard? That's because your gods are NOT real. There is not one shred of testable evidence for their reality. Whatever your "faith" is based on, it is NOT fact.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone. Can you name something that did not evolve?

So Ray, still no evidence for the existence of your gods? No, of course not. There is no such evidence. That's because your God is no more real than Dracula.

Everyone else knows the evidence is massive---that's why we are Christians: faith is based on fact.

Bwahaha! Name one fact I can test for myself to confirm the existence of gods.

You can't do it, can you, blowhard? That's because your gods are NOT real. There is not one shred of testable evidence for their reality. Whatever your "faith" is based on, it is NOT fact.

Like I said: only Atheists believe no evidence of God exists. Everyone else plainly sees a designed nature. So our faith is based on observation, which is the foundation and cornerstone of the scientific method.

Back to the original question, which was: Name a thing that was not designed? I answered: Paley's stone.

Now it's your turn: Name a thing that did not evolve?

Ray Martinez said: Back to the original question, which was: Name a thing that was not designed? I answered: Paley's stone. Now it's your turn: Name a thing that did not evolve?

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone. Can you name something that did not evolve?

So Ray, still no evidence for the existence of your gods? No, of course not. There is no such evidence. That's because your God is no more real than Dracula.

Everyone else knows the evidence is massive---that's why we are Christians: faith is based on fact.

Bwahaha! Name one fact I can test for myself to confirm the existence of gods.

You can't do it, can you, blowhard? That's because your gods are NOT real. There is not one shred of testable evidence for their reality. Whatever your "faith" is based on, it is NOT fact.

Like I said: only Atheists believe no evidence of God exists. Everyone else plainly sees a designed nature. So our faith is based on observation, which is the foundation and cornerstone of the scientific method.

Yardbird said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone. Can you name something that did not evolve?

So Ray, still no evidence for the existence of your gods? No, of course not. There is no such evidence. That's because your God is no more real than Dracula.

Everyone else knows the evidence is massive---that's why we are Christians: faith is based on fact.

Bwahaha! Name one fact I can test for myself to confirm the existence of gods.

You can't do it, can you, blowhard? That's because your gods are NOT real. There is not one shred of testable evidence for their reality. Whatever your "faith" is based on, it is NOT fact.

Like I said: only Atheists believe no evidence of God exists. Everyone else plainly sees a designed nature. So our faith is based on observation, which is the foundation and cornerstone of the scientific method.

Ray, you're an asshole.

Ray Martinez said:

Yardbird said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone. Can you name something that did not evolve?

So Ray, still no evidence for the existence of your gods? No, of course not. There is no such evidence. That's because your God is no more real than Dracula.

Everyone else knows the evidence is massive---that's why we are Christians: faith is based on fact.

Bwahaha! Name one fact I can test for myself to confirm the existence of gods.

You can't do it, can you, blowhard? That's because your gods are NOT real. There is not one shred of testable evidence for their reality. Whatever your "faith" is based on, it is NOT fact.

Like I said: only Atheists believe no evidence of God exists. Everyone else plainly sees a designed nature. So our faith is based on observation, which is the foundation and cornerstone of the scientific method.

Ray, you're an asshole.

You're lashing out in anger and frustration, unable to refute anything I say.

Ray Martinez said:

Yardbird said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone. Can you name something that did not evolve?

So Ray, still no evidence for the existence of your gods? No, of course not. There is no such evidence. That's because your God is no more real than Dracula.

Everyone else knows the evidence is massive---that's why we are Christians: faith is based on fact.

Bwahaha! Name one fact I can test for myself to confirm the existence of gods.

You can't do it, can you, blowhard? That's because your gods are NOT real. There is not one shred of testable evidence for their reality. Whatever your "faith" is based on, it is NOT fact.

Like I said: only Atheists believe no evidence of God exists. Everyone else plainly sees a designed nature. So our faith is based on observation, which is the foundation and cornerstone of the scientific method.

Ray, you're an asshole.

You're lashing out in anger and frustration, unable to refute anything I say.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Yardbird said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone. Can you name something that did not evolve?

So Ray, still no evidence for the existence of your gods? No, of course not. There is no such evidence. That's because your God is no more real than Dracula.

Everyone else knows the evidence is massive---that's why we are Christians: faith is based on fact.

Bwahaha! Name one fact I can test for myself to confirm the existence of gods.

You can't do it, can you, blowhard? That's because your gods are NOT real. There is not one shred of testable evidence for their reality. Whatever your "faith" is based on, it is NOT fact.

Like I said: only Atheists believe no evidence of God exists. Everyone else plainly sees a designed nature. So our faith is based on observation, which is the foundation and cornerstone of the scientific method.

Ray, you're an asshole.

You're lashing out in anger and frustration, unable to refute anything I say.

And you, Ray, you're tap-dancing and dodging and ducking as hard as you can, but it's no use. You cannot name one testable fact - and you claim to have masses of them, right? - but you can't name even a single one to demonstrate the reality of your gods. Why, Ray, in the utter absence of any empirical evidence, should anyone believe in the reality of your delusional gods?

Design is the method of a limited agent. It differs fundamentally from creation.
An unconstrained creator has no need to resort to design. Necessity is the mother of invention, and there is no necessity which a creator has to deal with. Design is contrivance, a resort to expedients, and only a limited agent resorts to expedients.

Design is the work of nature-spirits, not the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of each one of us.

For example, the first statement of traditional creeds is that God is the creator of all things. For example, stones.

The belief comes before any evidence in Ray's case. He doesn't believe in God because he sees design in nature, he sees design in nature because he believes in God. Evidence doesn't lead him or most other theists to belief.

Ray, can you explain why, given a creator god, a virus is designed, but a rock isn't? In your mindset, if there were no god, would there be rocks? If your god didn't design rocks, who did?

Think of all the things humans design and manufacture, do any of them do what they want to do or do they do what the humans who designed them want them to do? Do any of them have agency?

Paley's (1809) Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity was an attempt to counter the devastating argument against design in Hume's (1779) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Design has been dead for at least 200 years - some people still don't realize it. Just like they can't see natural selection.....

TomS said: Design is the method of a limited agent. It differs fundamentally from creation. An unconstrained creator has no need to resort to design. Necessity is the mother of invention, and there is no necessity which a creator has to deal with. Design is contrivance, a resort to expedients, and only a limited agent resorts to expedients. Design is the work of nature-spirits, not the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of each one of us. For example, the first statement of traditional creeds is that God is the creator of all things. For example, stones.

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone. Can you name something that did not evolve?

FL said: Simply stated, what's specifically prohibiting the Creator from doing all that design work?

FL said:

TomS said: Design is the method of a limited agent. It differs fundamentally from creation. An unconstrained creator has no need to resort to design. Necessity is the mother of invention, and there is no necessity which a creator has to deal with. Design is contrivance, a resort to expedients, and only a limited agent resorts to expedients. Design is the work of nature-spirits, not the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of each one of us. For example, the first statement of traditional creeds is that God is the creator of all things. For example, stones.

Okay Tom, please explain exactly what **prohibits** this "Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of each one of us", from volitionally choosing of His own sovereign preferences and power to utilize just as many design principles as He wants... ...indeed, to utilize as many flat-out engineering and aesthetic design principles as He wants, regarding (for example) the creation of humans. **** Simply stated, what's specifically prohibiting the Creator from doing all that design work? Lack of prior permission from Pandaville or something? FL

phhht said:

FL said: Simply stated, what's specifically prohibiting the Creator from doing all that design work?

Only his non-existence, Flawd.

FL said: Simply stated, what's specifically prohibiting the Creator from doing all that design work?

Ray, let's consider that very specific stone you mentioned (assuming Paley had one actual stone in mind).

Assume you have it sitting right in front of you. Right beside your computer keyboard. Now, how can you TELL that it is not designed? How can you tell that God didn't plan and construct it atom by atom, crystal by crystal, because he wanted THAT stone to look JUST LIKE THAT? Just like a 'natural' stone.

What reason do you have for asserting confidently that the stone is not designed -- besides Paley's assertion that it is not? Is it because you think you know how rocks are formed naturally? Let's grant that most are. How do you KNOW that that one was? What test could you, or anyone, do to distinguish a 'natural' rock from one designed by God to look 'natural'?

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone.

Just Bob said: Ray, let's consider that very specific stone you mentioned (assuming Paley had one actual stone in mind). Assume you have it sitting right in front of you. Right beside your computer keyboard. Now, how can you TELL that it is not designed? How can you tell that God didn't plan and construct it atom by atom, crystal by crystal, because he wanted THAT stone to look JUST LIKE THAT? Just like a 'natural' stone. What reason do you have for asserting confidently that the stone is not designed -- besides Paley's assertion that it is not? Is it because you think you know how rocks are formed naturally? Let's grant that most are. How do you KNOW that that one was? What test could you, or anyone, do to distinguish a 'natural' rock from one designed by God to look 'natural'?

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone.

Dale said:

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Well, let's try it with this one: Ray, can you name something which is NOT designed?

Paley's stone.

What the hell is Paley's stone? Did it come from one of his kidneys or his gall bladder? Note to phhht: You already know Ray will never produce any evidence for theism, so what's the point of engaging him any further? He is already totally discredited. That was my only concern and now we can all move on, no?

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Creationism is uniquely censored.

Exactly. Because currently, Creationism is the only unscientific explanation of origins that is trying to wedge its way into the science curriculum. If another unscientific explanation tried to do the same thing, it too would be "censored" and Creationism would no longer be unique

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Why do you run from the censorship label?

I'm not applying it because you and Ray are talking about design without being arrested. UD runs without anyone being fined. Behe and Dembski write books and they are sold in bookstores. Ergo, the subject isn't censored.

I say there is no moral or legal right to censor creationism or anything by invoking the American constitution.

That's got to be one of the funnier claims you've made. Yes, US legal rights are based on the constitution.

this is a error and simply court cases need to be brought to fix it.

They were. Multiple times. You just disagree with the result. And look, our court system is not so stupid to ignore viable ideas just because they might have religious implications. You may note that we teach the big bang theory even though when it was first proposed, many scientists didn't like it because they thought it sounded religious. The Lemon test explicitly addresses such things by allowing through theories that have a secular effect. The reason creationism and ID cannot be taught in public science classes is because multiple courts - including the US Supreme Court - in decisions spanning several decades, have consistently found that there is no secular value in them. Courts have not said 'religious ideas are untrue' like you claim, but they have said that these particular ideas are simply thinly disguised biblical theology with no actual scientific value. Now I know you disagree with that result. But there is no sense in pretending it didn't happen. There is no sense in pretending that the constitution isn't relevant to a question of US law, or that the courts have not yet ruled on a subject when they have (multiple times). That's just silly. Yes, the first amendment matters when deciding what is legal for state government representatives to promote. Yes, the courts have been 'brought to fix it' just as you've requested. And multiple courts have agreed that you, Robert Byers, and people like you, are wrong in how you interpret the law. But hey, if you want to take the "they called me mad at the supreme court, but I'll show them heh heh heh" route, be my guest.

Robert Byers said: The courts , on behalf of the state, are saying religious ideas on origins are untrue.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: These court cases are hilarious. Obscure judges in obscure towns striving to decide what science, who is or is not doing it, and what are they doing if not that. Since they use big words.

Yet another subject you know nothing about. Judges, at all levels, have to decide what "science" is and isn't every day.

I ask you guys. REALLY. Do you really think this court case helped you?? What would it be like if you had lost?? What would it look like? Predictions please.

I was hoping that this might be available online by now. http://www.ycp.edu/news-and-events/news-stories/name-33296-en.html http://www.ycp.edu/offices-and-services/advancement/communications/cultural-series/special-events/what-if-intelligent-design-had-won/

I bet they don't. Anyways this one had no right and knew nothing and proved it by his decision points. Anyways he further said it was illegal because it was a religious conclusion. Beyond the pale to give any respect to him. More cases pleaee and then some more.

"I bet they don't"?? That's all you've got? So what you're saying is that it never happens, because you don't believe that it happens. Is that right? Every time one company sues another over patent infringement, a judge has to decide what is science and what isn't. Every time a person sues a company for polluting the common water or air, a judge has to decide what is science and what isn't. I have personally sat as a juror in a trial where a CPA firm was suing a computer manufacturer, and we the jury had to decide which side was using science, and which side was blowing smoke up our ass. (I'll let you guess.) "this one had no right"?? What do you mean the judge had "no right" to decide the case? Both sides, including the ID/Creationist side asked, and insisted that the judge rule on whether ID/Creationism was science. That was the whole point of their case. If ID/Creationism was judged to be science, then they could teach it in the science classroom. Just look at the briefs filed by both sides. It's black and white. The Creationists wanted the judge to rule whether ID/Creationism was science or not. It just so happens that you and the other Creationists disagree with the judge's judgement. That doesn't mean the judge didn't have the right to make the ruling he did, based on the evidence presented to him. If the judge had ruled that ID/Creationism was science, you would be trumpeting about how wise he was, and how he had every right to make that judgement. The judge had every right to rule as he did. That's what judges are asked to do every day, whether you, personally, believe that to be the case or not. That's what "law" is all about.

Michael Fugate said: [snip....] Paley's (1809) Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity was an attempt to counter the devastating argument against design in Hume's (1779) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Design has been dead for at least 200 years - some people still don't realize it. Just like they can't see natural selection.....

Robert Byers said: ID/YEC should simply attack the WHOLE concept of state censorship and not just say it doesn't apply to them. A greater strike for truth, freedom, Christianity's rights, and already existing moral and political and legal rights.

Robert Byers said: My censorship charge is exclusively to public institutions. These previous court casses are obscure ones. Bigger ones must and will be brought. Its important. The courts , on behalf of the state, are saying religious ideas on origins are untrue. Otherwise they are saying a option for truth is censored in subjects dedicated to the truth. Dedicated to the right of the public to get the truth. SECULAR VALUE! what could be more of a secular value then the truth of origins? Is evolution not a secular value?? Why not its critics? ID/YEC should simply attack the WHOLE concept of state censorship and not just say it doesn't apply to them. A greater strike for truth, freedom, Christianity's rights, and already existing moral and political and legal rights.

Just Bob said: Ray, let's consider that very specific stone you mentioned (assuming Paley had one actual stone in mind). Assume you have it sitting right in front of you. Right beside your computer keyboard. Now, how can you TELL that it is not designed? How can you tell that God didn't plan and construct it atom by atom, crystal by crystal, because he wanted THAT stone to look JUST LIKE THAT? Just like a 'natural' stone. What reason do you have for asserting confidently that the stone is not designed -- besides Paley's assertion that it is not? Is it because you think you know how rocks are formed naturally? Let's grant that most are. How do you KNOW that that one was? What test could you, or anyone, do to distinguish a 'natural' rock from one designed by God to look 'natural'?

Ray Martinez is conflating the history of design in the thoughts of working scientists with the history of the socio/political movement called ID/creationism.

The latter began formally in 1970 with the founding of the Institute for Creation Research by Henry Morris and Duane Gish; and it is pseudoscience that was designed to mask a sectarian socio/political movement whose goal was to get evolution out of public education and inject sectarian dogma in its place.

Robert Byers said: iD/YEC should demand a end to censorship in public institutions by existing rights.

Ray Martinez said:

Just Bob said: Ray, let's consider that very specific stone you mentioned (assuming Paley had one actual stone in mind). Assume you have it sitting right in front of you. Right beside your computer keyboard. Now, how can you TELL that it is not designed? How can you tell that God didn't plan and construct it atom by atom, crystal by crystal, because he wanted THAT stone to look JUST LIKE THAT? Just like a 'natural' stone. What reason do you have for asserting confidently that the stone is not designed -- besides Paley's assertion that it is not? Is it because you think you know how rocks are formed naturally? Let's grant that most are. How do you KNOW that that one was? What test could you, or anyone, do to distinguish a 'natural' rock from one designed by God to look 'natural'?

Except for Paley's inference/conclusion nearly all, if not all Darwinian scholars, accept his stone/watch analogy as completely sound. Log off and read what your own scholars have said. And I said scholars, not any author with a blog.

Mike Elzinga said: Ray Martinez is conflating the history of design in the thoughts of working scientists with the history of the socio/political movement called ID/creationism. The latter began formally in 1970 with the founding of the Institute for Creation Research by Henry Morris and Duane Gish; and it is pseudoscience that was designed to mask a sectarian socio/political movement whose goal was to get evolution out of public education and inject sectarian dogma in its place.

Ray Martinez said: Except for Paley's inference/conclusion nearly all, if not all Darwinian scholars, accept his stone/watch analogy as completely sound.

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Except for Paley's inference/conclusion nearly all, if not all Darwinian scholars, accept his stone/watch analogy as completely sound.

But now we know it to be false. We know it to be without any scientific basis at all. We now know that intelligent design is the province of religious lunatics. Like you, Ray.

phhht said:

Robert Byers said: iD/YEC should demand a end to censorship in public institutions by existing rights.

But ID and YEC is horseshit, Robert Byers. It's stupid mythology. It's false.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Except for Paley's inference/conclusion nearly all, if not all Darwinian scholars, accept his stone/watch analogy as completely sound.

But now we know it to be false. We know it to be without any scientific basis at all. We now know that intelligent design is the province of religious lunatics. Like you, Ray.

And we know evolution is the province of anti-religious fanatics like you and all other Atheists. Since Atheists have no choice but to accept the concept of evolution to explain life past and life present, this means evolution is NOT falsifiable. This is why your "science" is called scientism.

Robert Byers said: The courts , on behalf of the state, are saying religious ideas on origins are untrue.

Ray Martinez said: RM (species immutabilist)

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Except for Paley's inference/conclusion nearly all, if not all Darwinian scholars, accept his stone/watch analogy as completely sound.

But now we know it to be false. We know it to be without any scientific basis at all. We now know that intelligent design is the province of religious lunatics. Like you, Ray.

And we know evolution is the province of anti-religious fanatics like you and all other Atheists. Since Atheists have no choice but to accept the concept of evolution to explain life past and life present, this means evolution is NOT falsifiable. This is why your "science" is called scientism.

I notice that you STILL have not cited one single solitary testable fact to demonstrate the reality of your gods, loony. C'mon, surely with that "massive" factual support for your religious faith, you can come up with one. But no. You're a religious loony, Ray. All your raving and bluster is based on madness.

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said:

phhht said:

Ray Martinez said: Except for Paley's inference/conclusion nearly all, if not all Darwinian scholars, accept his stone/watch analogy as completely sound.

But now we know it to be false. We know it to be without any scientific basis at all. We now know that intelligent design is the province of religious lunatics. Like you, Ray.

And we know evolution is the province of anti-religious fanatics like you and all other Atheists. Since Atheists have no choice but to accept the concept of evolution to explain life past and life present, this means evolution is NOT falsifiable. This is why your "science" is called scientism.

I notice that you STILL have not cited one single solitary testable fact to demonstrate the reality of your gods, loony. C'mon, surely with that "massive" factual support for your religious faith, you can come up with one. But no. You're a religious loony, Ray. All your raving and bluster is based on madness.

Anyone can fact check the pages of messages and see otherwise: design was offered with argument. And this fact check will also reveal that you have made countless similar posts, as seen above, in response. Like I observed early on: you're a one trick pony.

Ray Martinez said: Since Atheists have no choice but to accept the concept of evolution to explain life past and life present, this means evolution is NOT falsifiable. This is why your "science" is called scientism.

Robert Byers said:

gnome de net said:

Robert Byers said: Creationism is uniquely censored.

Exactly. Because currently, Creationism is the only unscientific explanation of origins that is trying to wedge its way into the science curriculum. If another unscientific explanation tried to do the same thing, it too would be "censored" and Creationism would no longer be unique

It wouldn't be censored using the constitution. If wrong ideas are censored thats fine, I huess, of its by the people. likewise evolution could be censored. Nothing here should be or is important enough to be censored in reality.

Robert Byers said: These previous court casses are obscure ones. Bigger ones must and will be brought. Its important.

The courts , on behalf of the state, are saying religious ideas on origins are untrue. Otherwise they are saying a option for truth is censored in subjects dedicated to the truth. Dedicated to the right of the public to get the truth.

ID/YEC should simply attack the WHOLE concept of state censorship and not just say it doesn't apply to them.

Except for Paley’s inference/conclusion nearly all, if not all Darwinian scholars, accept his stone/watch analogy as completely sound. Log off and read what your own scholars have said. And I said scholars, not any author with a blog.

Ray Martinez said: Since Atheists have no choice but to accept the concept of evolution to explain life past and life present, this means evolution is NOT falsifiable. This is why your "science" is called scientism.

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said: Ray Martinez is conflating the history of design in the thoughts of working scientists with the history of the socio/political movement called ID/creationism. The latter began formally in 1970 with the founding of the Institute for Creation Research by Henry Morris and Duane Gish; and it is pseudoscience that was designed to mask a sectarian socio/political movement whose goal was to get evolution out of public education and inject sectarian dogma in its place.

Produce the quote that conflates or says anything about post-1970 Creationism, which I did NOT mention. You've made a bad error and judging by your behavior in the past you won't admit.

Re: Paley's Stone. It is worth noting that, according to Dembski's Explanatory Filter, Paley's Stone is also designed by God. See my Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector.

Given an omnimax creator God, then pretty much everything in the world is designed.

rossum said: Re: Paley's Stone. It is worth noting that, according to Dembski's Explanatory Filter, Paley's Stone is also designed by God. See my Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector. Given an omnimax creator God, then pretty much everything in the world is designed.

TomS said:

rossum said: Re: Paley's Stone. It is worth noting that, according to Dembski's Explanatory Filter, Paley's Stone is also designed by God. See my Proposal for a Theistic Design Detector. Given an omnimax creator God, then pretty much everything in the world is designed.

And even things of the imagination are designed also. It takes something beyond design, maybe production, to make something real. Humans can design things which they cannot make. For example, baramins.

And the only genuinely scientific search for intelligent design in our universe comes from SETI.

They look for signals that are statistically and physically similar to human-engineered electromagnetic communications. They have no other standard against which to judge an extra-terrestrial signal.

No hope of finding such a standard for comparison in the Bible.

As Mike Elzinga says, the ID/Creationists are totally clueless about Science - totally.

People (on both sides of the ID/evolution debate) are talking about design again. I am not sure they know what that means, or what each other means by it. Like most words it can be used for different things. I spent over 30 years doing turbine design work, so I'm biased, but I think of design as that sort of process. I see design all around me. To me it is an evolutionary process. It is Edison trying 100's of different materials for light-bulb filaments, without knowing in advance whether they would work or not, until he found something useful. It is rolling logs spawning the idea of rollers under heavy objects spawning the wheel.

Steam turbine design starts with data on the site conditions and steam source (boiler). These are feed into a thermodynamical-design computer program which determines the optimum number and sizes of turbine stages. I see this as analogous to a gene or set of genes which an organism has to perform a certain function. Like genes, the program did not spring into being in full and final form like Athena from the head of Zeus, but was developed over a long time with incremental improvements which continue today.

Despite making steam turbines for over 100 years, GE has to continually make them bigger, more efficient, and more reliable to keep up with the competition and survive in the marketplace. Usually these are incremental changes, but every now and then we decided to try something new, such as changing from rows of vanes with peened-on shrouds to integral shrouds. We then had to figure out how to make such a row that could be assembled on a rotor and be efficient at keeping steam inside the row and be structurally stable and run for 30 years at high temperature at 3600 RPM reliably. We tried idea after idea until something worked, like Edison. We built a test row of trial 1 and tried to assemble it on a test rotor. We couldn't assemble it - scratch that idea, on to the next one. Eventually, thanks to a guy in manufacturing whom we invited to a brainstorm meeting who remembered seeing an unusual way of assembling the chuck of a portable lathe, we came up with a method, which, five years of testing and incremental changes later, seemed to be a workable design (knock on wood).

So when a creationist pointed to a car parked next to a tree and asked me, "Can't you see that they were both designed?", I replied, "I see two things which evolved. You've seen cars evolve (a lot) in your lifetime." Design/evolution - same thing as far as I'm concerned.

There were no rabbits in the Cambrian, and none of Paley's pocket watches in 500 BCE. They both evolved from simpler forms.

I will finish my argument by quoting an empirical law of design:

"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system." – John Gall, "Systemantics: How Systems Really Work and How They Fail", 1975

I think that ID advocates should have studied how human design actually works (and intelligence, for that matter, which I think works similarly). As I see it they have no reliable, positive evidence either from nature or from human industry of the magical process (poofing into existence) which they claim is more likely to produce complex forms than simple evolution (which we know exists and can work, based on lots of evidence).

It also galls me a little to see evolution advocates implicitly conceding that human design work is somehow special and magical rather than just an advanced form of evolution. Design work is not that hard to understand - it just takes a little humility and a lot of persistence (a lot more at first, until advanced genes - sorry, design tools - have been developed).

Scott F said: The problem, as will all creationist word play, is that the word "design" has so many different meanings. In human language, such subtle variation in meaning is a "feature". In Scientific terms, it is hopelessly vague and meaningless.

JimV said: I think that ID advocates should have studied how human design actually works (and intelligence, for that matter, which I think works similarly). As I see it they have no reliable, positive evidence either from nature or from human industry of the magical process (poofing into existence) which they claim is more likely to produce complex forms than simple evolution (which we know exists and can work, based on lots of evidence).

“As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.”

It also galls me a little to see evolution advocates implicitly conceding that human design work is somehow special and magical rather than just an advanced form of evolution.

Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest.

I will finish my argument by quoting an empirical law of design: “A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.” – John Gall, “Systemantics: How Systems Really Work and How They Fail”, 1975

So when a creationist pointed to a car parked next to a tree and asked me, “Can’t you see that they were both designed?”, I replied, “I see two things which evolved. You’ve seen cars evolve (a lot) in your lifetime.” Design/evolution - same thing as far as I’m concerned.

It also galls me a little to see evolution advocates implicitly conceding that human design work is somehow special and magical rather than just an advanced form of evolution.

Dave Luckett said: So Just Bob's observation holds, and Martinez has done nothing against it: Martinez thinks everything was designed, because that is the rigorous implication of believing in a God who created all things. It must follow that Martinez can't tell a designed object from one that was not designed; his answer of "Paley's stone" when asked to name something that wasn't designed is therefore merely a disingenuous untruth. Put simply, a lie.

Mike Elzinga said: When it comes to ID/creationists, I NEVER make errors; I read your minds and your shibboleths, which none of you can hide.

Scott F said: However, Ray isn't a YEC. Using arguments against YEC, against a 6-day creation, does not touch him. Ray (as I understand his argument) is willing to admit a certain limited amount of "evolution". To this extent, within his magical limits of "species immutability", we might agree. Ray is left with the unproveable, unfalsifiable, and untenable position of assuming a "design", without stipulating a means of actual "production".

FL said:

Mike Elzinga said: When it comes to ID/creationists, I NEVER make errors; I read your minds and your shibboleths, which none of you can hide.

Ooo-wee, and golly-gee! Last time I read about a fella with **that** kind of sweeping zero-error mind-reading ability, his name was Jesus Christ. Therefore either Mike Elzinga has evolved himself all the way up to self-divinity, or else he's simply gone PLUM CRAZY en la cabeza!! (And don't ask which outcome I'm betting on!!)

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: However, Ray isn't a YEC. Using arguments against YEC, against a 6-day creation, does not touch him. Ray (as I understand his argument) is willing to admit a certain limited amount of "evolution". To this extent, within his magical limits of "species immutability", we might agree. Ray is left with the unproveable, unfalsifiable, and untenable position of assuming a "design", without stipulating a means of actual "production".

I appreciate your attempt to engage and answer, but you've made some honest errors in regard to my views. I am a traditional Paleyan, this means I completely reject any and all evolution existing in nature including microevolution. Each species, past and present, was created independently (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray). This means each species is immutable or non-evolvable (op. cit.) The main scientific evidence supporting species immutability is Paley's appearances of design (1802; see book title). Design observed in each watch/species infers the work of an invisible Watchmaker (the God of Archdeacon Paley). Thus each species was independently created and did NOT originate or evolve from a previously living species.

Still waiting for an object, past or present, that did not evolve to be identified?

Why are the Evolutionists evading this question----a question they ask Creationists concerning design?

phhht said:

FL said:

Mike Elzinga said: When it comes to ID/creationists, I NEVER make errors; I read your minds and your shibboleths, which none of you can hide.

Ooo-wee, and golly-gee! Last time I read about a fella with **that** kind of sweeping zero-error mind-reading ability, his name was Jesus Christ. Therefore either Mike Elzinga has evolved himself all the way up to self-divinity, or else he's simply gone PLUM CRAZY en la cabeza!! (And don't ask which outcome I'm betting on!!)

Remember, everyone, this is the guy who seriously claims that he cannot be wrong about his religious convictions. He cannot tell fact from fiction. He cannot tell television drama from evidence. He believes that vegesaurs once ruled the earth. He rejects biology, cosmology, climatology, and most of the rest of scientific reality in favor of superstitious nonsense. So when he calls someone else crazy, we better listen up.

Ray Martinez said: Still waiting for an object, past or present, that did not evolve to be identified? Why are the Evolutionists evading this question----a question they ask Creationists concerning design?

Ray, you need to tell us what you mean by evolution in this context. Most of us would agree that organisms are a product of descent with modification, but evolution can be used to mean any change. An individual organism, in a sense, is a product of DWM, but it is also a product of reproduction and development. We can also talk about cultural evolution, but it is not the same as biological evolution. So are you looking for something that is immutable, indivisible? It seems to me you would need to play word games to cling to species immutability. But you do have to admire (if that is the correct word) someone who is 200+ years out of date and proud of it - especially since Paley was a man of limited originality to being with. I would suggest reading some of the ideas on species and their historical understanding by John Wilkins (http://philpapers.org/autosense.pl?searchStr=John+S.+Wilkins). He makes it pretty clear that naturalists have always known that species are changeable. Only someone who has never been a naturalist - studying animals and plants for the sheer joy of it - could believe in species fixity.

Michael Fugate said: Ray, you need to tell us what you mean by evolution in this context. Most of us would agree that organisms are a product of descent with modification, but evolution can be used to mean any change. An individual organism, in a sense, is a product of DWM, but it is also a product of reproduction and development. We can also talk about cultural evolution, but it is not the same as biological evolution. So are you looking for something that is immutable, indivisible? It seems to me you would need to play word games to cling to species immutability. But you do have to admire (if that is the correct word) someone who is 200+ years out of date and proud of it - especially since Paley was a man of limited originality to being with. I would suggest reading some of the ideas on species and their historical understanding by John Wilkins (http://philpapers.org/autosense.pl?searchStr=John+S.+Wilkins). He makes it pretty clear that naturalists have always known that species are changeable. Only someone who has never been a naturalist - studying animals and plants for the sheer joy of it - could believe in species fixity.

"I am a traditional Paleyan ..." Just what does that really mean?

It means that Paley's argument (about a watch found laying out on the heath; "Aha, it's designed!") is one's founding principle and guiding light. This is what Paley is most famous for, so any self-declared Paleyan must also subscribe to it.

Paley's criterion for detecting design was "it's complicated and out-of-place, i.e. different," but also "a watch is made to perform a specific function, which it achieves by the purposeful arrangement of parts. He attempted to argue that living things also demonstrate such a purposeful arrangement of parts, hence that design may be inferred." {Luckett, Dec. 9, 2015, 'Game over for antievolutionary No Free Lunch argument.'}

Clearly, the recognition of 'purpose' can only arise in a species capable of design itself. It takes one to know one. So SETI looks for signals like we make, just like Paley looked for things humans made.

Despite arguing "that living things also demonstrate such a purposeful arrangement of parts, hence that design may be inferred", Paley fails because living things could not exist if they did not have a good working arrangement of parts. The assignment of purpose to that arrangement is nothing more than impressing human traits on human-less Nature, anthropomorphism.

So to be a Paleyan is to be an Anthropomorpher.

Nothing new. Refuted, so long ago. And still refuted.

Curiously, Paleyan rhymes with Raelian. More than a coincidence? I wonder what other parallels might exist there?

eric said:

Robert Byers said: These previous court casses are obscure ones. Bigger ones must and will be brought. Its important.

Epperson vs. Arkansas and Edwards vs. Aguillard are both pretty famous cases, not at all obscure. You are mistaking your own ignorance of legal history for obscurity. Morever they were decided by the US Supreme Court, so you can't get "bigger" than that.

The courts , on behalf of the state, are saying religious ideas on origins are untrue. Otherwise they are saying a option for truth is censored in subjects dedicated to the truth. Dedicated to the right of the public to get the truth.

No, they are not. They in fact said the opposite; the judges were pretty explicit that they were not ruling on the truth of religious ideas. They are saying the state cannot endorse a religious idea unless there is some secular value to it, and creationism is a religious idea with no secular value to it. That's a very good thing for you, because it means public school teachers can't foist buddhist or hindu or anyone else's creation stories on your kids by pretending its science or an "alternative to evolution."

ID/YEC should simply attack the WHOLE concept of state censorship and not just say it doesn't apply to them.

Well Robert, I'm not sure any lawyers are going to be interested in advice from a guy who hasn't bothered to read and doesn't know what's in decisions on which he opines, a guy who isn't aware of two of the key US cases discussing religion in public schools, and who demands a case "bigger" than a Supreme Court case happen in order to address his pet peeve. But hey, you can always send your advice in to the Thomas More Law Center or Liberty Council.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: The courts , on behalf of the state, are saying religious ideas on origins are untrue.

No, they are saying that religious ideas on origins are baseless and unsupported by evidence. That is the simple standard that prevents you from teaching creationism in science classes. Beliefs unsupported by evidence == religion, therefore you can't reach it in science class. Beliefs supported by evidence == objective fact, and objective fact can be taught in any science class in all the land. Now, pay attention here, Robert, because I don't know if you chose to believe when Venn diagrams were taught in school, but when these two things overlap, evidence wins, even if it supports a religious view. That is ... Beliefs supported by evidence == objective fact, even if those beliefs advance religion, and objective fact, even if it advances religion can still be taught in any science class in all the land. That's all you need Byers, at least down here in the States. We keep going on and on and on about this but it's really that frickin' simple. If you guys would just stop whining and go and do some real science and find even the tiniest little scrap of evidence that supports your cause all those Lemon Test objections would legally vanish in a fragrant citrus puff and you could legally do what you've been trying so hard to do by subterfuge all these years. Now, why can't you do that Bob, why?

A state censoring a religious conclusion is saying it ain’t true if the subject class is about truth. Where am i wrong in my logic???

Ray Martinez said:

Scott F said: However, Ray isn't a YEC. Using arguments against YEC, against a 6-day creation, does not touch him. Ray (as I understand his argument) is willing to admit a certain limited amount of "evolution". To this extent, within his magical limits of "species immutability", we might agree. Ray is left with the unproveable, unfalsifiable, and untenable position of assuming a "design", without stipulating a means of actual "production".

I appreciate your attempt to engage and answer, but you've made some honest errors in regard to my views. I am a traditional Paleyan, this means I completely reject any and all evolution existing in nature including microevolution. Each species, past and present, was created independently (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray). This means each species is immutable or non-evolvable (op. cit.) The main scientific evidence supporting species immutability is Paley's appearances of design (1802; see book title). Design observed in each watch/species infers the work of an invisible Watchmaker (the God of Archdeacon Paley). Thus each species was independently created and did NOT originate or evolve from a previously living species.

Robert Byers said:

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: The courts , on behalf of the state, are saying religious ideas on origins are untrue.

No, they are saying that religious ideas on origins are baseless and unsupported by evidence. That is the simple standard that prevents you from teaching creationism in science classes. Beliefs unsupported by evidence == religion, therefore you can't reach it in science class. Beliefs supported by evidence == objective fact, and objective fact can be taught in any science class in all the land. Now, pay attention here, Robert, because I don't know if you chose to believe when Venn diagrams were taught in school, but when these two things overlap, evidence wins, even if it supports a religious view. That is ... Beliefs supported by evidence == objective fact, even if those beliefs advance religion, and objective fact, even if it advances religion can still be taught in any science class in all the land. That's all you need Byers, at least down here in the States. We keep going on and on and on about this but it's really that frickin' simple. If you guys would just stop whining and go and do some real science and find even the tiniest little scrap of evidence that supports your cause all those Lemon Test objections would legally vanish in a fragrant citrus puff and you could legally do what you've been trying so hard to do by subterfuge all these years. Now, why can't you do that Bob, why?

Your incorrect. Its unrelated to science. The censorship is about religion. Its not bad science they are censoring. They are saying aNY conclusions in origin matters, they call religious, are illegal. SO i turn it around on them. If they censor same 'religious, conclusions IN SCHOLL SUBJECTS DEDICATED TO ACCURACY/TRUTH then same religious conclusions are being said by the state to be EITHER wrong or if not wrong STILL illegal. If the latter then a absurdity and rejection of the peoples right to education and educational concepts themselves. if the former they are breaking the very law they invoke fOR the censorship. NO. ID/YEC has a great case and a historic chance to overthrow incompetent judicial decisions and gain back historic freedoms . They should not of argued WE TOO IS SCIENCE. Chump change.

Robert Byers said: A state censoring a religious conclusion is saying it ain't true if the subject class is about truth. Where am i wrong in my logic???

Robert Byers said: WHY does the judge say they are not ruling on whether religious ideas on origions are true or not? BECAUSE ITS ILLEGAL None of their business. AMEN.

In subjects about accuracy and truth. THEREFORE its impossible to say they are not SAYING a religious idea is untrue UNLESS they admit the truth is not the objective of education. AN absurdity and transparent in its uniqueness to be state opining on religious truth by their own standards.

FL said:

Mike Elzinga said: When it comes to ID/creationists, I NEVER make errors; I read your minds and your shibboleths, which none of you can hide.

Ooo-wee, and golly-gee! Last time I read about a fella with **that** kind of sweeping zero-error mind-reading ability, his name was Jesus Christ. Therefore either Mike Elzinga has evolved himself all the way up to self-divinity, or else he's simply gone PLUM CRAZY en la cabeza!! (And don't ask which outcome I'm betting on!!) FL

If Christ were born in Bethlehem a thousand times and not in thee thyself; then art thou lost eternally. Angelus Silesius

stevaroni said: If astrologers and dead-pet psychics were similarly numerous and motivated we'd see court cases about teaching astrology and cat-centric ouija boards.

Ray Martinez said: Still waiting for an object, past or present, that did not evolve to be identified? Why are the Evolutionists evading this question----a question they ask Creationists concerning design?

harold said:

Ray Martinez said: Still waiting for an object, past or present, that did not evolve to be identified? Why are the Evolutionists evading this question----a question they ask Creationists concerning design?

I guess you believe yourself. Weird. I already told you that most things in the universe are not the product of biological evolution. Atom of lead, for a specific example. If you want to play word games you can claim that "everything evolved" from whatever was present at the big bang, I guess, but that's not an argument against biological evolution, that's just a very silly word game. See, ID claims to distinguish between things that are "designed" and things that aren't. The theory of evolution does not make a similar claim. So repeating the silly mantra "what didn't evolve?" serves no purpose. I'm still waiting to find out where Paley's rock came from if it wasn't designed by your god. It seems that you believe that the inorganic universe wasn't created by your god. Your god seems to be some kind of lesser deity that restricts its activity to creating life on Earth, but did not actually create the Earth. Either that or it did create the rock, in which case ID cannot distinguish designed from not designed, because both rock and watch are designed.

One of the problems with the reaction against evolution is that no one has been able to talk it coherently. Yes, they have to play word games. But they can’t even do that consistently. They have to have a short attention span, or hope that their audience has.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said:

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: The courts , on behalf of the state, are saying religious ideas on origins are untrue.

No, they are saying that religious ideas on origins are baseless and unsupported by evidence. That is the simple standard that prevents you from teaching creationism in science classes. Beliefs unsupported by evidence == religion, therefore you can't reach it in science class. Beliefs supported by evidence == objective fact, and objective fact can be taught in any science class in all the land. Now, pay attention here, Robert, because I don't know if you chose to believe when Venn diagrams were taught in school, but when these two things overlap, evidence wins, even if it supports a religious view. That is ... Beliefs supported by evidence == objective fact, even if those beliefs advance religion, and objective fact, even if it advances religion can still be taught in any science class in all the land. That's all you need Byers, at least down here in the States. We keep going on and on and on about this but it's really that frickin' simple. If you guys would just stop whining and go and do some real science and find even the tiniest little scrap of evidence that supports your cause all those Lemon Test objections would legally vanish in a fragrant citrus puff and you could legally do what you've been trying so hard to do by subterfuge all these years. Now, why can't you do that Bob, why?

Your incorrect. Its unrelated to science. The censorship is about religion. Its not bad science they are censoring. They are saying aNY conclusions in origin matters, they call religious, are illegal. SO i turn it around on them. If they censor same 'religious, conclusions IN SCHOLL SUBJECTS DEDICATED TO ACCURACY/TRUTH then same religious conclusions are being said by the state to be EITHER wrong or if not wrong STILL illegal. If the latter then a absurdity and rejection of the peoples right to education and educational concepts themselves. if the former they are breaking the very law they invoke fOR the censorship. NO. ID/YEC has a great case and a historic chance to overthrow incompetent judicial decisions and gain back historic freedoms . They should not of argued WE TOO IS SCIENCE. Chump change.

So, Robert. Would you be perfectly happy if public schools taught the Mormon creation stories? That God did not create matter, but that all matter has existed eternally with God? That God created many worlds out of pre-existing matter, and populated all these many worlds with humans. You'd be happy if schools taught this as fact in "science" class? You'd be happy if schools taught the Hindu multiverse as a fact in "science" class? Remember, you don't want to censor any religion in science class, because censoring religion is wrong, just like you said. No, I remember. You think that only other religions should be censored; that only the local religion should be taught as science in science class. That the State must be allowed to tell the local school children that their religion is "true" and all others are "false", because that's what people want to hear. So, it would be okay for children in Utah to be taught that Mormon cosmology is "true". At the same time, children in Texas should be taught that Baptist cosmology is "true". At the same time, children in India should be taught Hindu cosmology is "true". So, what you are saying is that what is "true" in Utah schools is "false" in schools in Texas, and what is "true" in schools in Texas is "false" in schools in India. All these mutually incompatible religious beliefs are all "true", all at the same time, because what is "true" simply depends on where you live in the world. Do you see any problem with that? Do you see any problem defining the word "true" with that kind of meaning?

Robert Byers said: What I want or results is irrelevant. Its about the law here. First things first. Do you agree with me now? You should. My logic and law here are excellent.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: What I want or results is irrelevant. Its about the law here. First things first. Do you agree with me now? You should. My logic and law here are excellent.

Actually...both your law (i.e. you knowledge of what the law is and says) and logic are terrible. What is worse, you are attempting (badly) to make statements about US law when you are, IIRC, Canadian. I wouldn't even consider arguing with a Canadian what Canadian law is or says and I can see clearly that your knowledge of US law is sorely lacking.

Yardbird said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: What I want or results is irrelevant. Its about the law here. First things first. Do you agree with me now? You should. My logic and law here are excellent.

Actually...both your law (i.e. you knowledge of what the law is and says) and logic are terrible. What is worse, you are attempting (badly) to make statements about US law when you are, IIRC, Canadian. I wouldn't even consider arguing with a Canadian what Canadian law is or says and I can see clearly that your knowledge of US law is sorely lacking.

I'm not sure he understands that the US Constitution doesn't apply in Canada.

Robert Byers said: What I want or results is irrelevant. Its about the law here. First things first. Do you agree with me now? You should. My logic and law here are excellent.

Robert Byers said: Okay I wasn't aware some went to the supreme court. it doesn't matter. a big case would be on the WHOLE subject of state censorship, in this matter, of origin conclusions.

If the option for religious truth is allowed by the court/state, WHICH IS MUST OBEY, then censoring is illegal. how can you get around this equation.

I don't see iD arguing my point

Okay I wasn't aware some [Epperson and Edwards] went to the supreme court.

Its about the law here. First things first. Do you agree with me now? You should. My logic and law here are excellent.

Robert Byers said:

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said:

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: The courts , on behalf of the state, are saying religious ideas on origins are untrue.

No, they are saying that religious ideas on origins are baseless and unsupported by evidence. That is the simple standard that prevents you from teaching creationism in science classes. Beliefs unsupported by evidence == religion, therefore you can't reach it in science class. Beliefs supported by evidence == objective fact, and objective fact can be taught in any science class in all the land. Now, pay attention here, Robert, because I don't know if you chose to believe when Venn diagrams were taught in school, but when these two things overlap, evidence wins, even if it supports a religious view. That is ... Beliefs supported by evidence == objective fact, even if those beliefs advance religion, and objective fact, even if it advances religion can still be taught in any science class in all the land. That's all you need Byers, at least down here in the States. We keep going on and on and on about this but it's really that frickin' simple. If you guys would just stop whining and go and do some real science and find even the tiniest little scrap of evidence that supports your cause all those Lemon Test objections would legally vanish in a fragrant citrus puff and you could legally do what you've been trying so hard to do by subterfuge all these years. Now, why can't you do that Bob, why?

Your incorrect. Its unrelated to science. The censorship is about religion. Its not bad science they are censoring. They are saying aNY conclusions in origin matters, they call religious, are illegal. SO i turn it around on them. If they censor same 'religious, conclusions IN SCHOLL SUBJECTS DEDICATED TO ACCURACY/TRUTH then same religious conclusions are being said by the state to be EITHER wrong or if not wrong STILL illegal. If the latter then a absurdity and rejection of the peoples right to education and educational concepts themselves. if the former they are breaking the very law they invoke fOR the censorship. NO. ID/YEC has a great case and a historic chance to overthrow incompetent judicial decisions and gain back historic freedoms . They should not of argued WE TOO IS SCIENCE. Chump change.

So, Robert. Would you be perfectly happy if public schools taught the Mormon creation stories? That God did not create matter, but that all matter has existed eternally with God? That God created many worlds out of pre-existing matter, and populated all these many worlds with humans. You'd be happy if schools taught this as fact in "science" class? You'd be happy if schools taught the Hindu multiverse as a fact in "science" class? Remember, you don't want to censor any religion in science class, because censoring religion is wrong, just like you said. No, I remember. You think that only other religions should be censored; that only the local religion should be taught as science in science class. That the State must be allowed to tell the local school children that their religion is "true" and all others are "false", because that's what people want to hear. So, it would be okay for children in Utah to be taught that Mormon cosmology is "true". At the same time, children in Texas should be taught that Baptist cosmology is "true". At the same time, children in India should be taught Hindu cosmology is "true". So, what you are saying is that what is "true" in Utah schools is "false" in schools in Texas, and what is "true" in schools in Texas is "false" in schools in India. All these mutually incompatible religious beliefs are all "true", all at the same time, because what is "true" simply depends on where you live in the world. Do you see any problem with that? Do you see any problem defining the word "true" with that kind of meaning?

What I want or results is irrelevant. Its about the law here. First things first. Do you agree with me now? You should. My logic and law here are excellent.

Scott F, explaining to Byers the necessary consequences of what Byers uses for thought is a useless exercise, as far as Byers is concerned. You are right to undertake that task, though, because Byers isn't the only one who might read your explanation.

Byers will simply ignore it. He hasn't the capacity to follow it anyway, but as far as he's concerned, it's not merely that the US government should allow a religious doctrine to be taught as if it were fact in the taxpayer-funded schools. It is that it should allow his preferred religious doctrine to be taught, alone among religious doctrines. There is a plain and obvious reason for this preference, in the Byers mind: his religious doctrine is correct, unlike all the other religious doctrines. And besides, there are more people in the US who prefer it.

But even if the necessary consequences of his position are invisible to Byers, they are not so to others. Even sectarians should be able to grasp the principle, if they retain any vestige of sanity: if the State establishes any religion by teaching it in the public schools, it might not be their religion. Better not to have any religion established than to risk that.

Byers is therefore acting against his own faction's interests. But he can't understand that, either.

In fact, I have never in my life seen such a textbook-quality example of Dunning-Kruger. He apparently does think that he is presenting logical and innovative argument, and can't understand what a fool he's making of himself. More power to him, and may he post here forever. A greater asset to rational thought is difficult to imagine.

In fact, it's so good that it worries me a little. But if he really is just a very, very good Poe troll, it's only a vindication of Poe's Law itself: "There is no creationist assertion so absurd that it could not be made seriously by some creationist or other". Hence, by corollary, all creationist assertions have to be taken as serious assertions, no matter how absurd they are.

There is a wonderful sequence in "The Desert Peach", a comic strip about Rommel's outrageously camp younger brother (who is fictional, alas) in which a character reveals that he actually has the right to wear the Veteran's badge, for Nazis who joined the Party before 1924. He had been twelve years old at the time, and it had happened entirely by accident - he had thought he was signing up for a boat trip. But when the Peach's unit in North Africa is inspected by some Nazi bigwigs, obviously this character was the man to greet them, Veteran's badge and all. So when the inspectors fly in, there he is, and they give the Nazi salute, and then he starts babbling furious nonsense, demented word-salad. They start doing exactly the same, following in a sort of demonic speaking-in-tongues, conveyed in the strip by dingbats in superbold. They eventually fly away again, still babbling, and their report congratulates the Peach on the zeal of his men. Only one thing - the character was as high as a kite on every kind of drug he could lay his hands on. And everyone could see it, except for the convinced Nazis.

Byers is that character. Somewhere out there, there'll be people crazy enough to be bobbleheading along to his word-salad. But nearly everyone else who stumbles over him will be caught in that uneasy territory between laughter and revulsion. "Nearly everyone" will do me. We'll never achieve the Quaker consensus. There'll always be cockroaches scuttling about under the boards of the Enlightenment. Byers is one, and there are certainly others. It's in the interests of the rational that they be seen, from time to time.

So we shouldn't be telling Byers to go away. Painful as it is, we should be engaging him, almost, if not quite, straight-facedly.

Dave Luckett said: Scott F, explaining to Byers the necessary consequences of what Byers uses for thought is a useless exercise, as far as Byers is concerned.

You are right to undertake that task, though, because Byers isn't the only one who might read your explanation.

Byers will simply ignore it. He hasn't the capacity to follow it anyway,

but as far as he's concerned, it's not merely that the US government should allow a religious doctrine to be taught as if it were fact in the taxpayer-funded schools. It is that it should allow his preferred religious doctrine to be taught, alone among religious doctrines. There is a plain and obvious reason for this preference, in the Byers mind: his religious doctrine is correct, unlike all the other religious doctrines. And besides, there are more people in the US who prefer it.