Not dinged down yet?

A fantastic resource. Somebody hit me with "Evolution doesn't increase genetic information" w few weeks ago but I couldn't answer the question becuase they wouldn't explain to me what they meant. Now I know.

Yeah, this is lucid

Those of us who are tired of seeing rapid recycling in action... should probably begin to point folks to this index rather than playing whack-a-mole like a modern Sisyphus.

re: #4 FinnAgain

Candidate for rotating title:

playing whack-a-mole like a modern Sisyphus.

Thank you Charles!

Why oh why is there even a 'debate'?
This remainds me so much of holocaust deniers, and other flat earthers, it's frightening.
Great site link. Need one of those that categorizes holocaust denial, too. Would make arguing with those idiots much easier.
-Sir Alfred

LGF becomes less Conservative, more anti-Creationist everyday.

Keep up the good work Charles!

Signed,

Kos

That's a pretty comprehensive list. There's even a lot of stuff I haven't seen before. Somebody put a lot of work into that.

re: #8 canerican

Just wait for the Pat Condell thread.
/

Ooooooo! This, found on the side bar inside Charles' link, sounds quite interesting! :)

Other Links:

CreationWiki rebuttal

A Wiki is being assembled to respond to this Index from a Young-earth perspective.

re: #8 canerican

LGF becomes less Conservative, more anti-Creationist everyday.

Keep up the good work Charles!

Signed,

Kos

29 posts in over a year.

Since when has being anti-idiots meant less conservative?

re: #8 canerican

LGF becomes less Conservative, more anti-Creationist everyday.

Keep up the good work Charles!

Signed,

Kos

re: #8 canerican

Hmm. You have to believe in Creationism in order to be conservative? That's about as illogical as playing whak-a-mole with a big boulder. Conservatism is about politics, not science. Science does not have a political point of view.

re: #8 canerican

LGF becomes less Conservative, more anti-Creationist everyday.

Since when does "Conservative" mean sticking your head in the sand? I don't get that.

re: #7 Sir_Alfred_Dunhill

Why oh why is there even a 'debate'?
This remainds me so much of holocaust deniers, and other flat earthers, it's frightening.
Great site link. Need one of those that categorizes holocaust denial, too. Would make arguing with those idiots much easier.
-Sir Alfred

Had to ding you down because of the ad hominem. The thing is, most Holocaust Deniers are vehemently anti-semetic and seek any evidence to prove that their position is justified. Creationists and ID proponents for the most part are just arguing their faith. That they believe in the absence of evidence is not my problem with them, it's that they argue against something as backed by evidence as macro and micro evolution and come off as both ignorant and illogical. They are NOT evil bastards committing blood libel.

re: #7 Sir_Alfred_Dunhill

Why oh why is there even a 'debate'?
This remainds me so much of holocaust deniers, and other flat earthers, it's frightening.
Great site link. Need one of those that categorizes holocaust denial, too. Would make arguing with those idiots much easier.
-Sir Alfred

I believe the reasons that the debate rages on is that there are some literal Genisis reationists.
There is another group of faith based people, who believe that their beliefs are under attack.
There are a great many Lizards though that accept the scientific evidence of Evolution, and see no conflict with their faith

re: #12 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I'm saying this site becomes less about Conservatism (less Conservative) and more about Charles trying to disprove creationists.

And its comments like yours (calling creationists idiots) that drive people like me who just don't see the point in arguing evolution on the internet.

For me this isn't about convincing anyone anything. I just used to love this blog and read it first thing when I got up and then got home from work, now half the time I just here Charles tell me how much of an idiot I am.

re: #7 Sir_Alfred_Dunhill

That is one of the most offensive things I have ever read.

You are a pig.

"Charles, why do you hate Christians so much?" (etc. etc.)

(Might as well just get that post out of the way right now)

So "conservative" now means "creationist?"

When did that happen? I missed the memo.

Iran is to dig 320,000 graves in border districts to allow for the burial of enemy soldiers in the event of any attack on its territory, a top commander said on Sunday.
"In implementation of the Geneva Conventions... the necessary measures are being taken to provide for the burial of enemy soldiers," the Mehr news agency quoted General Mir-Faisal Bagherzadeh as saying.

This is proof that there is no evolution, and also that any design was not intelligent.

re: #7 Sir_Alfred_Dunhill

This remainds me so much of holocaust deniers

I think that's stretching it, really.

now which would i rather do go to a gay pride parade of go on a I.D. thread

i vote for the gay pride parade which was at least funny. only could take a hour of it though

Alarms are sounding. Young earth creationists are running to their computers.

Life sucks and then you die.

re: #20 Charles

So "conservative" now means "creationist?"

When did that happen? I missed the memo.

I guess it wasnt throbbing enough to attract attention.

back to the errors thread

re: #21 kansas

Iran is to dig 320,000 graves in border districts

Hey, knock yourselves out, boys.

(Sigh) I suppose that on some level it is necessary to point out the errors in creationist arguments, but in essence to do so at all is giving them far too much credit.

Scientific investigation, accurate or not, is completely unconcerned with the existence of a creator. And, whether the current state of this knowledge is flawed or incomplete--as some of it surely is--or not, the mere fact that anyone spouting scientific-sounding data makes reference to a creator in any way, shape or form is sufficient to remove them from consideration as a scientific investigator of evolutionary phenomena.

Creationists and "intelligent design" advocates argue scientific jargon in order to "prove" science wrong, because they want to prove their bedrock non-scientific belief "right." But science has the right--in fact, the duty--to be wrong, on its way to being right. Learning something about science means learning that "this is what we know at the moment, and these are the conclusions that we draw from it. The data, and the conclusions, may change over time." In other words, the "right" demanded by creationism/"intelligent design" is a preordained conclusion to be bolstered; the "right" sought by science is an open-ended journey with an inevitably-changing destination.

That certain devotees of religiosity feel the need to wrap themselves in faux-scientific jargon shows a deep insecurity on their part about the nature and value of their faith--for they are trying to use something they hate to shore up something that they claim to love. In point of fact, by attempting to "scientifically" prove the existence of G-d they themselves are cutting at the root of religious faith, in the name of attempting to preserve it.

re: #28 Occasional Reader

Hey, knock yourselves out, boys.

Man they take themselves seriously. If they have war with the U.S we win, they lose.

re: #7 Sir_Alfred_Dunhill

Why is there even a debate?

Careful, you sound like a global warming enthusiast. In science, debate is a good thing. It can only strengthen a good theory.

Okay, I've just overreacted. I'll take a break from the computer now. Maybe I'll throw some cold water on my face while I'm at it.

If I misunderstood #7, please let me know, and I will gladly apologize later.

But equating Christians who believe in creationism (not the head honchos who promote ID as a political movement to push religion) with holocaust deniers is a gross insult.

re: #31 angst

Why is there even a debate?

Careful, you sound like a global warming enthusiast. In science, debate is a good thing. It can only strengthen a good theory.

True Dat!

re: #23 yochanan

now which would i rather do go to a gay pride parade of go on a I.D. thread

i vote for the gay pride parade which was at least funny. only could take a hour of it though

I just surfed by CNN who had two gay guys on who just got married. The anchor was positively beside herself over their tuxedos. Puke. Monday morning I gotta decide if I've taken enough of a financial beating in my meager IRA. Would have had more if I would have put it under mattress. Big scam it is. That and $4 for gas. But I really care about two dipshits who want to bugger each other.

re: #9 Killgore Trout
Look carefully. While there is a lot of good information, some of refutations are paper thin. The "ark-and-eight-mouths" chinese language post raises more questions than it answers; If the characters in question are similar in shape, are the sounds similar, also, etc.....Although every known claim seems to be answered, some of those answers seem really incomplete, or even lame. The thing that is left out is, that the claims themselves are often irrelevant, which raises the issue as to why they even need to be refuted. This will degenerate into another
pie-fight

re: #11 Ma Sands

I gave it a look...frightening stuff:
"On the subject of morality, it is important to remember that there are two types of evolutionists:

Those who believe in morals - some atheists and all theists
Those who believe there is no such thing as morality (right and wrong) - some atheists "

Some people can write, some people are stupid and can't.

Maybe I'm biased though.

re: #30 opnion

Man they take themselves seriously. If they have war with the U.S we win, they lose.

Well, all those graves would be available for someone, anyway.

re: #8 canerican

LGF becomes less Conservative, more anti-Creationist everyday.

Keep up the good work Charles!

Signed,

Kos

Creationist doesn't == conservative

Look up Reconstructionism and tell me they value the constitution.

re: #31 angst

Why is there even a debate?

Careful, you sound like a global warming enthusiast. In science, debate is a good thing. It can only strengthen a good theory.

A well argued and defend debate based on facts is a great thing. When the other sides arguement boils down "because we say so" with no facts or evidence to back it up, its just tedious and annoying.

Facts Count.

This ID vs science vs the bible vs the Creation deal vs the Darwin deal is so unimportant at this time.

The Democrats and Republicans are selling us out as we debate this worthless ass shit.

McCain is doing all he can to get his ass stomped by a full blooded commie rat, Obama and the Democrats make ready to get two more votes on the Supreme court and take your guns from you and throw your ass's in jail for defending your country.

Border Patrol officers Ramos and Compean are in jail.

Mexican army thugs are in AZ dressed up in Phoenix police get up
shooting up drug dealers homes with auto weapons.

America get your head out of your ass.

[Link: www.blowoutcongress.com...]

also this why

[Link: www.perotcharts.com...]

re: #39 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

A well argued and defend debate based on facts is a great thing. When the other sides arguement boils down "because we say so" with no facts or evidence to back it up, its just tedious and annoying.

Right. Then it's time to walk away. But I don't think ending discussion before it begins is the answer.

re: #35 swamprat

That was one that I hadn't heard before....

1. The Chinese character for boat (chuan 2) consists of the boat radical on the left and a phonetic element on the right. The phonetic element has two parts. The upper part is a primitive ideograph for "divide," though it looks the same as the character for "eight." The lower part is the pictograph for "mouth." However, these two elements have only phonetic significance (Wright 1996; Wright n.d.).

2. The "vessel" on the left side of the glyph is a pictograph of a dugout canoe, nothing like an ark.

3. According to the Bible, Noah's ark carried very many more than eight mouths.

4. No flood myths from China include an ark with eight passengers.

Seems pretty complete to me.

re: #40 taxfreekiller
Why oh why are Campeon & Ramos still in jail?
It really is an outrage!

The post by canerican sure sounds right.

Why the heck is Charles posting this type of crap which is SURE to piss off a large majority of his readers? Is there a ghost poster? Has someone from D-KOS hacked into Charles' system and is posting as him? Why all the hate for Christians and those who believe in a God created universe?

In case anyone cares, Christianity and Science are NOT mutually exclusive. It is absolutely possible to believe in Evolution and agree with the conclusions in Darwin's Origin of Species while still having the faith that God Created the Universe.

Put another way, there are many many Christians who see Evolution as God's Toolkit for Creation.

Science tells us the What, Where, When and How of how the Universe works. The Bible tells us the Who and Why. It is up to each person to decide which of those sets of questions is more important to him or her. No matter WHICH of those sets of questions you prefer, it is important to remember that science does not disprove the existence of God, it merely shows us how wonderfully complex His Creation is, and helps explain it's inner workings to us.

re: #41 angst

For one thing, you might win over some people. Like it or not, ID people are citizens just like everyone else and they have pull on their local school boards. If nothing else, you learn their arguments and are in a better position to refute them.

Border Patrol officers Ramos and Compean are in jail.

Mexican army thugs are in AZ dressed up in Phoenix police get up
shooting up drug dealers homes with auto weapons

THIS SUBJECT I CARE ABOUT I.D. ONE WAY OR THE OTHER MUCH LESS SO EVEN NOT AT ALL

[Link: www.freedominion.com.pa...]

Alberta Human Rights Commission advises church to get folks to sign consent forms before giving a lecture. They also said the curriculum will be reviewed by state authorities.

/ducks

re: #44 wearyman

Why all the hate for Christians and those who believe in a God created universe?

Not this crap again.

In case anyone cares, Christianity and Science are NOT mutually exclusive.

Charles had said the same thing himself many times.
Now stop being a dick.

Why is it that thew biggest complainers about the way Charles runs his site have only a handful of posts?

re: #34 kansas
Somewhere, a 'log cabin Republican' weeps at your lack of political correctness.

re: #44 wearyman

Why all the hate for Christians and those who believe in a God created universe.

Who here is saying God did not create the Universe? I believe 100% God created the Universe, and that he did so several billions years ago, using processes which we can observe and measure.

re: #20 Charles

Charles, please forgive me if I am out of line but I find this whole creationist vs evolutionist thing to be a distraction of the problems facing the world today. I was a lurker here long before I became a poster. I read this site daily and used it as my news source. I recommend this site to everyone that I know. Lately, I have sensed that this site has become focused on a single topic that causes dissension rather than a unity of purpose. I recognize that this is your sandbox and you may do with it as you wish but I long for the days when current news items were the focal point. JMHO and take it for what is worth.

re: #49 Killgore Trout

Why is it that thew biggest complainers about the way Charles runs his site have only a handful of posts?

It reminds me of my non-cooking spouse who comes in the kitchen and complains about how I organize everything.

re: #44 wearyman

The post by canerican sure sounds right.

Why the heck is Charles posting this type of crap which is SURE to piss off a large majority of his readers? Is there a ghost poster? Has someone from D-KOS hacked into Charles' system and is posting as him? Why all the hate for Christians and those who believe in a God created universe?

In case anyone cares, Christianity and Science are NOT mutually exclusive. It is absolutely possible to believe in Evolution and agree with the conclusions in Darwin's Origin of Species while still having the faith that God Created the Universe.

Put another way, there are many many Christians who see Evolution as God's Toolkit for Creation.

Science tells us the What, Where, When and How of how the Universe works. The Bible tells us the Who and Why. It is up to each person to decide which of those sets of questions is more important to him or her. No matter WHICH of those sets of questions you prefer, it is important to remember that science does not disprove the existence of God, it merely shows us how wonderfully complex His Creation is, and helps explain it's inner workings to us.

Your last three paragraphs are accurate. But the many posts in response to material such as that which heads this thread, or various items relating to "intelligent design," which do not recognize the accuracy of your last three paragraphs, is precisely why such material is posted.

That is why canerican is wrong; it is also why your first two paragraphs are wrong. If you believe your own last three paragraphs, you will recognize that there is no "hate" being posted here against Christians or those who believe in a G-d-created universe.

mistakes count

re: #13 Phocid

Hmm. You have to believe in Creationism in order to be conservative? That's about as illogical as playing whak-a-mole with a big boulder. Conservatism is about politics, not science. Science does not have a political point of view.

There are some that believe that having faith in a Judeo-Christian creator is the one and only requirement for conservatism.

I have relatives who think like that. They consider themselves to be staunch conservatives by virtue of their faith alone, but on the issues they are very much in line with leftist, progsoc thinking. Pro-Nanny State, very much anti-second amendment, and very much in favor of higher taxes for those who have more simply because they have more.

But don't you dare tell them their views are not conservative, they won't hear any of it.

re: #49 Killgore Trout

there are many people with lots of posts who are also tired of seeing all of this "ID is bullshit" stuff @ LGF, but they have been here long enough to know that it is, of course, charles' blog and he can print whatever he wants to.

re: #40 taxfreekiller

Facts Count.

This ID vs science vs the bible vs the Creation deal vs the Darwin deal is so unimportant at this time.

The Democrats and Republicans are selling us out as we debate this worthless ass shit.
[...]
America get your head out of your ass.
[...]

Wholeheartedly concur. Like others debating how the planet will be a ball of fire 2B yrs from now, while the price of gas is hamstringing economies (and real people's lives) all around the world.

re: #44 wearyman

[...]
In case anyone cares, Christianity and Science are NOT mutually exclusive. It is absolutely possible to believe in Evolution and agree with the conclusions in Darwin's Origin of Species while still having the faith that God Created the Universe.

Put another way, there are many many Christians who see Evolution as God's Toolkit for Creation.
[...]

I'm with you on this, wearyman. There's plenty of time to have this discussion in homes and at the office water cooler, but not when the American Experiment is at risk of becoming the American Failure.

Let's get to work making sure the Country survives this election cycle.

Let me preface this by saying I believe in evolution, and don't for a second doubt its existence. However, I feel the need to speak up here since Charles has made continuous, almost daily posts regarding this. He labels people who want to address the problems with evolution as "anti-evolution", or creationist. As a perfect example, the documentary he railed against, "Expelled", never once said that evolution is impossible or that it isn't real. It merely said there were problems with it and it's hard to believe that evolution alone is responsible for our creation.

You can believe in God and evolution at the same time. And I don't think these so called "anti evolution" folks are labeled properly. Look there may be legit reasons for not allowing the introduction of "ID" into classrooms. However if I understand the recent legislation in LA correctly, it doesn't allow for the teaching of ID in the classroom, but merely wants to bring up the fact that the theory of evolution has many holes in it.

Science and religion don't contradict each other, they complement each other. One explains the "How" and the other explains the "Why"

Science doesn't answer the "Why"

PS - I'm not even religious, so don't respond to this post and call me a creationist religious nut, or an anti-evolution fool

-Nadav

re: #42 Killgore Trout
Ark is not a dugout canoe? Interesting coincidence, all the same. What would an "ark" pictograph look like? Just how close do you have to get to get a "hit"?

these two elements have only phonetic significance

.....If they only have "phonetic significance, then why are the sounds represented by boat/mouths pictures? Not that there aren't more likely explanations, but this could go a bit deeper. and the fact that they don't go into full detail probably only means that they don't consider it worth the effort because they find it to be far fetched. But they could have "gone the extra mile".

re: #17 Canerican

I just used to love this blog and read it first thing when I got up and then got home from work, now half the time I just here Charles tell me how much of an idiot I am.

I must of missed the blog Charles posted entitled "Canerican is Such an Idiot". When was that, April 1st?

re: #57 blue_like_jazz

Exactly. We've lost a lot of good long time lizards over this.

re: #49 Killgore Trout

Read my post @52. I think that I am not alone with my thoughts.

Maybe the theory of evolution does have practical application, unlike much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and some other sciences. I didn't think it did. But, either way, knowledge is a worthy end in itself.

re: #59 nbenhaim

As a perfect example, the documentary he railed against, "Expelled", never once said that evolution is impossible or that it isn't real. It merely said there were problems with it and it's hard to believe that evolution alone is responsible for our creation.

The movie was a deceitful piece of propaganda made by liars and nutcases.

When the poster "spytalk" shows up, ask him what his science degrees are in, and if he is "InternationalObserver" reincarnated, as it were.

Unlike the previous fast moving ID threads, I'm actually keeping up with this one.

re: #56 Slumbering Behemoth

There are some that believe that having faith in a Judeo-Christian creator is the one and only requirement for conservatism.

I have relatives who think like that. They consider themselves to be staunch conservatives by virtue of their faith alone, but on the issues they are very much in line with leftist, progsoc thinking. Pro-Nanny State, very much anti-second amendment, and very much in favor of higher taxes for those who have more simply because they have more.

But don't you dare tell them their views are not conservative, they won't hear any of it.

There are a lot of Catholics like that, because the church's stand on things is left of center when it comes to economics, right of center on social/moral issues. You can't vote along party lines AND the church's line at the same time.

re: #62 Killgore Trout

which is too bad.

since it's charles' blog, he's going to have to decide whether railing against ID is worth alienating people who have supported him for many years.

a literal personal omnipotent Being created the Universe and all that is within from nothing -- for His glory -- and that of His Son. Now you know.. ;-)

PS: On the day the first man (Adam) was created... how old did he LOOK. think about it.

re: #63 GeeWiz

Yes, a lot of people would wish this would just go away but it's becoming a real social issue and needs to be dealt with.

Toss up question:

How many public school districts, if any, nationwide, are currently teaching Creationism/ID as science?

I can't find any. In fact, it seems the ID/Creationists have been trying to push their agenda into public schools for 20 years now and have gotten smacked down by State and Federal courts every time they've tried it. So, where's the clear and present danger to secular science education in this country? I just don't see what all the fuss is about, there is no looming theocracy.

/apparently not dead yet

Charles, you can post whatever you want, but this sideshow distraction of creationism vs. evolution is eroding the importance of this website. Or, did we defeat the islamic fascists already? Creationists may be guilty of misinterpreting what the Bible says, but they are no threat to civilization. Don't dilute the awesomeness of LGF.

re: #48 Killgore Trout

Bite me Killgore.

I spend HOURS on LGF on a daily basis. Most of the time, I just lurk and enjoy the fantastic articles. There are times I have felt like posting, but have refrained. Why? Because of pricks like YOU. YOU and people like you make people like ME feel unwelcome, even when we have posted something NOT inflammatory or trollish in any way.

In regards to my comment, This post seems VERY out of character for Charles. Indeed, it reminds me VERY much of some of the crap I see posted at D-KOS and DU, and even on Slashdot from time to time. I just don't get it, because the way it is posted seems to be an attempt to inflame beleivers and people of faith. It is worded as a direct insult to those who believe, and some of the follow-up comments are even worse. VERY much D-KOS type posts.

I tried to post something that would bring people together and you took the opportunity to flame me. Fine. Maybe Charles has said as much as I said before, but I sure haven't seen it. Then again, I usually avoid these kinds of articles no mater where I go so it's likely I just missed it. However, it would be nice if he included that sentiment in his article just to avoid the kind of misunderstanding we are apparently having here.

Heck, maybe this is backwards day at LGF and nobody told me. Maybe we are all supposed to be posting like the LeftTards at KOS and DU and I just didn't get the memo. I dunno.

Either way, I know it's gonna be a Looooong time before I bother posting again. Buh bye.

re: #20 Charles

So "conservative" now means "creationist?"

When did that happen? I missed the memo.

Hey Charles.. I have an idea for your blog.. I thought of it the other night and i think it's a great idea for you..
Once a week you should open up an special open thread.. And everyone that posts to it would write any story they wish..to be voted upon by the members..dingy.
The lowest person each week would be voted off just like american idol. Each week we would progress and read from the wonderful contributors here about some great topics. 500 words max and you get to chose the topic..we get to chose the winner

re: #74 wearyman

Because of pricks like YOU.

You're welcome.

re: #73 S.P.E.C.T.R.E.

Creationists may be guilty of misinterpreting what the Bible says, but they are no threat to civilization.

Who has said anything about creationists "misinterpreting what the Bible says?" What has been pointed out here is that creationists are bent on distorting what science says; what science does; and what the very term "science" means.

Talkorigins is a great resource, but I have to quibble with the wording in their logo at the top: "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy" -- which subtly encourages a false dichotomy in which you've got Militant Atheists! on one side and Young Earth Creationists! on the other.

May I recommend to Charles and everyone else a page that I stumbled across some months ago?

Gallup Still Asking the Wrong Questions in Evolution Poll

Here's the money quote:

There are five clearly definable schools of thought in the public on the topic of evolution and creation, each with a distinct perspective.
[...]
1. Atheistic evolution, in which the earth is 4.5 billion years old, man evolved over millions of years and God played no part in it.

2. Theistic evolution, in which the earth is 4.5 billion years old, man evolved over millions of years and God had a hand in it.

3. Intelligent Design, in which the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and the development of species over time are the results of the design of an intelligent agent, which may or may not be God.

4. Old Earth Creationism, in which the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and man was created fully formed by God within the last 50,000 years.

5. Young Earth Creationism, in which God created the universe, the earth, and man in one week 6,000 years ago.

I don't entirely agree with his "five-school" scheme -- for example, I think there might be some justification for defining "Deistic Evolution" as a category distinct from "Theistic Evolution," which would make for at least six schools of thought.

Also, I'm not sure if his definition of "Intelligent Design" is adequate -- he sees it differing from Theistic Evolution in that ID allegedly makes no claims about the identity of the Designer, while TE assumes that evolution was overseen by God. But in my understanding, ID is also defined by its overt challenge to methodological naturalism, which is why the Catholic Church suspects it of being a "god of the gaps" approach.

Still, kudos to the author for explaining to his fellow Christians that there are more than two alternatives to choose from.

re: #70 unixrab

On the day the first man (Adam) was created... how old did he LOOK. think about it.

A perfect imitation of a thing is the real thing. (This is actually the answer to nihilism, but it seems to apply here too.)

re: #79 _Felix

Damn, I didn't mean nihilism, I meant, um, solipsism. Wrong ism.

re: #74 wearyman

I just don't get it, because the way it is posted seems to be an attempt to inflame beleivers and people of faith. It is worded as a direct insult to those who believe, and some of the follow-up comments are even worse.

If you are that sensitive then perhaps you'll enjoy posting on a Cristian or creationist blog instead. Take a look at yourself; You're "inflamed" by facts, you are "insulted" by science. Reality offends you. The article does not contain any insults only facts. Yet you are offended.

re: #74 wearyman
..I will pray for you.

Where's the Pat Condell thread?

re: #78 Throbert McGeere: #79 _Felix

A perfect imitation of a thing is the real thing. (This is actually the answer to nihilism, but it seems to apply here too.)

Does that apply to human-form replicators and Cylons, too?
In that case there won't be much on the SciFi channel next season.

I. for one, enjoy discussing this topic every time it is posted. There is a lot to learn in this subject area, especially for someone like me who was born into young earth creationism and was told that it was blasphemous to even question it.

re: #83 Killgore Trout

Where's the Pat Condell Robertson thread?

/pretty sure you made a mistake there

re: #85 gman

I. for one, enjoy discussing this topic every time it is posted. There is a lot to learn in this subject area, especially for someone like me who was born into young earth creationism and was told that it was blasphemous to even question it.

As a religious scientist, I have to agree with you.

re: #83 Killgore Trout
Who is Pat Condell?
If people are gonna post here-1) Be tough
2) Facts, facts, facts
3) Don't be thin skinned
4) It is CHARLES blog!

re: #57 blue_like_jazz

I haven't seen any "ID is bullshit" posts, especially none from our host, but I have seen a lot of "ID is not science" posts, a statement which is 100% factual.

Religion and science are only mutually exclusive to childlike minds. Perhaps a lot of the blame has to do with Christianity being so historically obsessed with the importance of literal beliefs. It is astonishing the amount of blood that has been shed in the history of Christianity over interpretation of scripture. Of course the Muslims are worse. But to base salvation on fine points of theological doctrine is absurd.

re: #86 Killian Bundy

Heh.

re: #88 pingjockey

Who is Pat Condell?

/a militant atheist, just like Killgore

re: #88 pingjockey

Pat Condell

re: #88 pingjockey

4) It is CHARLES blog!

One of the best blogs in the world..IMO

re: #92 Killian Bundy

I think he'd look good in a Pope hat.

re: #92 Killian Bundy

re: #93 Killgore Trout

Aha. That guy. Didn't know his name. Thanks.

Eddie Izzard and Noah:

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

re: #94 HoosierHoops

Damn straight!

Everyone's complaining about the lack of energy in this country, but it's a non-scientific superstitious dread of nuclear energy that has made it so.

My money says that some of the folks complaining have spent more time talking marriage ammendment and other social issues than energy.

Anti-science politicking from the left and from the right is a big part of the stasist mud we are in and why we've been slipping and sliding in situ for 35 friggin years.

re: #78 Throbert McGee

But in my understanding, ID is also defined by its overt challenge to methodological naturalism

"Methodological naturalism" means, basically, that And then a miracle occurred! is never a valid scientific hypothesis. In other words, even if a scientist personally believes in the possibility of miracles, the game rules of science do not allow him to invoke miraculous explanations while he's "on the clock" as a scientist.

(And the term is often contrasted with "metaphysical naturalism" -- the worldview that there REALLY are no miracles or anything supernatural. Scientists who believe in God implicitly reject "metaphysical naturalism," yet they can still adhere to "methodological naturalism" in trying to understand and explain how the universe works.)

Of course, this FAQ is far from comprehensive, and in many cases the "thorough debunking" consists of nothing but the academic tossing up of possible sources of error in certain creationist scientists' reports, as was the case when I last mentioned carbon-14 in coal. When not even that is possible, it seems more convenient to ignore the claim entirely and hope the vast list that is present is intimidating enough, as is the case with carbon-14 in natural diamonds.

In short, it is not always feasible to rely entirely on this FAQ.

re: #32 Josephine

Okay, I've just overreacted. I'll take a break from the computer now. Maybe I'll throw some cold water on my face while I'm at it.

If I misunderstood #7, please let me know, and I will gladly apologize later.

But equating Christians who believe in creationism (not the head honchos who promote ID as a political movement to push religion) with holocaust deniers is a gross insult.

You did not over-react. I'm anti ID and I thought that remark was disgusting.

re: #57 blue_like_jazz

there are many people with lots of posts who are also tired of seeing all of this "ID is bullshit" stuff @ LGF, but they have been here long enough to know that it is, of course, charles' blog and he can print whatever he wants to.

I don't believe there are THAT many Biblical literalists among us. As for people who believe God created the universe, well we have loads of those. I'd say 90% or higher. Arguing evolution is not the same thing as tearing down religious lizards.

re: #62 Killgore Trout

Exactly. We've lost a lot of good long time lizards over this.

That's the problem when you take the echo out of the echo chamber. Some people don't want any debate here whatsoever and on certain topics we don't have any real debate, but considering Charles' opinion on this subject as well as the majority of the pro-evolution posters' positions there is no GOOD reason to leave. We take issue with blatant lies about scientists, poorly thought arguments and blanket statements that cannot be backed up by evidence.

A real conservative, even one who believes in ID, doesn't want the government teaching religion to children in public schools. A real conservative realizes that government along with most organizations is incompetent and not worthy of the right to decide what the children believe to be fact.

A person who wants their version of religion taught as fact is not a conservative, they are leftists who want everyone else to thin