CHARLES GIVE IT A REST!

For what it's worth, I think the word "sesquicentennial" is cumbersome to use & sounds too much like "Sasquatch."

re: #1 paxnhymn

CHARLES GIVE IT A REST!

He's got some sort of plan.

To assume is to make an ass out of you and me.

re: #2 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Sasquatch

Hmmm. Wonder where they're at on that evolutionary ladder.

....happy birthday to a controversial but powerful (as Dennett says, absolutely corrosive, cutting through centuries of ignorance) scientific theory. Expect me to continue to defend it here, and Charles to defend it there.

Bravo!

OT:

Charles:

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the rate was adjusted to account for a competing offer from another lender and other factors. "The Obamas have since had as much as $3 million invested through Northern Trust," he said in a statement

Link

How have they gotten 3 MILLION dollars to invest?
Has anyone noticed this?

I did not know Charles was a jazz musician. I'm figuring he's a guitarist from the guitar postings. I think I will change my avatar.......slinking away now.

of course there is evolution

first there was beer then scotch and then we got it right and came up with bourbon

re: #9 kansas

Is that a U.S. Strat or a Mexican Strat?

re: #1 paxnhymn

CHARLES GIVE IT A REST!

No.

Christianity is hardly an monochromatic edifice. I can't think of a single creed which has divided in to more sects.

re: #12 Charles

Charles did you see # 8 ?

REPEAT:

Belief in evolution and faith in G*d are not mutually exclusive positions.

His thoughts are not our thoughts, His ways are not our ways.

Lather, Rinse...

Wonder when the dingers will show up.

/Ding ding ding went the trolley.

re: #1 paxnhymn

CHARLES GIVE IT A REST!

I have always been supportive of debunkers, I realize what a daunting task it is. How do you talk an idiot out of his idiocy? And there's so much of it: troofers, alternative medicine fakes, psychics, astrologers, anti-Semites and tinfoil hatters. The Amazing Randi was always good at that, he was a magician by trade and he could demonstrate all the tricks. The important thing is to maintain one's sense of humor. Remember, "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."

Quoting from article:

Same thing often happens here, in fact. I tell people that I'm not a Republican, and have never been, nor am I a conservative, and I'm accused of lying about my true beliefs and political affiliation.

Yes, it seems everyone on the Blogosphere who is "accused" of being a Republican, was actually a Democrat or leaned Left at one point, Charles being a case in point. I guess you have to ask:

Why is it a Conservative value to see defense of country, and wariness towards self-hatred as a good thing?

If Democrats told their pacifists to take a hike when others were attacking their country, and spoke positively about the US even once in a while, there wouldn't be this problem.

Don't stop posting this stuff. It's much more interesting than the threads where most people agree about everything.

re: #13 rawmuse

Isn't the Hindu religion divided into sects, depending on which deities you pray to? I believe there are quite a few.

re: #19 buzzsawmonkey

I think it's spelled "trollie" in this context.

Heh. I was humming the song from Meet Me in Saint Louis while typing it. ;-)

Have they fatwa'd Darwin yet? Posthumously denied him 72 evolutionary possibilities?

re: #5 Cap'n DOC

Hmmm. Wonder where they're at on that evolutionary ladder.

They are that rung that every keeps missing. (or messing with)

re: #1 paxnhymn

CHARLES GIVE IT A REST!

The discussion is evolving...

Evolution vs. Creationism....or Gibson vs. Fender? I'd rather argue over the latter...

re: #26 Leonidas Hoplite

Evolution vs. Creationism....or Gibson vs. Fender? I'd rather argue over the latter...

Tastes Great!

Less Filling!

re: #1 paxnhymn

CHARLES GIVE IT A REST!

In essence, you've just told Charles that he needs to toss out his living room furniture.

re: #27 eschew_obfuscation

Tastes Great!

Less Filling!

That's out of bounds!

re: #8 Typicalwhitey

OT:

Charles:

Link

How have they gotten 3 MILLION dollars to invest?
Has anyone noticed this?

* * *
Community organizer's money compounds revolutionarily, not evolutionarily.

It's Darwinian "progress" on steroids. Money multiplying like the miracle of loaves & darwinian fishes.

re: #21 Roentgen

Yes, but Christianity almost immediately divides in to 3 groups (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and then later, Protestantism).
And from the Protestant branch alone there are probably 100s of sects, including some very large ones, like Mormonism.

re: #17 Phocid

My reference was to give this topic a rest because it has caused so much devisiveness and alienation among some (not all ID idealogues) that it's not healthy. But, it is not a democratic blog, and I have been henceforth answered with a resounding "no". I am tempted to ask to be banished but that in itself would accomplish nothing but further dwindle the number of the faithful against the continued attacks by some (not all) against people of faith. Maybe I need to give my eyes a rest for a week or so...

Oh, I thought it was Andy Samberg. Never mind....

re: #23 alegrias

Have they fatwa'd Darwin yet? Posthumously denied him 72 evolutionary possibilities?

Yes. There are muslim YECs out there, interestingly enough working with Christian YECs.

Muslim creationist preaches Islam and awaits Christ

Unknown outside Muslim circles two years ago, Adnan Oktar -- the 52-year-old Turk behind the pseudonym Harun Yahya -- caught the attention of scientists and teachers in Europe and North America by mass-mailing them his 768-page "Atlas of Creation."

His lavishly illustrated book preaches a Muslim version of creationism, the view scientists usually hear from Christian fundamentalists who say God created all life on earth just as it is today and oppose the teaching of Darwin's evolution theory.

Oktar has also communicated with the ICR.

Islamic Creationism in Turkey

While there is some irony in the fact that such a conservative Muslim movement would borrow much of its material from evangelical Christians, the connections between the two movements are profound. In fact, prominent American creationists from ICR such as John Morris and Duane Gish have been invited to speak at conferences in several Turkish cities organized by the Bilim Arastirma Vakfi, (BAV) “The Science Research Foundation.”

re: #30 alegrias

They say it is from the book deal, but was he paid all of the money upfront?
That doesn't sound right to me.

re: #13 rawmuse

Trotskyite communism?

re: #31 rawmuse

Maybe Hindu wasn't a great choice. Not everyone agrees that it is a religion.

re: #36 Dianna

Makes my ear hurt...

I'm glad LGF is getting more and more into the I.D. issue. This way I can get more work done.

Spore will be out in a couple of months...perhaps after several hundred hours of play that will give us an answer.

re: #38 rawmuse

Sorry. I just couldn't resist.

One last time, calling out in desperation to The Shadow Do, need your address to send your cookies. Shipping today to Panhandler and the other person who did not give nic in their request. Will email you with the shipping cost (your only cost!). If anyone sees Shadow, please pass this on, as I can't seem to get Shadow's attention! Hope all is okay there...

re: #32 paxnhymn

You can believe what you want. Just don't try to teach religion as science in a science class. You can teach ID in a religion class.

re: #35 Typicalwhitey

They say it is from the book deal, but was he paid all of the money upfront?
That doesn't sound right to me.

* * *
Sudden millionaire syndrome, more likely is what's happenin'.

The Clintons were likewise afflicted. Now Hillary 'n' Bill are worth over $100 million.

Al Gore also has nearly $100 million. To lower his big carbon footprint, no doubt.

re: #39 Golem Akbar

I'm glad LGF is getting more and more into the I.D. issue. This way I can get more work done.

Echo.

No down dings yet. It's like those movies where they walk in the jungle and there isn't any noise. Just eerie silence.

Maybe they're rope-a-dinging.

re: #45 vbspurs

Echo.

Me, too.

Me, too.

re: #45 vbspurs

Echo.

* * *
Squared!

re: #43 FamHistoryGuy

You can believe what you want. Just don't try to teach religion as science in a science class. You can teach ID in a religion class.

That's NOT what I'm talking about! Have you read these related threads? They turn into assaults on people of faith! That's what I'm talking about! Hell, I don't even acscribe to the ID idea...

Jeez!

re: #26 Leonidas Hoplite

Evolution vs. Creationism....or Gibson vs. Fender? I'd rather argue over the latter...

H&K vs. S&W.

re: #18 vbspurs

Good question. I too was, and am, a registered Democrat. Apparently, thinking that taxing and spending is a bad idea makes me a right wing wacko.

Apparently thinking that going after terrorists and stopping them before they strike here and around the world is a right wing wacko idea. Apparently supporting national defense rather than law enforcement as a primary means to thwart terrorism is a right wing idea.

Such is the state of politics today. Democrats have cast their lot with the far left, and anyone who doesn't toe that line is cast aside (or under the bus). Of course, now that Obama has won the nomination, he'll try to appeal to folks such as myself with warmed over pablum that once you scratch the surface will be nothing but empty promises.

Trotsky was the recipient of an ice axe to the ear, for those of you wondering.

re #31

And from the Protestant branch alone there are probably 100s of sects, including some very large ones, like Mormonism.

As far as I know, Mormonism isn't a Protestant sect. At least, none of the other Protestant sects I know of think so.

At any rate, happy birthday to Evolution. . .even though evolution has been around since eons before the word evolution (or birthday for that matter) even existed :)

re: #32 paxnhymn

Have we lost some members permanently over this issue?

re: #54 MeCurious

Have we lost some members permanently over this issue?

Yep.

re: #52 rawmuse

Yes, but he got up and started throwing things at his assassin.

re: #54 MeCurious

Have we lost some members permanently over this issue?

yes...some were probably overdue though...

In any case - I appreciate Rand's words of support on this topic.

I won't be guilt-tripped into avoiding the subject - you're wasting your time and my bandwidth with the constant complaining.

In Catholic school, we were taught about Linneus, Darwin & the Theory of Evolution in science class. In religion class we were taught the book of Genesis & that "God is the creator of Heaven & Earth, of all things seen & unseen." No one thought there was any inconsistancy in that.

re: #54 MeCurious

Unfortunately.

Islamic Creationism? Just sounds funny.
The Prophet (Pedophilia Be unto Him), Kind of just stole the Garden of Eden story.
That goofy Kabba Rock in Mecca that they circle during the Haj is supposed to come from the Garden of Eden from Abraham via the Angel Gabriel. WTF?

As O.R. might put it.....

This smacks of 'Burning a Dead Horse at Both Ends'.

/mixed-a-phors

re: #49 paxnhymn

That's NOT what I'm talking about! Have you read these related threads? They turn into assaults on people of faith! That's what I'm talking about! Hell, I don't even acscribe to the ID idea...

Jeez!

Assaults on faith and people of faith, my ass. The last one had a bunch of YECs attempting to claim we were all "Christian bashing". I call bullshit on that. There are plenty of Christians who don't subscribe to YEC and have no wish to have it taught to their kids in school as science under the guise of "Intelligent Design". ID is no more than a new term for "Scientific Creationism" which is no more and no less than the teaching of the beginning of Genesis as factually and literally true.

re: #52 rawmuse

Trotsky was the recipient of an ice axe to the ear, for those of you wondering.

That was cold.

re: #1 paxnhymn

CHARLES GIVE IT A REST!

No.

Pretty Please?
"A man convinced against his will/remains of the same opinion still." Robert Frost
who also said: "We dance 'round in a ring and suppose/but the secret sits in the middle and knows."

I'm a teacher. Since I deal with college students most of whom haven't the skills to read, write or punctuation--I have no fear that they will learn anything at all in science class--whether evolution or ID, or whatever. Simply put, there is no payoff for them either way.

I refuse to let politics creep into discussions in college English 101--and have taken other teachers to task who feel it's their responsibility (read: to impart their ideology)--Oh No. My responsibility is greater than that. Impart information and the skills. Let them do what they like with that, philosophically speaking. I realize that many groups are determined to have their point of view--the only right one, of course--heralded in textbooks, but believe me, the little darlings aren't, can't, won't. Subconsciously, I believe, they all have question marks in their eyes--not because they are intellectually curious, but because they are asking the universal kid's question: Why? Why should I? You gonna make me?

And speaking of intellectually curious, I saw another reference to GW Bush not being intellectually curious. Okay. How in the fuck, or better yet, WHO in the fuck would know this other than GW or Laura?
Okay: end of whine.

re: #54 MeCurious

Have we lost some members permanently over this issue?

Only those who've attacked Charles over it.

re: #49 paxnhymn

I have read some of them. And some of the so called people of faith deserve to argued with.

I have had personal experience with the "devout" among my own relatives. Food fight in the one church which resulted in some of them forming their own "Baptist" church. If you want respect for your ideas then treat others with the same respect you want.

re: #28 MandyManners

In essence, you've just told Charles that he needs to toss out his living room furniture.

I agree, and you put it so nicely, my dear! Very funny!

re: #12 Charles

No.

You're so darned verbose. :)

re: #51 lawhawk

Of course, now that Obama has won the nomination, he'll try to appeal to folks such as myself with warmed over pablum that once you scratch the surface will be nothing but empty promises.

Don't worry, Lawhawk. Old-Time Democrats remember FDR and JFK, either directly or from their history readings. They know this guy wouldn't protect his country like they did, unquestionably.

re: #66 Honorary Yooper

You mean Charles kicked them out, or did they leave in a huff?

re: #6 buzzsawmonkey

I like the idea of a Sasquatch sesquicentennial; 150 years of Big Feet, celebrations to be sponsored by Thom McAn.

They could throw a parade, complete with Yeti-confetti.

re: #42 cookielady

One last time, calling out in desperation to The Shadow Do, need your address to send your cookies. Shipping today to Panhandler and the other person who did not give nic in their request. Will email you with the shipping cost (your only cost!). If anyone sees Shadow, please pass this on, as I can't seem to get Shadow's attention! Hope all is okay there...

Hey, if the Shadow Do doesn't want his cookies, I'll take 'em. my nic is blue, e-mail me.

re: #51 lawhawk
Am I the only person here who is actually a Republican? (I've never given them money, but I voted in the Republican primary, so I had to declare)

re: #70 vbspurs

FDR was overrated. I'll never forgive him for sending boats of Jews back to the Nazis.

Personally, I miss Truman.

re: #74 zmdavid

Am I the only person here who is actually a Republican? (I've never given them money, but I voted in the Republican primary, so I had to declare)

Nope, I'm a registered Republican also. Was registered as a Dem for a very long time, because for a very long time, everybody in La. was a Dem. When the began the open primary system, a lot of folks (myself included) began to register (or re-register) Repub.

re: #64 Honorary Yooper

Particularly since it was in Mexico and nowhere near a mountain.

re: #74 zmdavid

I am a Republican, but have switched sides on occasion to vote for someone in this bastion of Democratic strength where I live. Everyone's afraid to run as a Republican--even for school board--for fear of being (gasp) called a REPUBLICAN, and then being left off the party lists through this tiny burg.

re: #71 MeCurious

You mean Charles kicked them out, or did they leave in a huff?

Some left in a huff and still have active accounts. Others were unceremoniously defenstrated.

re: #52 rawmuse

Trotsky was the recipient of an ice axe to the ear, for those of you wondering.

A splitting headache.

re: #1 paxnhymn

CHARLES GIVE IT A REST!

Why? It's an important and interesting topic. Charles's defense of science and what he's doing to expose the ID hoax are sending a strong message that ID should never be passed as "science" or/and religion.

He has made it clear from the very first comments on this issue that it has NOTHING to do with religion. However, some started whining and complaining about it. This is not an attack on faith! It's a respect-worthy use of the brains that God provided us with.

re: #63 Honorary Yooper

Assaults on faith and people of faith, my ass. The last one had a bunch of YECs attempting to claim we were all "Christian bashing". I call bullshit on that. There are plenty of Christians who don't subscribe to YEC and have no wish to have it taught to their kids in school as science under the guise of "Intelligent Design". ID is no more than a new term for "Scientific Creationism" which is no more and no less than the teaching of the beginning of Genesis as factually and literally true.

You're right. There have been no assaults on any people of faith on any ID threads.

and I call BS. Kilgore has been the pleasantly obvious exception, and I commend him for his out-of-character decorum. There are others, but as an avowed athiest, he has been pleasant. It can be done.

re: #69 Hard Right

Brevity is the soul of wit.

re: #74 zmdavid

Am I the only person here who is actually a Republican? (I've never
given them money, but I voted in the Republican primary, so I had to
declare)

I'm a registered Republican, haven't donated money to the GOP since 2004. I used to get Christmas cards from The Bushes in their first term as thank yous for donating.

re: #82 paxnhymn

How does that constitute an attack on people of faith?

re: #75 paradox42

FDR was overrated. I'll never forgive him for sending boats of Jews back to the Nazis.

Personally, I miss Truman.

The sending boats back, and denying entry to refugees from Europe was the handy work of one Undersecretary of State Breckenridge Long. He was also the recipient of a smuggled copy of the Wansee Protocol, which he dismissed as a Jewish forgery.

re: #83 Dianna

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Brevity is... wit.

"As far as I know, Mormonism isn't a Protestant sect. At least, none of the other Protestant sects I know of think so."

Mormonism claims that protestantism is a branch of the Catholic Church and part of the Great Whore of Babylon. They believe they are a "pure" church that is a real restoration (as opposed to the reformation headed by Luther and others) of the "true" church and not just a variation of existing churches. Most churches outside Mormonism don't even consider it a Christian church. They view them as believeing in "a" Christ (and therefore could technically be called "Christian") but not "the" Christ of the Bible. It'd be like saying I believe in Charles Johnson, even though the one I'm talking about lives in India.

As for this sudden urge to bash ID, obviously it comes from the need to try to get some credibility with moderates and the left who have a distinct disdain for all things religion. That, and Ben Stein poking Evolutionists square in the eye by reminding everyone of the history of Eugenics and where it came from.

A telling quote from Wikipedia
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

"In reaction to Nazi abuses, eugenics became almost universally reviled in many of the nations where it had once been popular (however, some eugenics programs, including sterilization, continued quietly for decades)."

If it hadn't been for Hitler going off the deep end with Eugenics, the very smart people like Winston Churchill would still think it was a good idea. Switzerland was practicing forced sterilization until the 70's. I wonder why they remained neutral during the war...

It's pretty pathetic that it took the deaths of 9 million people for people to realize that maybe Eugenics wasn't such a good idea. And even then people today still think it's a good idea.

re: #71 MeCurious

Some of each. It's been difficult and sad.

The fact that Charles is quite right to keep this issue in front, and I agree with his position, doesn't mean that this hasn't been just as hard as the European fascist issue.

re: #49 paxnhymn

That's NOT what I'm talking about! Have you read these related threads? They turn into assaults on people of faith! That's what I'm talking about! Hell, I don't even acscribe to the ID idea...

If you call reasonable and rational debate assault, then unreasonable and irrational debate is your only shelter.

re: #86 Honorary Yooper

How does that constitute an attack on people of faith?

did you read it?

re: #77 Dianna

Particularly since it was in Mexico and nowhere near a mountain.

Well, they say that most accidents occur at home.

From Gagdad Bob's blog today:

He quotes a comment from Kepler Sings (was he banned here or can he still post?):

"I couldn't agree with you more about Charles becoming a profoundly anti-intellectual, illiberal, and right wing mirror of Kos. And I agree with the rest of what you said, although with certain subtle modifications in order to make certain that it makes TOTAL SENSE within the pneuma-cosmic economy. In other words, there's no problem with what you said for someone who already understands it. But the modern mind demands a kind of logical consistency, so I would probably say it a bit differently, even though logical consistency is somewhat beside the point and "extrinsic" to the truth being conveyed. Ultimately you either get it or you don't, so it's a matter of 'presentation.'

re: #89 kalvinb

Are you a young earth creationist?

re: #88 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Brevity is... wit.

Brevity! Yay!

re: #84 buzzsawmonkey

I find the concept of "asking to be banished" bizarre. If one believes in free will--which, as a religious person, I do--then one posts or not as one chooses. I do not understand what "asking to be banished" accomplishes, and it seems to be a negation of one's own free will.

It's classic martyrdom. The bannished feels better about him/herself for having been banned rather than just simply walking away. It's a sick, twisted badge of honor for them.

There has been absolutely no attack that I have seen on "people of faith"--or, for that matter, on faith itself. There have perhaps been a few rude comments on faith by individuals, but there have always been those, and they are almost invariably shouted down by everyone else, including those who do not subscribe to any formal religion.

What has been attacked here is the proposition that faith should be interjected into scientific investigation and/or the teaching of the findings of scientific investigation. However, keeping these two areas of human endeavor separate is beneficial for both.

Well said, buzz.

Now I'm anti-intellectual too?

Man, I'm amassing quite a list of adjectives.

re: #97 Honorary Yooper

It's classic martyrdom. The bannished feels better about him/herself for having been banned rather than just simply walking away. It's a sick, twisted badge of honor for them.

Do they expect 72 internet virgins (oxymoron right there!) for being "martyred"?

re: #84 buzzsawmonkey

I find the concept of "asking to be banished" bizarre

.

It's a Folsom Street thing; you wouldn't understand.

'Kepler Sings' is a hardcore young earther, by the way.

re: #98 Charles

Now I'm anti-intellectual too?

Man, I'm amassing quite a list of adjectives.

You should put them on your business card, the way Mark Steyn does.

re: #5 Cap'n DOC

Hmmm. Wonder where they're at on that evolutionary ladder.

They are a transitional species between Yeti and Democrats.

re: #94 neocon hippie

Oh, dear.

re: #92 paxnhymn

did you read it?

Yes, I did. I read it this morning as well. I fail to see the attack there. I do see a snarky comment regarding Jesus and the Declaration and Constitution, but nothing more.

It's hardly worthy of mention as an insult. Just a bit snarky.

Go a thicker skin for cryin' out loud. This is LGF, not the Telletubbies show.

re: #85 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

I'm a registered Republican, haven't donated money to the GOP since 2004. I used to get Christmas cards from The Bushes in their first term as thank yous for donating.

I'm a registered Republican. Moreover, I've been Conservative all my life. I was 4 or 5 when I found out, one fine day, walking down Carnaby St with my Liberal parents. I tell the story here.

re: #98 Charles

Have you listed them anywhere? Perhaps in groups, to show they contradict each other?

re: #87 jcm

Either FDR didn't know at all, which makes him criminally negligent, or he knew and stood idly by which makes him just as responsible as Long. Either way, I don't feel forgiving about this.

I don't agree that Intelligent Design is not science, or anti science. It is bad science. It's proponents are the O.J. jury of science.

re: #99 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

That makes me want to link The Internet is for Porn. I won't, though, since I don't think that's exactly appropriate to the thread.

"What has been attacked here is the proposition that faith should be interjected into scientific investigation and/or the teaching of the findings of scientific investigation. "

It takes faith to believe all life came from a single spark of life.

Evolution is not just about "change." Saying "I believe in Evolution" entails a whole lot more than not being shocked that a lizard or bacteria evolved in a number of decades.

A lot of what Evolution entails has to be taken on faith. Science can't prove all of Evolution and it takes a lot of faith to believe they will.

re: #18 vbspurs

Quoting from article:

Yes, it seems everyone on the Blogosphere who is "accused" of being a Republican, was actually a Democrat or leaned Left at one point, Charles being a case in point. I guess you have to ask:

Why is it a Conservative value to see defense of country, and wariness towards self-hatred as a good thing?

If Democrats told their pacifists to take a hike when others were attacking their country, and spoke positively about the US even once in a while, there wouldn't be this problem.

A better question is "Why is it a Democrat value to shun defense of country, and embrace self-hatred as a good thing?" For at least my lifetime, the Democrats have stood firmly for the destruction of the United States as a Nation. They were pro-Soviet during the Cold War (Ted Kennedy went so far as to give propaganda advice to the KGB), and now stand firmly for Terrorists in the current War. There has never been a time (again, at least in my lifetime) when the Democrats stood for America.

As WAB said, she's never been proud of America. This has been the Democrat position for decades.

re: #112 kalvinb

Are you a young earth creationist?

re: #84 buzzsawmonkey

Well, hmm. Before I was an English teacher, I was a scientist. I NEVER heard any discussion about religion where I worked at NASA-MSC in Houston with men (yes, men, not women) from all over the globe with, undoubtedly a wide variety of beliefs (save me from the word

diversity

). We got along just fine without the discussion. I was an atheist then--and so remained until only ten years ago. I'm still amazed at the experience that changed that so irretrievably. However, I digress. NOTHING should keep people of good will from having civil discussions over issues and topics on which we respectfully disagree. I've never understood the anger which spills over when these issues surface--after all, what purpose would it serve? It certainly doesn't convince anyone who is bound by beliefs no matter which side of the debate.

CHARLES why is this subject so important to you? I really don't understand it. I have no axe to grind here as mostly i don't care one way or the other on I.D. or evolution, I do care about the fellowing, the war, islmo fascist terrorism, the iranian nuke program, democrat defeatism, democrat misguided oil & energy policy. I am opposed to science used in politics in general for example the global warming issue.

re: #83 Dianna

Brevity is the soul of wit.

And timing.

re: #98 Charles

Charles, for me, personally, I find this refreshing. Before LGF, I joined an atheist blog and found that I'm one of only two Republicans amongst hundreds. And I was the only pro Bush, pro Israel, anti Islam, etc. person on that blog. On the other hand, I also visit exchristian.net daily. There are wonderful testimonials and articles on that site including from Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc. The trouble there is that most of the members are staunch Dems. So, Charles, this is great! Nice to finally belong.

re: #90 Dianna

Some of each. It's been difficult and sad.

The fact that Charles is quite right to keep this issue in front, and I agree with his position, doesn't mean that this hasn't been just as hard as the European fascist issue.

Well, I disagree--except for the part about the ugly fascististas.

re: #106 Honorary Yooper

Yes, I did. I read it this morning as well. I fail to see the attack there. I do see a snarky comment regarding Jesus and the Declaration and Constitution, but nothing more.

It's hardly worthy of mention as an insult. Just a bit snarky.

Go a thicker skin for cryin' out loud. This is LGF, not the Telletubbies show.

that's pretty funny comin' from someone who's been here half the time I have and not been involved as long....I think I've earned my lizard skin...yours is obviously an opinion, and I'll treat it thusly.

re: #98 Charles

Now I'm anti-intellectual too?

Man, I'm amassing quite a list of adjectives.

That's rather funny when one considers that the whole ID/YEC movement is anti-intelelctual. My favorite part is when Kepler_sings calls LGF and Charles the "right-wing mirror of Kos". Since when did LGF become anything like the Great Orange Satan aka Daily Kos?

re: #109 paradox42

Either FDR didn't know at all, which makes him criminally negligent, or he knew and stood idly by which makes him just as responsible as Long. Either way, I don't feel forgiving about this.

Neither do I. The New Deal was the a crock, he allowed Long to execute those policies, he was extraordinarily lax in securing vital secrets allowing by inaction the Soviets to obtain the crown jewels of military hardware.

re: #117 debutaunt

And timing.

So true.

re: #115 katemaclaren

Excellent comment. I don't know if you noticed the upding or not.

"The 'best hypothesis' which, to be accepted, requires that man and his reason 'give up their position of dominance and take the risk of humbly listening.'" — Joseph Ratzinger

re: #120 paxnhymn

that's pretty funny comin' from someone who's been here half the time I have and not been involved as long....I think I've earned my lizard skin...yours is obviously an opinion, and I'll treat it thusly.

Whatever.

Please tell me ANYONE: what the heck is a YEC? I think I missed that.

re: #117 debutaunt

Which I lack. Along with tact. While wistfully gazing on both.

re: #126 Honorary Yooper

Whatever.

Calm down, guys.

re: #127 katemaclaren

Please tell me ANYONE: what the heck is a YEC? I think I missed that.

Young Earth Creationist.

re: #116 yochanan

CHARLES why is this subject so important to you? I really don't understand it. I have no axe to grind here as mostly i don't care one way or the other on I.D. or evolution, I do care about the fellowing, the war, islmo fascist terrorism, the iranian nuke program, democrat defeatism, democrat misguided oil & energy policy. I am opposed to science used in politics in general for example the global warming issue.

Yochanan, you keep saying it is not important to you, but I keep seeing your nic on the ID threads.

re: #128 Dianna

Which I lack. Along with tact. While wistfully gazing on both.

A poet you are, Dianna! (with the beautiful name)

re: #127 katemaclaren

Please tell me ANYONE: what the heck is a YEC? I think I missed that.

Young Earth Creationist. Believes the earth was created in literal 6 days, and Bishop Usher's dating of the age of the earth.

Charles is right to shine light upon this. Humanity has struggled for tens of thousands of years to overcome ignorance of the natural world around us. The hard won knowledge that enables us to survive and prosper in our environment, and to even control some of it for our benefit, (something no other species can do except for rare, rudimentary examples) is under constant assault from the fearful and ideological among us.

I am NOT criticizing those of faith here, you can believe whatever you wish as long as you don't use it to suppress the knowledge that mankind has achieved. Science and faith can both contribute to the advancement of mankinds lot if they keep to their own realms. The knowledge of biology and medicine that generations have slowly learned at great cost, and that benefit us now, must not be surpressed in any form by rigid ideology, or those that do so will be responsible for the suffering of our decendants.

Four hundred and fifty years ago, the assertion that the Sun circled a stationary Earth was accepted by nearly all authorities and learned men. Scientific evidence that indicated otherwise was activly surpressed, even upon pain of death. Where would we be now if we had accepted the evidence of the new knowledge rather than denying it? Our hard won science is our greatest triumph! We should be celebrating it, not trying to bury it. Science dosn't threaten faith, it merely reveals its glorious complexity.

re: #127 katemaclaren

Please tell me ANYONE: what the heck is a YEC? I think I missed that.

YEC = young earth creationist. In other words, one who believes in the literal 6-day creation and that the earth is no more than about 6,000 years old (4004 BC).

re: #115 katemaclaren

Well, hmm. Before I was an English teacher, I was a scientist. I NEVER heard any discussion about religion where I worked at NASA-MSC in Houston with men (yes, men, not women) from all over the globe with, undoubtedly a wide variety of beliefs (save me from the word

). We got along just fine without the discussion. I was an atheist then--and so remained until only ten years ago. I'm still amazed at the experience that changed that so irretrievably. However, I digress. NOTHING should keep people of good will from having civil discussions over issues and topics on which we respectfully disagree. I've never understood the anger which spills over when these issues surface--after all, what purpose would it serve? It certainly doesn't convince anyone who is bound by beliefs no matter which side of the debate.

I've noticed this also (we see some of it on these ID threads). I've always thought that in such individuals religion, whether true atheism or another belief system, so defines who they are and what they allow themselves to do or refrain from doing that any challenge to their belief system is taken as an attack on the core of their being........a very insecure stance to be sure.

re: #118 MeCurious

Charles, for me, personally, I find this refreshing. Before LGF, I joined an atheist blog and found that I'm one of only two Republicans amongst hundreds. And I was the only pro Bush, pro Israel, anti Islam, etc. person on that blog. On the other hand, I also visit exchristian.net daily. There are wonderful testimonials and articles on that site including from Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc. The trouble there is that most of the members are staunch Dems. So, Charles, this is great! Nice to finally belong.

Wait, I thought this was about science, not religion vs. atheism.

re: #131 gman

It was just a question am i allowed to ask it?

re: #116 yochanan

Then go comment on the next thread.

re: #127 katemaclaren

Please tell me ANYONE: what the heck is a YEC? I think I missed that.

Young Earth Creationist - believes that Earth is roughly 5,000 years old.

re: #127 katemaclaren

YEC = young earth creationist. In other words, one who believes the earth was created approx. 6,000 years ago, according to Bible based calculations.

re: #127 katemaclaren

"Young Earth Creationist."

It's different from believing that there is a prime mover or first cause.

re: #130 Charles

Young Earth Creationist.

Boy. I'm going to have to add that to my text messaging vocab! No wonder everyone abbreviates it. It's even hard to pronounce!

re: #140 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Young Earth Creationist - believes that Earth is roughly 5,000 years old.

5000 years? What are you, a TEC?
(Toddler Earth Creationist)

re: #132 katemaclaren

Thank you, and my mother also thanks you (for my naming)!

re: #137 zmdavid

It is, I have other reasons for visiting that site. Science is the reason I am not religious.

re: #133 jcm

Young Earth Creationist. Believes the earth was created in literal 6 days, and Bishop Usher's dating of the age of the earth.

Usher? I wouldn't trust this dink to explain how a light bulb works, much less how the universe was made.

re: #139 Honorary Yooper

I was asking CHARLES the question. don't get your scales all in a bunch

re: #124 Dianna

Excellent comment. I don't know if you noticed the upding or not.

Thanks, Dianna. I didn't notice because usually I sit in a corner and keep quiet! ;-)

re: #138 yochanan

You're allowed to ask any question Charles allows-- but after seeing you post virtually the same question on every ID/evo thread a lot of us ask whyowhyowhy you don't just skip them entirely if you find them distressing. Today, for example, it's not like there's a dearth of topical threads to comment on.

"re: #89 kalvinb

Are you a young earth creationist?"

Judging by how people define Evolution, I would have to say that by the running definition, I'm a Young Earth Post-Creation Evolutionist. Obviously the world has changed quite a bit since it was created due to various causes.

And by "Young" I have no idea what that means. How long can we trace back human history?

But, obviously I don't buy into dating methods because it has been proven by people who peddle K-Ar dating as accurate that contamination is a serious problem. I posted a short list in another topic. You can find a list containing materials that were newly formed that were dating to 10's of billions of years old. The assumption that Ar escapes from cooling rock is obviously false. We know for a fac that material is contaminated at formation. We just don't know how much. It obviously varies because some new volcanic rock dates 1 million years old, some hundreds of thousands, etc.

I don't know how old the earth is. But I do know that Old Earth Evolutionists have no idea either.

re: #143 katemaclaren

I use "antidisestablishmentarianism" to test for sobriety. I may substitute "Young Earth Creationism".

YEC. Has a nice ring to it.

re: #151 kalvinb

I'm a Young Earth Post-Creation Evolutionist.

I think you're talking nonsense.

"and Bishop Usher's dating of the age of the earth."

That's also a false assumption. The Bible is known to have an incomplete geneology. It's impossible to date the earth by looking at Jewish geneologies. I saw "Jewish" because "father" in Jewish geneologies could mean your great great great great great grandfather.

The "6000" years idea was popular until people realized that you can't really derive any reliable time frame from the geneologies provided in the Bible except the one early on that gives explicit ages from Adam to Noah I think.

From Noah to Jesus is entirely unknown as is the time spent in the garden.

The oldest known tree is at least 8000 years old.

nothing to see here, move along. the science is settled. there are no more questions to ask.

/this stuff sounds closer to the glowbull wormening people everyday...

"I think you're talking nonsense."

That would be necessarily true until we learned that bacteria and lizards can evolve in a matter of decades and that dating methods are inherintly flawed because they can't meet the required assumptions.

Why do you think the earth suddenly seems to be changing so fast?

re: #98 Charles

Now I'm anti-intellectual too?

Man, I'm amassing quite a list of adjectives.

Heh, new lizard lounge pick up line: Hey baby, wanna see my adjectives?

It's one thing to complain that half-life dating techniques are not perfect, but I think they can tell the difference between hundreds of millions and a few thousands of years. Can they really be off by a factor of 100,000? I say no.

re: #142 Dianna

"Young Earth Creationist."

It's different from believing that there is a prime mover or first cause.

I'm exposed as an ignorant git, but I find it absolutely laughable that there are YECs. I was equally surprised once when I interviewed a FEP (Flat Earth Proponent--my acronym) who was really serious. Wow. Since I worked at NASA during the last of the Gemini flights and the first attempt at the Apollo (fire killed three astronauts), I am always ASTONISHED to hear people seriously contend that we did REALLY to the moon. Double Wow.

re: #82 paxnhymn

I commend him for his out-of-character decorum.

Thanks.

Yep, young earth creationist. Just want to make the agendas clear.

re: #138 yochanan

It was just a question am i allowed to ask it?

It is my opinion that you whine a lot on ID threads.
Now, you say you could care less, but all the evidence points to the fact that you do care.

re: #151 kalvinb

"re: #89 kalvinb

Are you a young earth creationist?"

Judging by how people define Evolution, I would have to say that by the running definition, I'm a Young Earth Post-Creation Evolutionist. Obviously the world has changed quite a bit since it was created due to various causes.

And by "Young" I have no idea what that means. How long can we trace back human history?

But, obviously I don't buy into dating methods because it has been proven by people who peddle K-Ar dating as accurate that contamination is a serious problem. I posted a short list in another topic. You can find a list containing materials that were newly formed that were dating to 10's of billions of years old. The assumption that Ar escapes from cooling rock is obviously false. We know for a fac that material is contaminated at formation. We just don't know how much. It obviously varies because some new volcanic rock dates 1 million years old, some hundreds of thousands, etc.

I don't know how old the earth is. But I do know that Old Earth Evolutionists have no idea either.

My dear fellow--have you not heard how long ago the Egyptians were around? --not to mention the Chinese?

re: #151 kalvinb

I don't know how old the earth is. But I do know that Old Earth Evolutionists have no idea either.

Bunk. We have a multitude of methods including radiometric dating.

re: #151 kalvinb
Congratulation! You have ridiculed by this comment centuries of scientific work.

re: #160 katemaclaren

Whoops. I meant "really did NOT go to the moon"
Sorry!

re: #158 bebe's boobs destroy

Heh, new lizard lounge pick up line: Hey baby, wanna see my adjectives?

Hey, I fell for that line once!

re: #165 Honorary Yooper
Those are all "unproved" methods to him. It said so on some site.

re: #156 Vergeltung

nothing to see here, move along. the science is settled. there are no more questions to ask.

/this stuff sounds closer to the glowbull wormening people everyday...

Yes, the IDers sound a heck of a lot like the global warming people.

re: #160 katemaclaren

Someone earlier pointed out that the prime mover of flat Earthism is Charles Johnson.

(A different one of course)

re: #170 Honorary Yooper

Yes, the IDers sound a heck of a lot like the global warming people.

um, er...I meant it the other way around. heh. seems to me that in both issues, one side seeks to quite the discourse, and the other seeks to open it.

that's all.

re: #158 bebe's boobs destroy

Heh, new lizard lounge pick up line: Hey baby, wanna see my adjectives?

Variety of adjectives is nice. But I confess I'm a Noun Queen.

BEING A SCIENTIST doesn't always lead you being an atheist i know a number of Jewish scientist who are deeply religious. I am somewhat secular but i don't make a religion out of it.

re: #155 kalvinb
Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Oh, dear.

The "6000" years idea was popular until people realized that you can't really derive any reliable time frame from the geneologies provided in the Bible except the one early on that gives explicit ages from Adam to Noah I think.

From Noah to Jesus is entirely unknown as is the time spent in the garden.

The oldest known tree is at least 8000 years old.

With all due respect to the Bible as a guide to faith and practice, the geneologies are no more factual than the ancestral claims in Anglo-Saxon royal lineages. You are essentially playing a very silly obfuscation game.

As to your later response to me at #157, geological processes are no different than they've ever been. No natural process has changed its behavior. Pretending otherwise is a ludicrous piece of attempted redirection.

re: #172 Vergeltung

um, er...I meant it the other way around. heh. seems to me that in both issues, one side seeks to quite the discourse, and the other seeks to open it.

that's all.

Well, considering that the ID/YECers have, in the past, made the teaching of evolution illegal, I'd say they're closer to the global warming climate change people who want to put deniers in jail.

Only one side of the debate has ever tried to make the teaching of the other illegal.

re: #107 vbspurs

I'm a registered Republican. Moreover, I've been Conservative all my life. I was 4 or 5 when I found out, one fine day, walking down Carnaby St with my Liberal parents. I tell the story here.

Your story was fascinating--well-written. I wish my freshman could write an essay as good as that.

Kalvin are you a Christian Reconstructionist?

re: #176 Honorary Yooper

I thought one of the points of this was to make teaching Intelligent Design illegal in public school science class. So both sides are guilty of it.

re: #175 Dianna

Oh, dear. Oh, dear. Oh, dear.

With all due respect to the Bible as a guide to faith and practice, the geneologies are no more factual than the ancestral claims in Anglo-Saxon royal lineages. You are essentially playing a very silly obfuscation game.

As to your later response to me at #157, geological processes are no different than they've ever been. No natural process has changed its behavior. Pretending otherwise is a ludicrous piece of attempted redirection.

Back at you, Dianna. Goooood answer.

re: #176 Honorary Yooper

Only one side of the debate has ever tried to make the teaching of the other illegal.

That's not accurate. Both sides have done that. One side calls it 'unconstitutional' instead of illegal, though.

re: #179 zmdavid

I thought one of the points of this was to make teaching Intelligent Design illegal in public school science class. So both sides are guilty of it.

No. This is about teaching science in science class.

re: #12 Charles

No.

Not to sound like a sycophant, but I do admire that the only "intelligent design" Charles endorses is in what he puts into the site.

I'm a religious person, but I am also a trained scientist and biologist. I won't say there aren't contradictions, but who said that seeking truth was easy? There are many religions, but there is only one type of science and that is called the "scientific method". There isn't good or bad science there is science and something posing as science. Darwin invested a great deal of effort to cite examples and use his observations to create a theory. The quality of his work is borne out by the widespread acknowledgment that he got things right. You can test his theories in see that his theory predicts what happens.

Anyway. We may all be lizards, but be grateful we have the right to bicker and argue. As long as we are civil no one is going to get silenced.

Bit of a chutzpa to "shush" the webmaster on his own site.. imho

re: #176 Honorary Yooper

Well, considering that the ID/YECers have, in the past, made the teaching of evolution illegal, I'd say they're closer to the global warming climate change people who want to put deniers in jail.
Only one side of the debate has ever tried to make the teaching of the other illegal.

I hear ya. I guess I was just thinking of these two issues as they stand right now, in 2008 :)

personally, I am not a creationist. I believe in the power and wonder of science. however, I don't believe it has all the answers and I see a truck load of disingenuousness in the slinging of disparaging labels on people that have reasonable doubts about such complex organisms (life) generating from a series of connected (and necessary) random chance mutations and errors.

it just smells of secularists, and the obvious agenda(s) they have.

re: #171 zmdavid

Someone earlier pointed out that the prime mover of flat Earthism is Charles Johnson.

(A different one of course)

Oh that is so funny! OOPs! I hope you're right: it is NOT LGF's Mr. Johnson! ---or I'm in serious trouble here!

"As to your later response to me at #157, geological processes are no different than they've ever been. No natural process has changed its behavior. Pretending otherwise is a ludicrous piece of attempted redirection."

Besides being unable to prove that statement...

That has nothing to do with anything. The issue is that in order for K-Ar dating (and all like dating methods) to work it relies on the assumption that Ar can't be trapped in the rock during the cooling process.

Multiple tests of newly formed rock have proven conclusively that Ar does in fact get trapped in the rock during the cooling process. Sometimes so much that new rock is dated 10's of millions of years old.

And since natural processes havn't changed, we can safetly assume that "old" rock is just as contaminated as "new" rock.

If you assume a rock is millions of years old and assume that strata takes millions of years to lay down layer by layer as opposed to my apparently magic backyard that has rocks coming up from underground due to shifting, then a discrepency of millions of years between them isn't going to be surprising or sufficient for an Evolutionist to see the problem with both methods.

re: #179 zmdavid

No, it's the attempt to impose the teaching of ID that's a matter of lawfare, not the other way 'round. Those of us who oppose the teaching of ID in science classes don't propose to use the law to keep it out. We propose a clear understanding of the scientific method and what is science to keep it out.

When you tell me how you can test for, or falsify, ID, you may bring it into science classes.

Until then, it doesn't belong there, and it's anti-intellectual to pretend it's science.

Why is that so hard to understand?

"the geneologies are no more factual than the ancestral claims in Anglo-Saxon royal lineages"

I'm glad you agree with my point that Jewish geneologies are an approximation.

re: #98 Charles

Now I'm anti-intellectual too?

Man, I'm amassing quite a list of adjectives.

You could be a complete phrase. I've been called a "piece of work" a lot lately :-). I'm not complaining as I'm usually called a piece of other things, much less palatable.

re: #181 Fried Spam

That's not accurate. Both sides have done that. One side calls it 'unconstitutional' instead of illegal, though.

Well, violating the Establishment Clause is definately illegal. And since public schools or publically funded schools would be teaching ID, and since ID is no more than dressed up YEC, then you have government promoting YEC which is religion. Thus, it violates the Establishment Clause since Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion or free exercise thereof.

This is not a new law, having been amended into the Constitution in 1791. Interestingly enough, it was the evangelicals who wanted it put in there so that they could worship freely without government interference.

re: #190 Honorary Yooper

Well, violating the Establishment Clause is definately illegal. And since public schools or publically funded schools would be teaching ID, and since ID is no more than dressed up YEC, then you have government promoting YEC which is religion. Thus, it violates the Establishment Clause since Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion or free exercise thereof.

This is not a new law, having been amended into the Constitution in 1791. Interestingly enough, it was the evangelicals who wanted it put in there so that they could worship freely without government interference.

all that means is that the state shall establish no "state"religion. what you cite is the canard that the libs and the ALCU have been using for decades to stomp out all religion in public life. and that is clearly not what the EC says, nor what the framers intended.

re: #186 KalvinB

More obfuscation. And it's been dealt with by people much more knowledgeable than I, elsewhere.

If you believe that there is a prime mover or first cause, there's nothing wrong with that. But playing dishonest word games is quite ineligible.

"We have a multitude of methods including radiometric dating"

Different radiometric datings are for different materials.

They're all subject to contamination as has been proven by looking at known new samples or historically dated samples. Meaning, someone wrote about it and put a date on it.

Show me one radiometric dating method that has never shown historically dated samples that came back with million year old dates.

Name two radiometric dating methods that can be applied to the same rock sample.

re: #188 KalvinB

In Genesis, they're purely fanciful.

re: #191 Vergeltung

The courts don't seem to agree with you, and it was a very conservative judge who ruled on it in 2006.

re: #195 Thanos

The courts don't seem to agree with you, and it was a very conservative judge who ruled on it in 2006.

a clear meaning is a clear meaning. I am sure Scalia understands. what the framers intended in the EC clause is as clear as the 2nd Amendment re the right to bear arms.

crystal. to the clear mind, that is.

re: #186 KalvinB

Here's something that might shed some light for you:

Isochron Dating

Read it all and get back to us.

"More obfuscation. And it's been dealt with by people much more knowledgeable than I, elsewhere. "

I hear that a lot from cult members, too.

The information is out there for you to find.

re: #195 Thanos

Now it's our first line of defense against footbaths in public schools.

Finally the discussion has moved to rock.

Rock is awesome, but jazz is cool...

re: #135 Honorary Yooper

If the earth is roughly 6,000 years old then how do they explain: 1) fossils; and 2) fossil fuels.... /

re: #52 rawmuse

Trotsky was the recipient of an ice axe to the ear, for those of you wondering.

it was a aze which is more like a axe. but then does it really matter he became a dead communist who was worshiped by the world's trotskites. sort of like the dead che but a much smaller number of worshipers.

re: #49 paxnhymn

That's NOT what I'm talking about! Have you read these related threads? They turn into assaults on people of faith! That's what I'm talking about!

I keep seeing these allegations repeated ad nauseum as if they were true, but I have yet to find evidence to suggest that they are anything but false.

re: #198 KalvinB

I refer you to Honorary Yooper's #197.

re: #146 MeCurious

It is, I have other reasons for visiting that site. Science is the reason I am not religious.

Would you elaborate? I have a degree in Biology, and find everything I learned affirmed my faith.

re: #193 KalvinB

Kalvin you never answered my question, and if you have to make up everything being contaminated to support your faith, then feel free. Just don't take it and teach it in science class.

There are pages and pages and pages here on dating, and age of rock. I recommend you start doing some reading, hit just the .pdfs

[Link: www.google.com...]

(the search starts on the second page to get you past the wikipedia and answers.com stuff.)

re: #200 Leonidas Hoplite

Finally the discussion has moved to rock.

Rock is awesome, but jazz is cool...

would that be SAND STONE, OR LIMESTONE? or maybe SHALE?

re: #201 lawhawk

If the earth is roughly 6,000 years old then how do they explain: 1) fossils; and 2) fossil fuels.... /

Fossil fuels are evil and created by the devil.
/

The science of dating tehre: #155 kalvinb

"and Bishop Usher's dating of the age of the earth."

A lot of YECer's use 6k years without knowing where the number comes from and the problems you mentioned with it.

The scientific means of dating the universe and earth give a consistent range across disciples. And it's know where near 6k years.

re: #160 katemaclaren

I'm exposed as an ignorant git, but I find it absolutely laughable that there are YECs.
[...]
I am always ASTONISHED to hear people seriously contend that we did REALLY to the moon. Double Wow.

Ding!

I think that the comparison of Young Earth Creationists to the "Moon landings were a hoax!" crowd is especially apt because YECers do, in fact, rely heavily on the "logic" of Conspiracy Theorists.

After all, given the Ararat-sized mountains of empirical data disproving evolution and confirming that the earth is really less than 10,000 years old, only a massive global conspiracy to discredit Bible-Believing Christianity™ could explain why YECism doesn't get the scientific respect it deserves.

So, when saner people explain "it's not just the findings of paleontologists that point to life on earth beginning more than a billion years ago; geology and nuclear physics and astronomy provide independent confirmation," what the YECer hears is "geologists and physicists and astronomers are in on the Darwinist Plot, too!"

re: #207 yochanan

would that be SAND STONE, OR LIMESTONE? or maybe SHALE?

For me it's Page vs. Scofield...I just can't make up my mind so I opt to like both.

re: #191 Vergeltung

all that means is that the state shall establish no "state"religion. what you cite is the canard that the libs and the ALCU have been using for decades to stomp out all religion in public life. and that is clearly not what the EC says, nor what the framers intended.

In the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, Judge John E. Jones, a life-long Republican and no liberal, ruled that the "intelligent design" agenda was profoundly unconstitutional.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #208 zmdavid

Fossil fuels are evil and created by the devil.
/

You add the sarc, I had a discussion recent will a Gorebot. To sum up his argument oil is evil and I don't care about the science we have to get off evil oil.

re: #193 KalvinB

"We have a multitude of methods including radiometric dating"

Different radiometric datings are for different materials.

They're all subject to contamination as has been proven by looking at known new samples or historically dated samples. Meaning, someone wrote about it and put a date on it.

Show me one radiometric dating method that has never shown historically dated samples that came back with million year old dates.

Name two radiometric dating methods that can be applied to the same rock sample.

Your claims are simply lies, demonstrated by your marked reluctance to cite sources after I proved that your previous citations do not in fact support your contentions.
It does not matter how often these claims are disproven, the creation industry just keeps coming right back with them.
Given your obvious personal dishonesty, what is your real agenda? There can't be anything spiritual or Christian about it. Are you making money from this? Do you sell creationist propaganda to gullible homeschoolers? Give talks to wide-eyed church groups? What is it?

Quotes from the Judge's decision: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)

"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

Isochron Dating only tells you if contamination occured or not based on the variation between isotopes. It's not a dating method of itself.

If a lava flow cools and Ar is trapped in side (which has been proven happens a lot to a significant degree) then the isotopes will be the correct proportion.

Isochron Dating only detects outside contamination. Say for example Ar gets locked into the rock, it ages a bit and more radio active Ar is formed and then for some reason fresh Ar is injected.

It's best suited for validating that contamination didn't occur during the dating process. In K-Ar dating, Ar is injected into the sample in a known amount and then the known proportion of isotopes is taken into consideration to then remove that known amount to get the unknown amount which is the amount contained in the rock.

The "spike" is used to know when to start the counting process.

It has nothing to do with detecting the starting contamination of the rock that was part of the formation process.

re: #201 lawhawk

If the earth is roughly 6,000 years old then how do they explain: 1) fossils; and 2) fossil fuels.... /

They have explanations for everything.

The Talk.Origins Archive has a lot of stuff, including this:

Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens

This one is a listing of creationist claims:

An Index to Creationist Claims
They keep growing as time wears on.

re: #208 zmdavid

Fossil fuels are evil and created by the devil.
/

Or algae.

re: #212 Charles

In the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, Judge John E. Jones, a life-long Republican and no liberal, ruled that the "intelligent design" agenda was profoundly unconstitutional.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

So what's the problem? They can push ID/Creationism all they want and they'll just lose in the courts every time, just like they have for the last 20 years.

/declare victory and move on

"Your claims are simply lies,"

I get that a lot from cult members, too.

I asked to provide a single radiometric dating method that has never dated a newly formed material in the million year range.

No one has provided it yet.

Fossils don't take millions of years to form. We have a fossilized boot from the 1800's. Fossil fuels are only assumed to have taken millions of years to form. We make them in labs in far less time.

Kalvin, are you a Christian Reconstructionist?

Well, duty calls. Bye everyone. Play nice.

re: #221 KalvinB

Fossils don't take millions of years to form. We have a fossilized boot from the 1800's. Fossil fuels are only assumed to have taken millions of years to form. We make them in labs in far less time.

OK, if we make fossil fuels in labs in far less time, then why are these not on the market?

re: #221 KalvinB

Fossils don't take millions of years to form. We have a fossilized boot from the 1800's. Fossil fuels are only assumed to have taken millions of years to form. We make them in labs in far less time.

Oh! The boots has been completely mineralization? Link please. Or where they just well preserved? Worlds of difference.

Lab work is compressed time. I can run down to my lab and make some diamonds this afternoon if you like.

re: #220 KalvinB

I get that a lot from cult members, too.

I think I shall simply say that of you from here on out.

re: #183 Ilan Toren

I'm a religious person, but I am also a trained scientist and biologist. I won't say there aren't contradictions, but who said that seeking truth was easy?
...
Darwin invested a great deal of effort to cite examples and use his observations to create a theory. The quality of his work is borne out by the widespread acknowledgment that he got things right. You can test his theories in see that his theory predicts what happens.
....

Ilan's post has prompted me to stop lurking so much and put out something I have been thinking about writing up for some time.

I am a Christian, and also an engineer by degree. If you know anything about engineering education, there is a tremendous amount of science that goes into that. ;>

That combined perspective gives me a somewhat unique look at this debate. I read some evolutionists that say 'I believe in evolution'. As a Christian, that sounds like faith to me. As a person fully grounded in scientific education, I don't want science classes teaching faith, whether it be ID or evolution.

Specifically, here's where I see the flaw in Darwinistic evolution. A biologist can indeed test his theories in a lab, or in nature, to the extent that species adapt and change to their environment. In order to test Darwin's theories about speciation, i.e., a lower form evolving into a higher form, one has always had to switch from biologists to paleontologists. That can't be duplicated in a lab, and it's that leap of faith that troubles so many people, and so few can apparently articulate. Further, people pin their faith on Darwin to the extent that they say something to the extent of 'biology is based on evolution'.

I think that there is a way out of the acrimonious debate, which is largely why I'm posting. From what I understand of biology, every living thing that we know about is based on deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. Therefore, I would contend that biology is based on DNA.

If that is the case, then why shouldn't biology education be based on DNA? Let's start orienting the curriculum towards something that is much more testable, has many more direct scientific applications, and is much less controversial?

Anyone with me?

re: #225 Honorary Yooper

OK, if we make fossil fuels in labs in far less time, then why are these not on the market?

They're on their way.....

re: #54 MeCurious

Have we lost some members permanently over this issue?

We lost members over the Vlaams Belang issue, too; it was still the right and anti-idiotarian thing to do.

re: #220 KalvinB

re: #220 KalvinB

I get that a lot from cult members, too.

You ARE a cult member, a rather desperate one too.

I asked to provide a single radiometric dating method that has never dated a newly formed material in the million year range.

No one has provided it yet.

It is up to you to support the implied contention that these erroneous results are so common as to invalidate the method. Are common medical blood tests invalid because some small percentage of them are proven to be inaccurate? (Come to think of it, you might really pretend to believe this as well. Many creationist science bashers also sell unproven "health supplements" and other quack products.)

Btw, is your watch inaccurate today because you set it yesterday? I can probably go out on the street right now and find a dozen people whose watches are grossly inaccurate. Does this disprove our time-keeping methods?

kalvinb said:

As for this sudden urge to bash ID, obviously it comes from the need to try to get some credibility with moderates and the left who have a distinct disdain for all things religion.

That's a hot pile, and I think you know it. It's exactly what Charles has said it is, an effort to keep non-science out of the science classroom. An effort to maintain the establishment clause, no different than Charles reports on teaching Islamic practices in public schools.

kalvinb also said:

A lot of what Evolution entails has to be taken on faith. Science can't prove all of Evolution and it takes a lot of faith to believe they will.

But ALL of creationism has to be taken on faith, and the entire underlying precept of ID has to be taken on faith. In the case of evolutionary theory, there exists an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it. That's one of the main things that makes it science, and ID something else entirely.

re: #221 KalvinB

Fossils don't take millions of years to form. We have a fossilized boot from the 1800's. Fossil fuels are only assumed to have taken millions of years to form. We make them in labs in far less time.

You've just solved most of our energy problems...mass production, how much are you making on these new fossil fuels?

re: #222 Thanos

Kalvin, are you a Christian Reconstructionist?

The plumage looks very similar.

So Kalvin, who do you suppose is behind that vast scientific conspiracy you propose since you aren't willing to read the basalt studies that run into hundreds that I posted above?

Since you let your intolerance towards Mormons leak up above, what other groups do you consider cults? Catholics? Baptists? Methodists? Lutherans? Anyone but you and your church?

"Creationism is the Achilles heel of the political right"
-Caller to the Alan Colmes show, 2006.

He was right too. This is a vulnerability we have to confront.

re: #233 jorline

You've just solved most of our energy problems...mass production, how much are you making on these new fossil fuels?

Interestingly enough, there IS a process to create oil from just about anything carbon-based. Basically, the material is 'digested' (ground up, then cooked under intense heat/pressure), and the output is minerals, water, and various forms of petroleum products such as heating oil, etc.

There are working plants processing the guts/bones left over from turkey meat production, into heating oil. This was reported in Discover Magazine a few years back.

As for natural fossil formation though, I think we're on the same page though.

Why teach a worthless theory anyway. Although I believe in ID, I don't feel it is needed in public schools. There are too many holes and not enough proof in "Evolution" and that is why it will always remain a theory.

re: #229 eschew_obfuscation

They're on their way.....

Now that would be most cool to have. Of course, our YEC friend here wouldn't understand that it takes an understanding of evolution to make these bacteria.

re: #228 Fried Spam

my thoughts exactly!

re: #237 Yashmak

Interestingly enough, there IS a process to create oil from just about anything carbon-based. Basically, the material is 'digested' (ground up, then cooked under intense heat/pressure), and the output is minerals, water, and various forms of petroleum products such as heating oil, etc.

There are working plants processing the guts/bones left over from turkey meat production, into heating oil. This was reported in Discover Magazine a few years back.

As for natural fossil formation though, I think we're on the same page though.

Yep...same page

I can oxidize steel in a matter of seconds. This does not mean that rusty cars reach that condition overnight.

re: #179 zmdavid

I thought one of the points of this was to make teaching Intelligent Design illegal in public school science class. So both sides are guilty of it.

Doing such a thing was made already made illegal when the Constitution was signed.

re: #245 buzzsawmonkey

Sh*t. Accidental upding for #238; mouse going bad.

If anyone wishes to correct my error, they have my gratitude.

Consider it done. ;-)

re: #239 Honorary Yooper

Now that would be most cool to have. Of course, our YEC friend here wouldn't understand that it takes an understanding of evolution to make these bacteria.

Now, if we could just get 'em to poop gasoline, we could eliminate the middle man ;-)

Phase I: Feed Bacteria (Purina Bacteria Chow)
Phase II: ?
Phase III: Gasoline!

Actually, Mark Twain said it best:

"Mankind is one step below the angels, and one step above the French."

Actually, the French might be considered proof of de-evolution, but I overstate my case.

The unique Palestinian attraction to the smell of burning cars might be considered a form of mutation. Maybe the charred rubber and plastic gives off a pheromone that they respond to.

Just a few random thoughts.

re: #243 shiplord kirel

I can oxidize steel in a matter of seconds. This does not mean that rusty cars reach that condition overnight.

I had one that rusted driving it off the dealers lot....
/

re: #245 buzzsawmonkey

Sh*t. Accidental upding for #238; mouse going bad.

If anyone wishes to correct my error, they have my gratitude.

Done.....

re: #243 shiplord kirel

Here's where he's cribbing his crap from btw.

[Link: www.answersingenesis.org...]

re: #242 buzzsawmonkey

As opposed to scientific fact. Please educate me.

re: #247 eschew_obfuscation

Now, if we could just get 'em to poop gasoline, we could eliminate the middle man ;-)

Phase I: Feed Bacteria (Purina Bacteria Chow)
Phase II: ?
Phase III: Gasoline!

Phase I: Feed Bacteria (Purina Bacteria Chow)
Phase II: Some magic happens.
Phase III: Gasoline!

re: #243 shiplord kirel

I can oxidize steel in a matter of seconds. This does not mean that rusty cars reach that condition overnight.

Unless they are Lebanese ambulances

re: #28 MandyManners

In essence, you've just told Charles that he needs to toss out his living room furniture.

And you dinged him/her up for it, didn't you?

I am an opponent of Creationism, and a believer in the Almighty, as was Einstein.

But I do have a question for evolutionary biologists: How do you explain the Palestinians?

re: #226 jcm

Oh! The boots has been completely mineralization? Link please. Or where they just well preserved? Worlds of difference.

Lab work is compressed time. I can run down to my lab and make some diamonds this afternoon if you like.

I'll take them if he doesn't want them.

I have a two questions - How often does our species undergo a major evolutionary mutation? How many of these changes have we endured in 4 or so billion years on this planet?

re: #256 Mardukhai

I am an opponent of Creationism, and a believer in the Almighty, as was Einstein.

But I do have a question for evolutionary biologists: How do you explain the Palestinians?

I think they returned to the slime that everything else crawled out of and became one with it......

Here are the answers to K's Crap

[Link: www.talkorigins.org...]

re: #245 buzzsawmonkey

Done.

re: #258 MacGregor

I have a two questions - How often does our species undergo a major evolutionary mutation? How many of these changes have we endured in 4 or so billion years on this planet?

About a gazillion.

Actually, evolution is a continuous process, mutations appear all the time. Most of them do nothing at all. Most of the rest are harmful. Those few that allow creatures to survive and reproduce a little better get passed on.

That still doesn't explain the Palestinians.

re: #256 Mardukhai

I am an opponent of Creationism, and a believer in the Almighty, as was Einstein.

That always brings to mind Nils Bohr's exasperated cry:

"Albert! Stop telling God what to do!"

re: #12 Charles

re: #1 paxnhymn

CHARLES GIVE IT A REST!

No.

Good! I really enjoy these threads, even though I usually get to them so late there's no point in me doing much more than ding up a post or two I find particularly incisive.

Keep up the good work, please!