LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Recommended: Ken Miller's 'Only a Theory'

Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 2:29:53 pm PDT

Biologist Ken Miller is one of the best advocates for evolutionary science, and I just learned that he has a new book out, tearing apart and debunking the claims (and the clams) of the “intelligent design” movement: Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul: Kenneth R. Miller.

Thoroughly enjoyable and informative, this new book by Miller (Finding Darwin’s God), a Brown University biologist and leading proponent of evolution, dismantles the scientific basis of intelligent design piece by piece. He does this by taking seriously the claims of intelligent design (though with tongue often in cheek), such as irreducible complexity, and looking at the biological facts and the dubious conclusions ID concepts would lead to. He turns to the peer-reviewed scientific literature to demonstrate that the two biological phenomena ID proponents say could not have evolved—blood-clotting proteins and bacterial flagella—are now well-enough understood to fully rebut intelligent design. Looking at the underlying philosophical issues, Miller explains that ID’s proponents want to replace modern science with ‘theistic science’... that would use the Divine not as ultimate cause, but as scientific explanation. Miller effectively explores the devastating consequences such a change would have on both science and society. In a measured, well-reasoned book, Miller explains why evolution does not deny us our humanity or our unique place in the universe.

Here are the first three parts of a very entertaining presentation Ken Miller gave at the University of Texas-Austin, titled “God, Darwin, and Design - Lessons from the Dover Monkey Trial.”

Youtube Video

Youtube Video

Youtube Video

The rest of the series:
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8

Advertisement

732 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:34:12pm

Who you calling monkey?!

2 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:35:26pm

I think I'll pick up this book in the next couple days. Thanks for letting us know about it, Charles.

3 Sizzlack  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:36:01pm

Hey if I want to believe David killed Goliath by sicking a rabid pack of Velociraptors on him, and that the 6th plague for Passover was really Teridactyls pooping all over Egypt...let me believe it!

/

4 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:36:23pm

Soren Kierkegaard said that when religion leans on or against science, it sets itself up for embarrassment. And vice versa.

That pretty much sums it up, for me.

5 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:37:41pm

I liked Miller better when he was making those cool skiing movies !

What ,,, KEN Miller? oh ,, I thought this was about WARREN Miller ,,,, nevermind !

6 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:37:42pm

BOOK REVIEWED-Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul


The United States has a big problem: although we maintain a strong scientific establishment, competitive with the rest of the world in many fields, we also have some of the most backwards proponents of superstitious nonsense in both our electorate and at the highest levels of politics. It is an embarrassment to host laboratories that are at the forefront of scientific research in the same country where presidential candidates are discussing whether Earth is really 6,000 years old as some Bible scholars say, or whether they believe in evolution.
....
Miller is sympathetic to the creationists' perspective but opposes them uncompromisingly. The book does not try to place the blame for creationism on ignorance, stupidity or malice, but suggests that the ideas are rooted in traditions and values that biologists share. He admires the clever rhetorical trick of appropriating the term 'design' for creationism, thereby implying that scientists favour the opposite and believe that human life is meaningless and without purpose. He recognizes that the concept of intelligent design creationism taps effectively into human desires and prejudices. Miller does not confuse sympathy for the intent of creationists with sympathy for its effects. The conflict has wider consequences than the teaching of one discipline in US public schools — the creationists aim to revise what science means, discarding rationalism, naturalism, materialism and other Enlightenment values to incorporate the supernatural and loosen the rigour of all sciences.
7 AndyMacOP  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:38:25pm
"...that would use the Divine not as ultimate cause, but as scientific explanation."

Ding! Here is the point of the whole matter. If you do not understand all of this, it is wrapped up in this statement. This is why the disclaimer is right on the money...where is that again Charles?

BTW, I think I am going to start my high school Theology class with a discussion on this topic using much I have gleaned from these posts.

8 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:38:30pm

re: #5 sattv4u2

I liked Miller better when he was making those cool skiing movies !

What ,,, KEN Miller? oh ,, I thought this was about WARREN Miller ,,,, nevermind !

I liked Ken Miller's documentaries on baseball and the Civil War...

9 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:39:51pm

re: #8 Cognito

I liked Ken Miller's documentaries on baseball and the Civil War...

they didn't play baseball during the civil war, silly !

10 student  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:44:19pm

Last night on local TV there was an ad for the Creation Museum. Very creepy.

11 Thanos  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:44:20pm

Thanks Charles, watching now

12 mbruce  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:44:40pm

I'm lust lookin' for that hot monkey love.....

13 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:44:54pm

re: #10 student

Last night on local TV there was an ad for the Creation Museum. Very creepy.

what was creepy ,,, the ad, or your local tv ?

14 Sizzlack  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:45:09pm

re: #9 sattv4u2

they didn't play baseball during the civil war, silly !

wait...you mean Pickett's charge wasn't a suicide squeeze?

15 HelloDare  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:45:46pm

Wonder how many will buy the book thinking it's a creationist tract?

16 solomonpanting  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:46:02pm

re: #9 sattv4u2

they didn't play baseball during the civil war, silly !

Didn't the Yankees go up against Texas?
:)

17 rlevitin  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:46:40pm

re: #15 HelloDare

Wonder how many will buy the book thinking it's a creationist tract?

Wouldn't be a bad thing for creationists to read.

18 mossley  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:46:45pm

re: #7 AndyMacOP
I really don't get what the problem is people have with this. These same people accept a variety of other scientific theories with no complaints to explain a host of natural occurrences. God created the universe; God created the processes by which it is governed.

19 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:47:19pm

re: #17 rlevitin

Wouldn't be a bad thing for creationists to read.

this book ,,,,,, or in general?

20 mossley  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:47:29pm

re: #2 Sharmuta

I think I'll pick up this book in the next couple days. Thanks for letting us know about it, Charles.

I think I'll pick up a couple copies for the local library.

21 CapitalistTool  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:48:47pm

I'm looking for book recommendations, but not on this subject. How about Podhoretz' World War IV, or similar?

22 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:49:26pm

re: #9 sattv4u2

they didn't play baseball during the civil war, silly !

Not so, Satt. Not so.

23 AndyMacOP  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:51:02pm

re: #18 mossley

It's as simple as that! I think in truth there is an absolute fear that if the Bible was not literally accurate on the creation of the world, then other things in it have no standing in truth, and that is just plain silly.

24 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:51:05pm

re: #22 Cognito

Not so, Satt. Not so.

tough dodging bulletts and shells heading for 3rd, i imagine

25 HelloDare  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:51:25pm

The History of Baseball

The first recorded baseball contest took place a year later, in 1846. Cartwright and his Knickerbocker Base Ball Club of New York City lost to the New York Baseball Club in a game at the Elysian Fields, in Hoboken, New Jersey. These amateur games became more frequent and more popular. In 1857, a convention of amateur teams was called to discuss rules and other issues. Twenty five teams from the northeast sent delegates. The following year, they formed the National Association of Base Ball Players, the first organized baseball league. In its first year of operation, the league supported itself by occasionally charging fans for admission. The future looked very bright.

Illustration of baseball being played during the Civil War.

26 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:51:28pm

Wow- that's some nasty campaigning in Ohio- and against Tom Sawyer, to boot. Talk about built-in name recognition.

27 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:53:05pm

27 posts already, and nobody has said "I'm outa here". Is that evolution in action?

28 Shug  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:53:24pm

Science!

29 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:53:39pm

re: #22 Cognito

re: #25 HelloDare

geez Louise ,,, a guy makes a joke, and all his hopes, dreams and aspirations get dashed ,, shattered,,,, ruined ,,, (sniff sniff)

30 Shug  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:53:43pm

re: #27 Naso Tang

27 posts already, and nobody has said "I'm outa here". Is that evolution in action?


They're at Church

31 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:54:03pm

re: #15 HelloDare

Well, I think that's the idea. PZ Myers review I linked to upthread mentions one of the weaknesses of the book is that it doesn't discuss the sociological problems caused by creationist organizations (mostly here in the US). I think he avoided that aspect because the book is meant to appeal to the religious community and counteract the Disco Institute's rhetoric that evolution in an atheist ideology. The book is not meant to preach to the converted, it's meant to appeal to those on the fence.

32 solomonpanting  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:54:24pm

re: #22 Cognito

From your link:

In 1861 at the start of the war, an amateur team made up of members of the 71st New York Regiment defeated the Washington Nationals baseball club by a score of 41 to 13.

Some things never change.

33 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:56:20pm

re: #32 solomonpanting

From your link:

In 1861 at the start of the war, an amateur team made up of members of the 71st New York Regiment defeated the Washington Nationals baseball club by a score of 41 to 13.

Some things never change.

If you look closely at the illustration above, you can see a young Steinbrenner yelling from the baseline.

34 AndyMacOP  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 2:59:15pm

re: #30 Shug

No I ain't!

Wait, you are not talking about me, I am religious, but not and IDer. Ok...

35 Abu Lahab  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:01:09pm

Thanks Charles. I thought I knew enough about evolution and the ID hoax, but not until you started actively posting about this issue and providing such good materials, links, and readings.
Reading the ID threads and going through all these materials is so informative and mind-refreshing.

36 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:04:09pm

We must allow ID into the classroom because:

A) Evolution is just a theory
B) Two words- Irreducible Complexity
C) If you find a watch on the beach, there must be a watchmaker
D) You're not a true Christian otherwise
E) Charles Johnson is a Darwinistic nihilist atheist God hater
F) A combination of any or all of the above

/hat tip- myself with thanks to jaunte

37 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:04:20pm

OT; Fark headline....
What do Al Qaeda and an anus have in common? They never get tired of making number 2s
Heh.

38 FrogMarch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:06:00pm

More proof of FF: (Flip Flopping)

Obama backs away from debates with McCain.

I believe!

39 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:06:45pm

re: #30 Shug

They're at Church

On Saturday? Must be the Muslims.

40 MandyManners  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:07:32pm

re: #12 mbruce

I'm lust lookin' for that hot monkey love.....

*smoochies*

41 gunjam  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:08:07pm

I will agree with Ken Miller on one point: There is a battle afoot for America's soul, all right. No arguments there!

However, i am fervently praying that the evolutionists do not have their way, as -- if they do -- America will lose its soul, after a manner of speaking.

Besides, evolution simply does not fill the bill. It is a "work-around" to "get by" without acknowledging the truths of Scripture regarding the origins of the earth.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating: As hard as the evolutionists fight for their point of view, it comes across as religious zeal to me.

Here is a good resource for the "rest of the story" on the creation/evolution debate.

Creation ex nihilo is not an optional teaching for the earnest Bible believer. And I don't think the writer to the Hebrews is referring to protoplasmic ooze, either. :-)

42 Shay4l  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:08:11pm

re: #7 AndyMacOP

Ding! BTW, I think I am going to start my high school Theology class with a discussion on this topic using much I have gleaned from these posts.

High School Theology class? I get the feeling you are not in NJ, where I attended HS.

43 vibemanjoe  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:08:42pm

re: #23 AndyMacOP

It's as simple as that! I think in truth there is an absolute fear that if the Bible was not literally accurate on the creation of the world, then other things in it have no standing in truth, and that is just plain silly.

It is just a bit more complicated, but you have captured the essence.

Many denominations, including mine, believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. What we often fall to realize is that the revelation that we have been given as a picture of God is not a technical document, but a spiritual one.

As long as we use the text to help us determine our relationship to God and at the same time our relationships to others, we will be fine, particularly at a spiritual level. When we start applying it in a strict historical context or, as in this case, a scientific one, we must brace ourselves for inevitable problems.

While I believe the revelation to be without error, I do not believe it to be complete. There are simply things about God and His works that we do not know. We do not know chronologically. We do not know mechanically. We do not know.

Many of us, and I have to admit this used to be me, hate to admit that we do not know something. This is particularly true when the subject is one to which we claim to have an intimate and personal relationship.

But, there are some things about God that I do not know, and can not know. I have to accept that.

Maybe, just maybe, scientific evidence, presented fairly and honestly, can fill some of those gaps.

If it is shown to be true, then it is true. I can live with that.

Joe

44 Shay4l  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:08:55pm

re: #27 Naso Tang

27 posts already, and nobody has said "I'm outa here". Is that evolution in action?


It's OK until the fanatics take over.

45 gunjam  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:10:13pm

re: #39 Naso Tang

On Saturday? Must be the Muslims.

Huh?

The Muslims worship on Fridays.

They sometimes refer (derisively) to Jews as "the Saturday people," and to Christians as "the Sunday people."

46 Spiny Norman  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:10:30pm

re: #9 sattv4u2

they didn't play baseball during the civil war, silly !

Actually, they did.

;^)

47 Spiny Norman  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:12:10pm

re: #46 Spiny Norman

Next time, perhaps, I'll refresh the page before I post...

48 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:12:16pm

re: #41 gunjam


It is a "work-around" to "get by" without acknowledging the truths of Scripture regarding the origins of the earth.


And which scripture would that be? Are you suggesting we force Buddhists, Hindus and Jews study the New Testament in science class?

50 texasjihad  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:14:16pm

What is the battle for again?
If this is the battle for America's soul--then what is the alternative again? How is it possible to get this worked up about such an issue? If ID is so easy to discredit--why not let it be looked at. Is it that we must protect these poor kids from getting brainwashed? With the problems we have in the schools -- the secularists want to push away those who are the most constructive in terms of working hard and setting a good example of morality to the other kids.
You go girl--

51 AndyMacOP  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:14:36pm

re: #42 Shay4l

Nope, Chicago!

52 gunjam  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:15:21pm

re: #43 vibemanjoe

While I believe the revelation to be without error, I do not believe it to be complete. There are simply things about God and His works that we do not know. We do not know chronologically. We do not know mechanically. We do not know.

The Genesis creation account is very clear about the chronological order of the creative week.

You don't have to believe it, but you can't have it both ways : If you believe it, you are bound by it -- if you are logical person, that is.

53 Boondock St. Bender  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:15:41pm

Hmmmm,i'm very upset here.logged on and did not see the "frank says"box....wahhhhhhhhh

54 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:15:48pm

re: #41 gunjam

I will agree with Ken Miller on one point: There is a battle afoot for America's soul, all right. No arguments there!

However, i am fervently praying that the evolutionists do not have their way, as -- if they do -- America will lose its soul, after a manner of speaking.

This is no argument. Your link provides no argument.

55 Shay4l  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:16:48pm

OT the picture of Assad and Ahmadinejad (sp!) really show how short the Iranian Hitler-Wannabe is. There's no doubt in my mind the man has little man syndrome, just like his predecessor-in-destruction.

How short is my dictator

56 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:17:11pm

re: #45 gunjam

Huh?

The Muslims worship on Fridays.

They sometimes refer (derisively) to Jews as "the Saturday people," and to Christians as "the Sunday people."

True. I knew that, or should have.

57 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:17:15pm

re: #52 gunjam

So- you're going with "D"?

58 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:17:22pm

re: #53 Boondock St. Bender

Did we finally lose Frank? bummer.

59 Shay4l  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:19:49pm

re: #51 AndyMacOP

Nope, Chicago!

The only theology they'd ever allow in NJ schools is Marxism. I'm glad I came to TX, where they don't try to suffocate your soul in the name of the "community".

60 gunjam  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:21:19pm

re: #48 Killgore Trout

And which scripture would that be? Are you suggesting we force Buddhists, Hindus and Jews study the New Testament in science class?

I have been told that the argument can be made that the Hindu scriptures do teach a form of evolution. :-)

So, I guess I could say that your team is already teaching religion in science class.

Balancing that with the Bible would do more good than harm from where I sit.

Accepting -- for the sake of discussion -- that the Bible cannot be taught in public school science classes, then ID would be a way of balancing the science class curriculum.

61 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:21:30pm

re: #23 AndyMacOP

It's as simple as that! I think in truth there is an absolute fear that if the Bible was not literally accurate on the creation of the world, then other things in it have no standing in truth, and that is just plain silly.

Well, yes and no.

literal creation in six days = disproved by science
virgin birth = ?
resurrection = ?

For some, too much scientific scrutiny might cause the whole edifice to come tumbling down like a house of cards. If God could do the latter two, why couldn't He have done the former? And if He didn't do the former, who's to say He also didn't do the latter two?

(It isn't an all-or-nothing proposition for me but it is for some folks.)

It all comes down to which church you attend and which parts of the Bible you and your church choose to interpret literally. Pentecostal churches, for example, teach specifically that evolution did not happen and that a belief in literal creationism is required.

62 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:22:49pm

re: #45 gunjam

Huh?

The Muslims worship on Fridays.

They sometimes refer (derisively) to Jews as "the Saturday people," and to Christians as "the Sunday people."

Hmm.

It's clear to me that we -- the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday people -- are all seriously missing out on a chance to consolidate real estate.

63 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:24:25pm

re: #60 gunjam


Accepting -- for the sake of discussion -- that the Bible cannot be taught in public school science classes, then ID would be a way of balancing the science class curriculum.

What is the point of "balancing" science with tripe? What law says that reality must be balanced with fantasy?

64 Salem  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:25:34pm

re: #52 gunjam

The Genesis creation account is very clear about the chronological order of the creative week.

You don't have to believe it, but you can't have it both ways : If you believe it, you are bound by it -- if you are logical person, that is.

"Bound" is a good word for it.

65 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:26:05pm

re: #60 gunjam

Accepting -- for the sake of discussion -- that the Bible cannot be taught in public school science classes, then ID would be a way of balancing the science class curriculum.


Ooops, your talking points are off. You aren't supposed to admit that ID has anything to do with religion.

66 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:27:39pm

re: #52 gunjam

The Genesis creation account is very clear about the chronological order of the creative week.

You don't have to believe it, but you can't have it both ways : If you believe it, you are bound bounded by it -- if you are logical literalist person, that is.

fixed

67 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:27:40pm

re: #41 gunjam

the earnest Bible believer

Euphemism for:

re: #36 Sharmuta

D) You're not a true Christian otherwise

68 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:29:45pm

re: #67 Josephine

I knew he was going with "D"!

69 Racer X  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:30:24pm

When you allow one religion a spot on the agenda in public schools, others will immediately demand a spot as well. Who else gets a spot? Christians; Hindus; Buddhists; Jews; Muslims; Scientology?

Learn spirituality on your own dime - not in public schools.

70 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:30:28pm

re: #39 Naso Tang

On Saturday? Must be the Muslims.

Seventh-day Adventists go to church on Saturday.

(But I don't know what they teach about evolution.)

71 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:32:35pm

re: #68 Sharmuta

I knew he was going with "D"!

I don't happen to believe gunjam is right. But I'll tell you that his thoughts on the thread -- earnest, as it were -- are a lot more palatable than a gloating list.

72 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:33:39pm

re: #69 Racer X

When you allow one religion a spot on the agenda in public schools, others will immediately demand a spot as well. Who else gets a spot? Christians; Hindus; Buddhists; Jews; Muslims; Scientology?

Learn spirituality on your own dime - not in public schools.

I agree. The public schools must be allowed to mis-teach history (the US's in particular), and be the place where students pass who don't have basic reading and writing skills

73 Salem  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:34:35pm

re: #60 gunjam

I have been told that the argument can be made that the Hindu scriptures do teach a form of evolution. :-)

So, I guess I could say that your team is already teaching religion in science class.

Balancing that with the Bible would do more good than harm from where I sit.

Accepting -- for the sake of discussion -- that the Bible cannot be taught in public school science classes, then ID would be a way of balancing the science class curriculum.

ID will lose. It will fade away It will serve as an amusing historical curiosity for people in the future, as well as a potent example of the dangers of religious fundamentalism.

74 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:35:20pm

re: #70 Josephine

They are deeply creationist.

Seventh-day Adventists

75 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:37:13pm

re: #73 Salem

ID will lose. It will fade away

How so? For how long have people of every race and religious persuasion beleived in a higher power, one that all things came from? ID did not start 2000 years ago with Christ and the birth of christianity

76 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:37:16pm

re: #71 Cognito

I don't happen to believe gunjam is right. But I'll tell you that his thoughts on the thread -- earnest, as it were -- are a lot more palatable than a gloating list.

I will speak for myself: your assumption is incorrect.

I was not gloating: I was pointing out something that I think is pertinent to understanding the perspective of the anti-evolution, pro-ID folks.

77 victor_yugo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:37:39pm

Intelligent Design isn't about "science" or "intelligence." It's all about violating the First Amendment by using taxpayer dollars to support one religion over another.

The term "intelligent design" was coined to cover up the political agenda behind it, on par with "pro-choice."

78 Racer X  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:37:53pm

re: #72 sattv4u2

I agree. The public schools must be allowed to mis-teach history (the US's in particular), and be the place where students pass who don't have basic reading and writing skills

Excellent point. There are teachers out there now who are butchering American history, let alone reading, writing, and math. How will public school teachers fare when teaching the complexities of spirituality?

79 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:38:36pm

re: #71 Cognito

Gloating? Those are the arguments they themselves put forth. If you read any of these ID threads, you'd see the pattern. Just like my list of fascist excuses, they don't really stray off these basic arguments.

80 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:40:03pm

There's being right. And there's being right with grace.

81 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:40:48pm

re: #80 Cognito

There's being right. And there's being right with grace.

Neither of which you are familiar with.

82 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:42:15pm

re: #74 Sharmuta

Thanks, Shar, I haven't read much about that church.

83 Racer X  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:43:11pm

Its OK to use tact and grace in these debates. LGF has lost too many good people because feelings were hurt.

84 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:43:20pm

Quite possible, Sharmuta. But then again I can't recall ever making a list.

Here's the point: I can accept that people can be wrong, or just uninformed, without deserving mockery and derision. Good people can have misplaced opinions. They're still good.

85 victor_yugo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:43:37pm

re: #75 sattv4u2

For how long have people of every race and religious persuasion beleived in a higher power, one that all things came from?

And do you honestly think teaching ID won't lead to even more denial of science in the classroom? How does a school board decide of Baptists or Mormons or Buddhists or Hindus or, yes, Muslims will provide the story underpinning ID? Short answer: on the taxpayer dime, you don't.

Furthermore, how do you scrutinize ID with the scientific method? Where is the experimental control? How do you intelligently create one universe, and randomly create another?

ID fails scientific scrutiny. ID is anti-intelligence. ID is an oxymoron.

86 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:44:19pm

re: #80 Cognito

You're trying to pick a fight. I'm not interested.

87 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:44:45pm

re: #82 Josephine

When you get to Saving Darwin, you will read about them. In fact- they really kind of started this whole controversy.

88 lifeofthemind  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:45:58pm

re: #72 sattv4u2

I agree. The public schools must be allowed to mis-teach history (the US's in particular), and be the place where students pass who don't have basic reading and writing skills

I'll assume the /sarc tag in that.

Teaching History demands that students be taught about religions. Until you deal with Europe after the 17th century and Asia after the introduction of Marxism (which arguably should be studied as if it was a religion) it is impossible to meaningfully study cultures and events without understanding the religious issues and motivations that were at work. People killed over issues such as whether the sign of the cross was given with one two or three fingers. The distinctions between Presbyterian and Episcopal church governance cost the King of England his head and laid the foundations for freedom in Parliament and confession that we have today. Attempts to explain away history as purely a series of secular events with economic motives are not only impoverished but are deeply insulting to the memories of the people involved.

89 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:46:03pm

re: #86 Josephine

You're trying to pick a fight. I'm not interested.

Well, firstly, I haven't addressed you at all. So I'm not sure which of us is picking a fight, exactly.

Secondly, I'm not picking anything -- it just rankles me to see someone stumble across a correct opinion and then wave it under the noses of other people -- good people -- who haven't arrived at the same conclusion.

90 AndyMacOP  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:46:42pm

re: #41 gunjam

Creation ex nihilo is not an optional teaching for the earnest Bible believer. And I don't think the writer to the Hebrews is referring to protoplasmic ooze, either. :-)

A strange battle among us Christians is underway. I study science and evolutionary findings and see God. The same God I see in the Bible and the Church. Other Christians study science and evolution and they apparently see Satan (ok, an overstatement, but you get my point).

Here is the problem. I believe in creation ex nihilo, but I believe it happened billions and billions of years ago as the beginning of a wonderful process. Many Christian Biblical Fundamentalists believe the world is about 6,000 years old. This core idea to the young-earth creationist makes God out to be a deceiver and a liar. Why would God give us the ability to think and reason through problems and come up with solid answers and solutions, just to deceive us? What is in it for Him? Why is anyone's faith so fragile that the idea that God created the world in an absolutely reasonable fashion that a story, mixed together from ancient myths and legends in order to explain one thing: God is the creator of all, be the thread that your faith depends upon?

God is not bound by natural law they way we are. And there is the answer. What is nature telling us? I know one thing that nature is not telling everyone: sometimes God (and people) use stories to tell a greater truth. Otherwise you might have to believe that all of the parables Jesus told actually happened. And if you believe that, all I can do is sigh and remember what a faithful and funny Biblical scholar told us in class one day at seminary: Biblical fundamentalists must be ridiculed. There is no arguing with someone who refuses to engage in reasonable dialogue and acknowledge empirical evidence. I think this is why this site exists. Charles has done yeoman's work in pointing out the stupidity of Islamic fundys and moonbats. Now it is someone else's turn.

91 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:48:05pm

re: #87 Sharmuta

Yes, I need to read that, plus the one featured in this post. They both sound interesting and informative.

I have to use my husband's computer to watch the videos Charles posted, so it might not happen until Tuesday. (This is a long weekend for us; Monday is a civic holiday.)

92 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:48:05pm

re: #85 victor_yugo

And do you honestly think teaching ID won't lead to even more denial of science in the classroom? How does a school board decide of Baptists or Mormons or Buddhists or Hindus or, yes, Muslims will provide the story underpinning ID? Short answer: on the taxpayer dime, you don't.

Furthermore, how do you scrutinize ID with the scientific method? Where is the experimental control? How do you intelligently create one universe, and randomly create another?

ID fails scientific scrutiny. ID is anti-intelligence. ID is an oxymoron.

please show me where in my post that I am advocating public funds/ schools/ teaching of ID

I'll wait

93 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:51:25pm

The first private space launch countdown has started. Live Feed , although they seem to be having webcam problems

94 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:51:39pm

re: #80 Cognito

There's being right. And there's being right with grace.

And there is being wrong without grace.

95 DeathtotheSwiss  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:51:49pm

I posted this comment on the history channel thread, admittedly it belongs here where people like Gunjam and perhaps even our own prestigious genetic epidemiologist Mr. George Slivers.

"Coming into this late I'd just like to point out that I have no issue pointing out the flaws and missteps of the science of evolution. If it's good science it generally can stand up to conjecture and debate.

I just don't see the point against dismissing something for the single solitary reason that it makes you question your faith. On that basis a lot more in the world should be dismissed as fantasy: war, disease, famine, plagues, rape, genocide, pain...how do these fit into an "intelligent designer" belief system in which the designer went so far as to build trillions of living organisms ranging from single-celled simple ones to extremely complex organisms such as ourselves and other creatures whose existence we'd never know about for at least (for some of you) 5-7 thousand years of technology. Microbes and deep sea fish/worms and millions of undiscovered species that have only recently become visible thanks to technological advancements show that the literal interpretation of religious texts can at least be shown to leave certain subjects out. Of course, that is more a blot on the creationist belief system then the that of the "intelligent design" movement per se, but I think it is fair to say that one must have some belief in a specific God, not necessarily the God of Abraham, to believe that every single species was designed (some say) just a short time ago. How does 99% of all life on the planet over the course of either the short time of 5-7 thousand years (for that some I spoke of) or even 3 billion years (as scientists have proven through various different methods) fit into any coherent plan?

If the evidence of species taking on different traits and those same traits being identifiable in a wide range of modern species thus suggesting a possible line of ancestry is actually offensive to one's faith, shouldn't everything else be? Shouldn't the fact that infant mortality even exists be more damaging to the idea of "intelligent design" than a set of data and a theory of what that data means? Which is worse: Adam and Eve being merely a story and the Bible having value in a deeper more philosophical sense or a world designed to be filled with suffering and violence (and there'd be plenty regardless of humanity, the animal kingdom is quite violent thank you).

As an agnostic and former-Christian I can say as a child I took the Bible literally, then came to disagree with much in the Bible on that literal basis, then as I took it as a collection of stories some held to be true-to-fact such as Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection and ascension into Heaven, it was only on a few points that I came to question my own faith until it was no more. Even though I'm no longer a Christian though, I don't find myself hating Jesus nor the God of a non-literal Bible...to take the Bible literally on the other hand...well I hate that version of God so much that if he were real I'd refuse to kneel before him. That God disgusts me to no end, he is a God that tricks his people by leaving clues and ways to observe the universe and then shows them to be a cruel fantasy with only faith as the guide to him. A God that slaughters indiscriminately is not the kind of God I'd consider benign or admirable. I find it disturbing that people would choose that belief system and that they would go out of their way to make others believe the same things as them through dishonesty as we have seen on this very forum: George Slivers for instance pretending to be a scientist and various others who I suspect are part of creationist political/religious groups bent on quelling anything that could cause people to make up their own minds on the question of faith.

Thank you Charles for allowing these people to show themselves for what they really are."

96 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:52:47pm

re: #84 Cognito

That wasn't mockery. That was a list of arguments they actually use on these threads. And no where did I call them bad people. And- for your information- it's the opposite. Many of the ID advocates and creationists have told many of us that we are not "true" Christians. That's deeply offensive. So why don't you get your knickers in a twist over that? Or- maybe you can jump Andy for his #90 or go back to discussing baseball.

97 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:53:17pm

Webcam back up, look like the launch will be around 5pm pacific time.

98 AndyMacOP  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:53:33pm

re: #61 Josephine

As an interesting point that I have been thinking about lately in response to this issue is the fact that for a person to be declared a saint in the Catholic Church today, no less than 2 scientifically verifiable miracles must be presented. We go to science to find out what they think. I personally have one report from Lourdes that is very interesting. And they do not require the doctors and scientists to be Catholics, nor Christian! Just experts in their fields.

The issue with the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection is that there is nothing to study. So science will say it never happened, but cannot prove it. Just like we cannot scientifically prove it did happen. It is an article of faith. Otherwise it would not be faith!

99 DeathtotheSwiss  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:53:41pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

The first private space launch countdown has started. Live Feed , although they seem to be having webcam problems

Space Tourism...hopefully it'll be affordable before we die.

100 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:54:56pm

re: #96 Sharmuta

That wasn't mockery. That was a list of arguments they actually use on these threads. And no where did I call them bad people. And- for your information- it's the opposite. Many of the ID advocates and creationists have told many of us that we are not "true" Christians. That's deeply offensive. So why don't you get your knickers in a twist over that? Or- maybe you can jump Andy for his #90 or go back to discussing baseball.

Relax, Sharmuta. My knickers are entirely untwisted, and I've not jumped anyone for anything.

101 Racer X  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:54:59pm

re: #97 Killgore Trout

Webcam back up, look like the launch will be around 5pm pacific time.

Cool. Where is the launch site?

102 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:56:40pm

re: #99 DeathtotheSwiss

Branson's space tourist space flight will cost around $200,000 for about 7 minutes in low orbit. Maybe not in our lifetime but maybe our kids.

103 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:57:02pm

re: #101 Racer X

Somewhere near Hawaii.

104 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 3:57:36pm

re: #101 Racer X

Cool. Where is the launch site?

A small atoll off Hawaii, I believe.

"Yeah, Joe Public, you can fire off a rocket. But you'll do it over there."

105 DeathtotheSwiss  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:00:14pm

re: #104 Cognito

So what happens when aliens shoot them down?

106 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:02:13pm

re: #105 DeathtotheSwiss

So what happens when aliens shoot them down?

I can't speak for everyone, but I'll be busy shaking hands -- or whatever -- with my new alien buddies.

107 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:02:52pm

re: #104 Cognito

A small atoll off Hawaii, I believe.

"Yeah, Joe Public, you can fire off a rocket. But you'll do it over there."

most low level (i.e. communication satellites, military, etc0 are launched from remote places (platforms in the pacific,,, and lately most US private communication satellites are launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan)

108 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:03:25pm

re: #88 lifeofthemind


Teaching History demands that students be taught about religions.

In the sense that history can be taught while saying the such and such slaughtered so and so on the basis that so and so ate eggs from the narrow end instead of the round one like such and such did; then religion can be referenced. However there is no possible way to "teach" about religion in a comparative manner without either being biased or without insulting someone in the process.

That is an unfortunate reality, and therefore a reason why such teaching cannot be done in a public and multicultural multi religious society.

Go to Saudi, or any Muslim mono theistic society, if you want to see how it works. They certainly do teach about other religions too.

109 eclectic infidel  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:04:09pm

re: #31 Killgore Trout

Well, I think that's the idea. PZ Myers review I linked to upthread mentions one of the weaknesses of the book is that it doesn't discuss the sociological problems caused by creationist organizations (mostly here in the US). I think he avoided that aspect because the book is meant to appeal to the religious community and counteract the Disco Institute's rhetoric that evolution in an atheist ideology. The book is not meant to preach to the converted, it's meant to appeal to those on the fence.

Still though, it might be a worthy read for us secularists who support science over theology in the science class. The arguments presented can in turn be used to counter the religious-based arguments hell bent (pun intended) on defeating evolution at every turn.

110 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:04:39pm

re: #109 eclectic infidel

Agreed.

111 debutaunt  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:05:02pm

re: #108 Naso Tang

In the sense that history can be taught while saying the such and such slaughtered so and so on the basis that so and so ate eggs from the narrow end instead of the round one like such and such did; then religion can be referenced. However there is no possible way to "teach" about religion in a comparative manner without either being biased or without insulting someone in the process.

That is an unfortunate reality, and therefore a reason why such teaching cannot be done in a public and multicultural multi religious society.

Go to Saudi, or any Muslim mono theistic society, if you want to see how it works. They certainly do teach about other religions too.

Now I'm really upset - I hate the small roundians!

112 sillyquiet  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:05:21pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

The first private space launch countdown has started. Live Feed , although they seem to be having webcam problems

not to be pedantic, but the first private space launch was in 2004, with the launch of Spaceship One.

113 debutaunt  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:06:22pm

re: #112 sillyquiet

not to be pedantic, but the first private space launch was in 2004, with the launch of Spaceship One.

Science! History!

114 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:06:54pm

re: #107 sattv4u2

I have seen some small (relatively speaking) rocket clubs in Arizona and Nevada. They put up some fairly serious rockets but they aren't very close to getting out of the atmosphere.

115 victor_yugo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:07:23pm

re: #92 sattv4u2

please show me where in my post that I am advocating public funds/ schools/ teaching of ID

My comment #85, above, was improperly directed at sattv4u2. It is hereby withdrawn, with prejudice.

Please, any and all, ding it down into negative-red-number oblivion, since I am unable to do so myself.

116 Shug  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:07:34pm

re: #93 Killgore Trout

If they can't operate a webcam, I 'm worry about their ability to achieve orbit

117 Wendya  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:08:17pm

re: #10 student

Last night on local TV there was an ad for the Creation Museum. Very creepy.

Is that the one from their website that shows all the cartoon dinosaurs and ends with a little girl being lifted up into the trees to play with a chimp by a Brachiosaurus?

118 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:08:53pm

re: #112 sillyquiet

not to be pedantic, but the first private space launch was in 2004, with the launch of Spaceship One.

wow ,, and here I thought the 1st private launch was in 1960 when Timothy Leary found psilocybin mushrooms !

119 Racer X  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:09:11pm

re: #106 Cognito

I can't speak for everyone, but I'll be busy shaking hands -- or whatever -- with my new alien buddies.

As long as it's not the "San Francisco Hand Shake".

eeww. Did I really just type that?

120 ploome hineni[deleted]  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:09:43pm
121 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:09:56pm

re: #112 sillyquiet

Ah, I didn't catch the nuance.....
First Privately Developed Liquid Fuel Rocket to Orbit

Ah, I guess the liquid fuel is the 1st for a private spacecraft.

122 victor_yugo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:11:19pm

re: #120 ploome hineni

I wonder how any AMerican kids can identify a robin?

I identified the robin that crapped all over my car. He was in a police line-up, pretending to be all nicey-nicey like an eagle, but he didn't fool me.

123 littleO  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:13:40pm

Yawn.
I've an alternative suggestion. Offer religion classes as an purely elective course for those who wish to learn all measures of thought/comparisons. Those who do not wish to have their intelligence challenged needn't waste their time.
I believe Texas schools are going to do just that.

124 Racer X  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:13:45pm

re: #116 Shug

We’re Looking for Great People

At SpaceX we are always seeking world-class people to join our team. Most of our needs are in California, but we’re also growing our Florida team in preparation for increased Falcon 9 activities at Cape Canaveral, and we’re expanding our Texas propulsion and test team.

Since the people we seek can work anywhere they want and tend to be most highly prized by their organizations, SpaceX also offers up to a $5,000 award to anyone who refers a candidate we hire. Besides a competitive salary, comprehensive benefits and significant stock options, joining SpaceX offers the opportunity to help open up space for humanity.

Help 'em out.

125 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:15:23pm

re: #122 victor_yugo

I identified the robin that crapped all over my car. He was in a police line-up, pretending to be all nicey-nicey like an eagle, but he didn't fool me.


Can you identify this birdie?

Don't even think of crapping here

126 sillyquiet  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:16:35pm

re: #121 Killgore Trout

Ah, I didn't catch the nuance.....
First Privately Developed Liquid Fuel Rocket to Orbit

Ah, I guess the liquid fuel is the 1st for a private spacecraft.

must be. IIRC Spaceship one used solid fuel with a liquid oxydizer.
/space nerd

127 Racer X  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:18:22pm

re: #125 Naso Tang

Can you identify this birdie?

Don't even think of crapping here

OMG!

The cat one was terrible!

But funny.

128 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:18:50pm

The real weird thing about Miller is that is he is a Catholic. So he obviously believes in the magic of Jesus but I'm not sure in which way.

129 least  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:19:58pm

re: #111 debutaunt

Now I'm really upset - I hate the small roundians!

Bigendian scum!
:)

130 lifeofthemind  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:20:17pm

re: #108 Naso Tang

In the sense that history can be taught while saying the such and such slaughtered so and so on the basis that so and so ate eggs from the narrow end instead of the round one like such and such did; then religion can be referenced. However there is no possible way to "teach" about religion in a comparative manner without either being biased or without insulting someone in the process.

In a word "No." The description of a meaningless education done badly does not mean that History is simply impossible to teach. You may have been badly taught. It may be difficult and expensive to properly teach. That does not prove that "there is no possible way ..." To do it correctly means knowledgeable instructors going into far deeper detail. If by "biased" you mean stating affirmatively at the beginning that your method and process are in line with a tradition of inquiry that reaches back through Aristotle then guilty. The value of the education can be determined by verifying the coherent abilities of the educated at the end. We used to teach that way and the results were pretty damn good. Saying that someone will be insulted does not mean that the teaching will be done improperly or ineffectively. That was the original argument for Tenure. To protect the jobs of teachers positing truths that contradicted a partisan prejudice.

Middle paragraph deleted.

Go to Saudi, or any Muslim mono theistic society, if you want to see how it works. They certainly do teach about other religions too.

They do it wrong. They do almost everything wrong. We should study and teach why.

131 phoenixgirl  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:21:17pm

AndyMcOp

if you are still here go in the lounge!

132 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:22:13pm

re: #130 lifeofthemind

Be realistic. Such matters can be taught in Universities, but in school it would be a farce.

133 lifeofthemind  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:22:32pm

Sorry about screwing up the blockquotes. Repeat after me class, Preview is ....

134 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:25:16pm
135 lifeofthemind  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:26:03pm

re: #132 Naso Tang

Be realistic. Such matters can be taught in Universities, but in school it would be a farce.


We are probably not natural opponents. Be not afraid. The current darkness may be but a passing thing. Remember it was done better before. A hundred years ago 50% graduated from High School and they all got a darn good education. Now 50% graduate but they get a miserable education. Raising standards works.

136 least  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:26:17pm

re: #125 Naso Tang


Now that was funny.
Why'd it not air -- PETA? The Audobon Society?

137 christheprofessor  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:26:28pm

re: #120 ploome hineni

From your quote:

Half of youngsters aged nine to 11 were unable to identify a daddy-long-legs, oak tree, blue tit or bluebell, in the poll by BBC Wildlife Magazine.

I know nothing myself of blue tits. I am familiar, however, with blue... nevermind.

138 kansas  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:29:00pm

re: #123 littleO

Yawn.
I've an alternative suggestion. Offer religion classes as an purely elective course for those who wish to learn all measures of thought/comparisons. Those who do not wish to have their intelligence challenged needn't waste their time.
I believe Texas schools are going to do just that.

I've an alternative suggestion. Offer religion classes in church.

139 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:30:35pm

re: #138 kansas

Another alternate suggestion: Science classes in church.

140 cpuller  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:30:58pm

Why the focus on evolution so much lately?

141 littleO  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:31:22pm

re134 taxfreekiller
I would hope religious education in public schools might rather lead to theology and the thoughts of the early Church Fathers in higher education.

142 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:32:20pm

re: #124 Racer X

Maybe the need a luthier.

143 littleO  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:33:05pm

re140 cpuller
makes ya think dodn it

144 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:33:44pm

re: #128 theatheistjew

The Pope also believes in evolution and JC. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

145 Charles  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:33:47pm

re: #140 cpuller

Why the focus on evolution so much lately?

Why not?

146 Charles  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:34:07pm

re: #143 littleO

re140 cpuller
makes ya think dodn it

Don't strain yourself.

147 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:34:37pm

re: #135 lifeofthemind

We are probably not natural opponents. Be not afraid. The current darkness may be but a passing thing. Remember it was done better before. A hundred years ago 50% graduated from High School and they all got a darn good education. Now 50% graduate but they get a miserable education. Raising standards works.

That is what is called reminiscing about the good old days (remember do you?), when it's hard to make realistic comparisons with anything. 100 years ago Christians ruled the earth and proved it (close enough to 100) with things like the Scopes Trial.

Students of 100 years ago would not pass any class today based on the level of knowledge they needed then to be successful, versus what is needed today.

That there are problems with education is obvious, but to suggest that religion in school can cure that is ridiculous.

148 lifeofthemind  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:35:20pm

re: #138 kansas

I've an alternative suggestion. Offer religion classes in church.

It sounds funny but ask the economic question, at what cost? As lizards I suppose we are unhappy with the aimless ill educated state of our society the makes people unable to respond effectively to Islamist propaganda, abuse of the legal system and empowers hucksters selling a "Holiday From History" at the voting booth. If we do not improve the level of History education and the understanding of the religious forces out there then why would we expect better results?

149 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:36:49pm

re: #144 Killgore Trout

The Pope also believes in evolution and JC. The two aren't mutually exclusive.


I understand that. I just find it difficult to understand how someone could be heavily into mounds and mounds of evidence when it comes to evolution, yet sort of let their guard down and believe in a lot of unprovable hocus pocus that supposedly happened 2000 years ago.

150 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:37:43pm

re: #140 cpuller

Why the focus on evolution so much lately?

Because the objective here is to place light where it is needed.

151 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:37:56pm

The war on science continues....
UC researchers and families attacked

...a fire was started on the porch of a faculty member's home. Injuries were sustained as the faculty member and his wife and children escaped the residence."

Attack comes after pamphlets were found threatening faculty claimed to use animals in research.


Fires were set at two faculty residences, car in the driveway of one house, and on the porch of another's house.

"Injuries were sustained as the faculty member and his wife and children escaped the residence."

Earlier this week, pamphlets threatening researchers at UCSC were found at a downtown Santa Cruz coffeeshop.
The pamphlets were turned into police by a customer, and threaten researchers alleged to work on animals, and listed their names, addresses, phone numbers with photos.

152 reine.de.tout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:38:49pm

re: #149 theatheistjew

I understand that. I just find it difficult to understand how someone could be heavily into mounds and mounds of evidence when it comes to evolution, yet sort of let their guard down and believe in a lot of unprovable hocus pocus that supposedly happened 2000 years ago.

It's called faith, and that's why it's different from science. It's also why science should be taught in science classes, and faith taught at home, in houses of worship and/or in religion classes.

153 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:38:50pm
154 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:40:15pm

re: #153 taxfreekiller

Of some note:

The no. 2 of the Texas R's makes a living selling Bibles.


Door to door? Can I get some Avon products and Fuller Brushes from him/ her also ?

155 itellu3times  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:40:41pm

re: #140 cpuller

Why the focus on evolution so much lately?

Perhaps because we see a battle for survival, political and cultural, being waged around us, and it's partially relevant and also refreshingly OT to look at the real thing.

156 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:40:58pm

Heh. Seems like every time I log into LGF and there's an Evolution thread, it says...last comment Kilgore Trout.

Hey Kilgore. What's happening?

157 least  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:41:58pm

re: #94 Naso Tang

And there is being wrong without grace.

And there is thinking that everything you believe is right, therefore you don't have to display grace.
Been a lot of that, lately.
I have, to my regret, let my irritation be reflected in my posts.
If I read a post that pushes a button, I force myself to wait at least 5 minutes before posting -- I find that I usually don't post a reply, there really are more important things to be annoyed at.

[ Speaking of more important things, having the lovely Mrs. least around helps too - today is domestic day, floors to vacuum, foolrs to mop and washing macines that need fed]

158 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:42:47pm

re: #149 theatheistjew

I happen to think faith is overrated but some people value it. I think the key here is that he's advocating for a version of faith that is compatible with modern life. A basic understanding of biology is important but if he believes in a few ancient miracles it doesn't bother me any. It's very important for Christianity to continue being a modern religion if they want to survive.

159 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:43:30pm

re: #156 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Heh, not much.

160 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:44:57pm

RE: #93,
They've started the prelaunch show.

161 stretch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:45:00pm

it seems that so many of the evolutionists here express such great concern for public schools, and for the poor education that public school students would receive if they were not taught fully in evolution doctrine. I can't help but think that a number of these evolutionists here are freeloaders - fully capable of paying their own way for their children, but instead ask that taxpayers support their lifestyles. its aggravating to see one expensive car after another lined up at the schools, dropping off their kids in the morning. we all need to be reminded that public school was started to give the poor a better chance and opportunity, not for the well-off to get a free ride. if the well-off would pay their own way (or if the rich kids were kicked out), then classes would be smaller, and all teachers would be better paid. who could be against that? And please don't claim that your high property taxes cover the cost - families who don't freeload on the public schools most assuredly still pay property taxes.

162 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:45:06pm

re: #158 Killgore Trout

I happen to think faith is overrated but some people value it. I think the key here is that he's advocating for a version of faith that is compatible with modern life. A basic understanding of biology is important but if he believes in a few ancient miracles it doesn't bother me any. It's very important for Christianity to continue being a modern religion if they want to survive.


The Pope definitely gets the survival thingy. But I still wonder how they make room for things like the Flood or Adam and Eve.
Does Ken Miller think it was all allegorical, including Jesus?

163 lifeofthemind  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:45:30pm

re: #147 Naso Tang

That there are problems with education is obvious, but to suggest that religion in school can cure that is ridiculous.

Just understand I am not calling for teaching religion. I am calling for better teaching about religion. My interest in the improved teaching of History. If one student in 200 later gets interested in the Theology of any religion then fine. Some meaningful understanding of concepts is important. For example if they are not aught that Medieval Christians believed that a quality of Grace (comparable but not identical to Hindu concepts of Kharma) was conferred by the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist then they can not understand what the whole Reformation was about. Big issues bearing on current politics and wars are grounded in having a basic prior knowledge. The Secondary Education of the past was really better. Worth investigating.

164 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:46:47pm

re: #98 AndyMacOP

It is an article of faith. Otherwise it would not be faith!

Exactly.

165 littleO  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:47:19pm

Charles, welcome old stick. I so enjoy your wit.

Kilgoretrout
Poe John Paul 11 may well have made condition for evolution, however, not in the way your trying to imply. He also believed, as is dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, that the entire Bible is true. He believed, as does Church teaching, in the devine revelation of Jesus Christ. John Paul also believed Christ will come again in final judgement.

166 M. Bensson-Levi  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:48:54pm

Evenin' All,

I would like all of you to take note that Dr. Ronald Smith, was a man amongst men. He was my dear friend from the 7th grade on. Rest in peace Ron. G-d, but I loved you. I will miss you to the day I die.

167 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:49:20pm

re: #165 littleO

John Paul also believed Christ will come again in final judgement.
I better put my pants on !

168 ploome hineni[deleted]  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:49:53pm
169 lifeofthemind  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:50:50pm

I am not abandoning this discussion. I am however going to take care of worldly pleasures.

170 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:51:35pm

re: #169 lifeofthemind

I am not abandoning this discussion. I am however going to take care of worldly pleasures.

Ben and Jerry's Chunky Monkey?

171 reine.de.tout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:52:39pm

re: #161 stretch

. . . I can't help but think that a number of these evolutionists here are freeloaders - fully capable of paying their own way for their children, but instead ask that taxpayers support their lifestyles. its aggravating to see one expensive car after another lined up at the schools, dropping off their kids in the morning. . . . .

Well, what's aggravating to me is that the school system where I live is so very poor, that what you see here is people like me, with a basic Toyota and living in a smaller house than what would be comfortable, so that I can afford the tuition to send my child to a private school, a Catholic school at that, where I know that her faith and religion education will not be confused with her science education.

172 pbird  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:52:41pm

re: #153 taxfreekiller

Of some note:

The no. 2 of the Texas R's makes a living selling Bibles.

So what?

173 Lynn B.  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:54:26pm

re: #77 victor_yugo

Intelligent Design isn't about "science" or "intelligence." It's all about violating the First Amendment by using taxpayer dollars to support one religion over another.

The term "intelligent design" was coined to cover up the political agenda behind it, ...

Excellent points.

...on par with "pro-choice."

Not even close.

174 Shug  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:55:42pm

re: #169 lifeofthemind

I am not abandoning this discussion. I am however going to take care of worldly pleasures.

hey now

175 AndyMacOP  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:56:41pm

re: #149 theatheistjew

I understand that. I just find it difficult to understand how someone could be heavily into mounds and mounds of evidence when it comes to evolution, yet sort of let their guard down and believe in a lot of unprovable hocus pocus that supposedly happened 2000 years ago.

As I posted earlier, one cannot disprove or prove anything that one cannot study physically. It is faith. However, there are certain things that can be understood to be true without much difficulty. Lets start with the fact that there was an itinerant preacher roaming around Palestine 2000 years ago doing some strange stuff and pissing off the religious leaders of the day. There should be little argument there, it is noted by secular as well as Christian authors of the time.

Where there is a little gray area is the next point. This fellows followers all scattered like a bunch of scared sissies and went back to their day jobs when the local authorities had had enough of his alleged seditious preaching, only to be so moved by some strange event that they returned to preaching the message to the tune of being murdered for doing so.

Something happened 2000 years ago. Provable or unprovable, something very remarkable happened.

176 stretch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 4:59:39pm

re: #171 reine.de.tout

Well, what's aggravating to me is that the school system where I live is so very poor, that what you see here is people like me, with a basic Toyota and living in a smaller house than what would be comfortable, so that I can afford the tuition to send my child to a private school, a Catholic school at that, where I know that her faith and religion education will not be confused with her science education.

you most certainly are to be congratulated. all public schools would be in much better shape if parents would take responsibility like you have. i advocate for a financial aid system, exactly like the one used by most public universities: fill out the form, and you pay for your own children based on your family income.

177 AndyMacOP  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:00:07pm

re: #162 theatheistjew

Reasonable Biblical scholarship only holds that from Abraham on are we talking about actual events and people that presumably lived. All before that is story and teaching. Basically Genesis 1-11.

178 HoosierHoops  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:00:36pm

re: #171 reine.de.tout

Well, what's aggravating to me is that the school system where I live is so very poor, that what you see here is people like me, with a basic Toyota and living in a smaller house than what would be comfortable, so that I can afford the tuition to send my child to a private school, a Catholic school at that, where I know that her faith and religion education will not be confused with her science education.


Wow..had to ding you up..
I went to catholic school..
/don't hold that against me..
I'm not very smart but i love reading about science..
Universetoday and galaxytoday are in my bookmarks..

179 Lynn B.  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:03:41pm

re: #175 AndyMacOP

As I posted earlier, one cannot disprove or prove anything that one cannot study physically. It is faith. However, there are certain things that can be understood to be true without much difficulty. Lets start with the fact that there was an itinerant preacher roaming around Palestine 2000 years ago doing some strange stuff and pissing off the religious leaders of the day. There should be little argument there, it is noted by secular as well as Christian authors of the time.

Do we need to have this discussion again? There's a lot of argument over whether it was noted by anyone "of the time." A good part of a thread was devoted to this here a few days ago.

Where there is a little gray area is the next point. This fellows followers all scattered like a bunch of scared sissies and went back to their day jobs when the local authorities had had enough of his alleged seditious preaching, only to be so moved by some strange event that they returned to preaching the message to the tune of being murdered for doing so.

Something happened 2000 years ago. Provable or unprovable, something very remarkable happened.

As you say, that's a matter of faith.

180 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:03:43pm

re: #175 AndyMacOP

Actually, I believe Jesus was a myth, and I have very good reason to think this. And many historians are on my side.
I also believe the Exodus could never have happened, and Moses probably never existed as a person either.

181 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:04:39pm

re: #177 AndyMacOP

Reasonable Biblical scholarship only holds that from Abraham on are we talking about actual events and people that presumably lived. All before that is story and teaching. Basically Genesis 1-11.

You should watch The Bible Unearthed Video. Google it on Google Video.

182 Occasional Reader  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:05:15pm

Ken Miller's "Only a Theory"

vs.

Boston's "More than a Feeling"

Compare and contrast. Show your work.

183 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:05:33pm

re: #180 theatheistjew

I believe Jesus was a myth, and I have very good reason to think this. And many historians are on my side.

Wow. That's the first I've heard of this line of thinking.

Care to provide some sources?

184 Flexaccount  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:05:36pm

WARNING! WARNING!

The guy who posted the videos is evidently a jerk, even though he was kind enough to post all this.

At the end of part 8, after the several seconds of applause, there is a 1-second image of a rather disgusting nature. You have plenty of time to stop the video after Ken finishes his lecture before the image. But you should warn people to whom you pass these!

185 Occasional Reader  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:05:55pm

Staggeringly OT: Anyone here ever tried the "Rosetta Stone" language learning thingamjig? If so, what did you (or y'all) think of it?

186 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:07:04pm

re: #183 Cognito

Zombie also knows a lot about that.

187 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:07:06pm

re: #161 stretch

I know a number of hard working, middle-class people who bust their butts to send their kids to private schools- Catholic schools that teach *gasp* evolution. They go without little luxuries so their kids will have a better future- they are not freeloaders. If anyone involved in this issue are "freeloaders" it might just be the other camp who is busy trying to foist ID on kids who parents might not be able to afford a private school option. Indeed- just as Ken Miller pointed out in the very first video, it is the IDers who are freeloading, wanting to bypass the scientific method to get their so-called theory put right into text books by using legislation and bureaucracies. If manipulating the state to get what you want isn't freeloading, do tell what is.

188 littleO  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:07:31pm

re#175 Andy
Well said.
Also remember that a son of a virgin from Nazerath was the only ' Holy Man ' in history to claim to be the Son of the living God, and also under death threat.

189 HoosierHoops  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:07:40pm

re: #185 Occasional Reader

Staggeringly OT: Anyone here ever tried the "Rosetta Stone" language learning thingamjig? If so, what did you (or y'all) think of it?

I stick with google..
how are ya OR?

190 Occasional Reader  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:07:47pm

re: #183 Cognito

Wow. That's the first I've heard of this line of thinking.

Care to provide some sources?

There was massive threadage on this topic yesterday, in fact.

191 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:08:16pm

re: #184 Flexaccount

Really? I watched the whole thing before and never noticed anything.

192 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:08:34pm

re: #183 Cognito

Wow. That's the first I've heard of this line of thinking.

Care to provide some sources?

It isn't new at all. Start with this: Bidstrup on The Bible and Christianity. It is a long page, but well worth reading.

And here are quite a few sites and discussions on the subject.

193 AndyMacOP  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:09:33pm

re: #180 theatheistjew

Actually, I believe Jesus was a myth, and I have very good reason to think this. And many historians are on my side.
I also believe the Exodus could never have happened, and Moses probably never existed as a person either.

So as an atheist, you do believe in somethings that cannot be proven!

;-)

194 jcm  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:10:37pm

re: #191 Killgore Trout

Really? I watched the whole thing before and never noticed anything.

Somethings fishy and it ain't your hat.

Flexaccount
Registered since: Jan 7, 2008 at 12:16 pm
No. of comments posted: 1
No. of links posted: 0

195 reine.de.tout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:11:32pm

re: #176 stretch

you most certainly are to be congratulated. all public schools would be in much better shape if parents would take responsibility like you have. i advocate for a financial aid system, exactly like the one used by most public universities: fill out the form, and you pay for your own children based on your family income.

I don't want financial aid - my daughter's education and her faith instruction are my responsibility, and I will take care of it, and in our case, it means no public schools because the instruction is so watered down that people can graduate (and have) without knowing how to read.

And in any case, whether she attended public or private school, I would not want someone other than me or our Church teaching her faith and religion; nor would I want her science classes to include faith-based instruction packaged as science; That would serve to provide a watered-down education in science, as well as a watered-down version of faith, for all students, whether in private or public school.

I am a person of faith; and I see my faith as being perfectly compatible with science, which may make me, in your mind, an "evolutionist". Science classes, whether in public or private schools, should be science. And faith instruction should be just that, not "packaged" as science.

196 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:13:24pm

I just checked it out. There really is a disgusting image at the end of that tape.

197 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:13:31pm

re: #193 AndyMacOP

So as an atheist, you do believe in somethings that cannot be proven!

;-)

My ideas about Jesus and Moses came long after I became an atheist. I just actually started looking for a historical Jesus and Moses, and came up empty, and there were in fact, in the case of the Exodus, contrary evidence, much like the contrary evidence that exists against a young earth.
As for Jesus, it is just simple detective work that makes it very likely (not 100%) that Paul or someone like Paul invented Jesus in a dream, and then over time, more and more of the common myths of the time got attached to his story as well as turning him into a real person with a family.
It took a few generations.

198 Lynn B.  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:13:33pm

re: #149 theatheistjew

I understand that. I just find it difficult to understand how someone could be heavily into mounds and mounds of evidence when it comes to evolution, yet sort of let their guard down and believe in a lot of unprovable hocus pocus that supposedly happened 2000 years ago.

AJ, I'd echo reine.du.tout's #149 and further suggest that this false dichotomy is a big part of what it seems to me Charles has been working to debunk with these posts. There are plenty of true believers of various faiths both here at LGF and elsewhere who have been staunchly advocating keeping ID out of the public schools and teaching science based on evidence rather than belief. For reasons repeated over and over again on countless threads, there's no contradiction.

You may not have intended your comment to be insulting but I think it probably could be taken that way.

/some days an AJ myself ... others just a J.

199 Flexaccount  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:13:39pm

re: #191 Killgore Trout

Really? I watched the whole thing before and never noticed anything.

Right at 5:10, for one second, then "FIN" appears, at the end of the video.

200 Occasional Reader  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:14:29pm

re: #189 HoosierHoops

I stick with google..

Eh? You use google to learn languages?

how are ya OR?

Better, thanks. Fever is pretty much gone; cough is better, but still there, and is aggravated by talking (so I'm staying in tonight); bodyache/malaise pretty much gone; throat is a little sore.

201 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:14:39pm

re: #199 Flexaccount

Right at 5:10, for one second, then "FIN" appears, at the end of the video.

Yeah, it's there.

/Made me look.

202 justdanny  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:15:34pm

I have no soul and I am without sin. There will be no battles involving me over things I do not have.

I am strangely aninmated by energy I do not understand and I have no questions for which the answers are god.

When I die I will release my energy to air and I will turn to dust. Sure, like you my ancestors were once afraid of things they did not understand. I don't carry the scars of their fear. I do not carry their feeble explanations and answers.

"We are made from the dust of the stars and the oceans flow through our veins."

203 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:16:13pm

re: #192 theatheistjew

Well, I click on a link, scanned, and landed on this line:

For all his influence on the world, there's better evidence that he never even existed than that he did. We have absolutely no reliable evidence, from secular sources, that Jesus ever lived...

That's a bizarre assertion. This historian Josephus mentions Jesus, for instance. So did Pliny the Younger.

And that's just off the top of my head.

This line of thought -- the idea that Jesus, even as a mortal, never existed -- seems to strain against logic itself. There is no real question, among serious historians at serious universities, that Jesus existed.

Sorry.

204 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:17:03pm

re: #191 Killgore Trout

Really? I watched the whole thing before and never noticed anything.

make sure you're alone in the room. 5:10 on the dot

205 HoosierHoops  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:17:05pm

re: #188 littleO

re#175 Andy
Well said.
Also remember that a son of a virgin from Nazerath was the only ' Holy Man ' in history to claim to be the Son of the living God, and also under death threat.

Really? I spent some time at the napa valley state mental hospital as a volunteer.. during college..but being around sick people and see that
Lots of people think they are Jesus..everyone claims the throne..
But you shall know them by their fruit..some bible scripture i llearned as a kid.
In all the history of mankind..no man has done what Jesus did..
No man..at any time.. I'm not very religious..but because of Jesus i know there is a God...
and look around..god loves science..and I'm betting he is much older that 13.7 billion years old...

206 stretch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:17:56pm

re: #187 Sharmuta

re: #187 Sharmuta

I know a number of hard working, middle-class people who bust their butts to send their kids to private schools- Catholic schools that teach *gasp* evolution. They go without little luxuries so their kids will have a better future- they are not freeloaders. If anyone involved in this issue are "freeloaders" it might just be the other camp who is busy trying to foist ID on kids who parents might not be able to afford a private school option. Indeed- just as Ken Miller pointed out in the very first video, it is the IDers who are freeloading, wanting to bypass the scientific method to get their so-called theory put right into text books by using legislation and bureaucracies. If manipulating the state to get what you want isn't freeloading, do tell what is.

those hard working people who put their kids through private school at great sacrifice are to be commended. my only gripe is with the well-off, who could afford to do otherwise, instead chose to freeload on the public school system

207 snowcrash  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:18:02pm

re: #196 Pvt Bin Jammin
I hardly ever use this abbreviation but really WTF? Bizarro.

208 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:18:35pm

Oops. Should have been "the" historian Josephus.

209 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:19:23pm

re: #207 snowcrash

I hardly ever use this abbreviation but really WTF? Bizarro.

I always wondered what ever became of that weird gym teacher i had in high school. Now I know

210 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:19:28pm

re: #203 Cognito

Well, I click on a link, scanned, and landed on this line:

That's a bizarre assertion. This historian Josephus mentions Jesus, for instance. So did Pliny the Younger.

And that's just off the top of my head.

This line of thought -- the idea that Jesus, even as a mortal, never existed -- seems to strain against logic itself. There is no real question, among serious historians at serious universities, that Jesus existed.

Sorry.


Bad examples. Josephus observed Christians when he mentioned Jesus 60 years "after the fact"
There were many historians alive between 1-40 AD. Greeks, Romans, and Jewish historians, and yet nobody wrote a word about Jesus until 50 or 60 years afterwards?
I suggest you try to read the whole article instead of cherry picking a line you don't like.

211 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:19:59pm

re: #207 snowcrash

Thought I was at Zombietime! LOL Hope no youngsters are looking at that video.

212 reine.de.tout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:20:08pm

re: #198 Lynn B.

AJ, I'd echo reine.du.tout's #149 and further suggest that this false dichotomy is a big part of what it seems to me Charles has been working to debunk with these posts. There are plenty of true believers of various faiths both here at LGF and elsewhere who have been staunchly advocating keeping ID out of the public schools and teaching science based on evidence rather than belief. For reasons repeated over and over again on countless threads, there's no contradiction.

You may not have intended your comment to be insulting but I think it probably could be taken that way.

/some days an AJ myself ... others just a J.

I actually thought of going a little further in my 149, but didn't but I will do so now - there have been plenty of folks here claiming that LGF is "anti-Christian", "anti-religion", etc., and I (among many others) have defended the site against that charge as much as my limited abilities would allow me to do. I would hate to think that all of that had been a wasted effort, and so I hereby promise not to try to convert any atheists; but I ask that they in turn, not try to convert me.

213 jcm  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:20:10pm

re: #204 sattv4u2

make sure you're alone in the room. 5:10 on the dot

Damn, zombie slipped a frame in.

214 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:20:15pm

re: #198 Lynn B.

I am just being myself.

215 Charles  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:21:12pm

re: #199 Flexaccount

Right at 5:10, for one second, then "FIN" appears, at the end of the video.

I see what you mean. What the heck is that? I paused on that frame and it's offensive, I guess, but not really explicit.

216 snowcrash  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:22:20pm

re: #211 Pvt Bin Jammin
Still haven't worked up the nerve for the new zombie report. LOL

217 mcrognale[deleted]  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:22:39pm
218 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:22:54pm

re: #215 Charles

I see what you mean. What the heck is that? I paused on that frame and it's offensive, I guess, but not really explicit.

strange thing is, there is a lot of professional what appears to be video and audio editing equipment behind him

219 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:23:02pm

re: #212 reine.de.tout

I don't think Charles is anti-religious or anti-Christian, but it doesn't mean that some of us care to walk on eggshells and walk the party line.
I can't help myself, but mocking religion whether it is Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. has become second nature to me.

220 Pvt Bin Jammin  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:23:14pm

re: #216 snowcrash

Still bleaching my eyes here, and I looked at the blurred version.

221 HoosierHoops  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:23:19pm

re: #200 Occasional Reader

Better, thanks. Fever is pretty much gone; cough is better, but still there, and is aggravated by talking (so I'm staying in tonight); bodyache/malaise pretty much gone; throat is a little sore.

Mieux, merci. La fièvre est à peu près disparu, la toux est meilleure, mais encore là, et est aggravée par parler (donc je suis rester dans ce soir); bodyache / malaise à peu près disparu, la gorge est un peu mal.


/ i told google to turn your words into french...
cool huh?
I'm glad you are feeling better

222 reine.de.tout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:24:12pm

re: #199 Flexaccount

Right at 5:10, for one second, then "FIN" appears, at the end of the video.

OH, yeah. You were right. Yech.

223 AndyMacOP  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:24:19pm

re: #179 Lynn B.

I get a little itchy about this. Many of the same people who would say there was no Jesus of Nazareth would also say there was no Julius Caesar, no Aristotle or no Alexander the Great, etc. Why does the existence of a person named Jesus son of Joseph get so much attention?

I will tell you why, because if he does exist, then his existence requires a very real response and a certain amount a fear about what lays beyond the end of earthly life. The words attributed to him are marvelous and life changing. They are full of love and full of truth. Read them! At the very least, they have inspired millions of people to not hate and to care for one another. Where his words are ignored and ridiculed, you will find pain, suffering and death.

I ask again: why is it so necessary for Jesus of Nazareth not to have existed?

224 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:24:27pm

re: #210 theatheistjew

Bad examples. Josephus observed Christians when he mentioned Jesus 60 years "after the fact"
There were many historians alive between 1-40 AD. Greeks, Romans, and Jewish historians, and yet nobody wrote a word about Jesus until 50 or 60 years afterwards?
I suggest you try to read the whole article instead of cherry picking a line you don't like.

Right. So we're looking at a theory of ancient conspiracy, then?

I'll file that with the same respect I accord modern conspiracy theories.

And all those scholars, at all those universities? All taken in by Josephus and his cohorts?

225 snowcrash  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:24:52pm

re: #218 sattv4u2
Please don't make me go back and look. My overall impression was of a man in pink naughty nighty attached to a cow milking machine?...but I may be wrong. LOL

226 HoosierHoops  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:25:57pm

re: #225 snowcrash

Please don't make me go back and look. My overall impression was of a man in pink naughty nighty attached to a cow milking machine?...but I may be wrong. LOL

clean up isle 3

227 Lynn B.  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:26:15pm

re: #203 Cognito

Sigh. Maybe Zombie will show up and clarify this herself, as she has done at least a few times already. Or you could just go over and scan the Alvis Delk thread from about #558 on down.

#558 zombie 7/31/2008 2:10:19 pm PDT

re: #539 godfrey

Not true. Cf. Josephus, Pliny, and others.

Not this again!

The Josephus reference was a later interpolation added centuries after the fact. It's not in the original version. I.e. it's a known fake. They even know the name of the monk who added it. The Pliny reference could have referred to any number of charismatic messiah types running around in that era.

I know many classical scholars. Believe me, they all agree that there are no verifiable references to Jesus Christ outside of the Christian Gospels.

Which of course has no bearing on anyone's belief because evidence is NOT necessary for faith.

228 CynicalConservative  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:26:42pm

re: #223 AndyMacOP


I ask again: why is it so necessary for Jesus of Nazareth not to have existed?

Why is it so necessary for him to have existed?

You live your fantasy, I'll live reality.

/driveby

229 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:26:56pm

re: #199 Flexaccount

I'll be damned, you're right.

230 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:27:54pm

re: #215 Charles

Very "Fight Club". It's a Tyler Durden thing.

231 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:28:12pm

That quick clip is weird. What a freak! WTF slips crap like that into a video?

232 Occasional Reader  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:28:34pm

re: #224 Cognito

Right. So we're looking at a theory of ancient conspiracy, then?

Er, no. The point atheistjew was making is that the evidence for the existence of "historical Jesus" is thin.

For the record (whatever that means), I also find it unlikely that the "mythological Jesus" was entirely made up out of whole cloth, and not based on *someone* (or possibly more than one person).

233 Salem  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:28:47pm

re: #163 lifeofthemind

Just understand I am not calling for teaching religion. I am calling for better teaching about religion. My interest in the improved teaching of History. If one student in 200 later gets interested in the Theology of any religion then fine. Some meaningful understanding of concepts is important. For example if they are not aught that Medieval Christians believed that a quality of Grace (comparable but not identical to Hindu concepts of Kharma) was conferred by the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist then they can not understand what the whole Reformation was about. Big issues bearing on current politics and wars are grounded in having a basic prior knowledge. The Secondary Education of the past was really better. Worth investigating.

Ah, buffet-style history, in other words.

234 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:28:51pm

re: #223 AndyMacOP

It isn't necessary for Jesus to have existed or not. But the reality is that there is no evidence that he did exist.

235 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:29:30pm

re: #227 Lynn B.

It's just a remarkable assertion, I believe. Absolutely remarkable, the expectation of physical evidence from a time when people left no such thing as physical evidence behind... Do you believe Herod Antipas existed? Sure, there's a great deal of record, because he was a ruler.

What about Herod's favorite athlete?

Herod's mailman?

The guy who lived across Herod's street?

What's that? No evidence?

236 reine.de.tout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:29:40pm

re: #233 Salem

Ah, buffet-style history, in other words.

Or, buffet-style faith, in other words.

237 Lynn B.  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:30:48pm

re: #223 AndyMacOP

I get a little itchy about this. Many of the same people who would say there was no Jesus of Nazareth would also say there was no Julius Caesar, no Aristotle or no Alexander the Great, etc. Why does the existence of a person named Jesus son of Joseph get so much attention?

I will tell you why, because if he does exist, then his existence requires a very real response and a certain amount a fear about what lays beyond the end of earthly life. The words attributed to him are marvelous and life changing. They are full of love and full of truth. Read them! At the very least, they have inspired millions of people to not hate and to care for one another. Where his words are ignored and ridiculed, you will find pain, suffering and death.

I ask again: why is it so necessary for Jesus of Nazareth not to have existed?

Andy, I understand what you're saying and it frankly is neither necessary nor unnecessary. To me, personally, it's irrelevant. And that's a matter of my faith. I'll echo reine.du.tout yet again. I'm not trying to convert anyone here to my faith nor do I wish to be converted to anyone else's. Thanks.

238 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:31:10pm

re: #224 Cognito

Right. So we're looking at a theory of ancient conspiracy, then?

I'll file that with the same respect I accord modern conspiracy theories.

And all those scholars, at all those universities? All taken in by Josephus and his cohorts?

You haven't had time to read the bidstrup paper after asking for a link.
Again, there is a huge disbelief now amongst many historians about a historical Jesus.
Are you going to ask for another link, or are you going to read what I gave you, and then discuss it?

239 Salem  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:31:24pm

re: #167 sattv4u2

John Paul also believed Christ will come again in final judgement.
I better put my pants on !

I don't think He minds. Wasn't Christ a "free-baller?

240 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:31:37pm

re: #232 Occasional Reader

Er, no. The point atheistjew was making is that the evidence for the existence of "historical Jesus" is thin.

For the record (whatever that means), I also find it unlikely that the "mythological Jesus" was entirely made up out of whole cloth, and not based on *someone* (or possibly more than one person).

Oh, if no such person as Jesus existed, and yet just a few years later a whole community of followers had spread around the known world -- well, we are indeed looking at an ancient conspiracy. A conspiracy to pretend a man existed when he did not, and persuade people of his worthiness.

241 Salem  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:32:04pm

re: #236 reine.de.tout

Or, buffet-style faith, in other words.

Ayuh...

242 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:32:38pm

re: #236 reine.de.tout

Or, buffet-style faith, in other words.

Warren or Jimmy?

243 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:32:41pm

re: #230 Killgore Trout

Very "Fight Club". It's a Tyler Durden thing.

That's what my husband said.

Now we'll have to watch all of that guy's videos to see if any other images have been inserted.

/Or not.

244 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:34:42pm

re: #237 Lynn B.

I'm not trying to convert anyone here to my faith nor do I wish to be converted to anyone else's.

I really think that's at the heart of this issue. Most of us at LGF do not want the islamofascists "reverting' us by the sword, and we also don't want anyone else using science or whatever else to convert us to any other faith. I think mostly we're all people who are comfortable with our faith and just want to be left alone in that regard.

245 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:35:12pm

re: #238 theatheistjew

You haven't had time to read the bidstrup paper after asking for a link.
Again, there is a huge disbelief now amongst many historians about a historical Jesus.
Are you going to ask for another link, or are you going to read what I gave you, and then discuss it?

I'll take a look at it, but the very notion itself flies against a great deal of serious study. I'm talking about study by scholars at Harvard, Yale, Oxford, in Cairo, in Jerusalem -- take your pick.

Do you have an equivalent source, not originating from a "Gay Cowboy Ring Site"?

246 Flexaccount  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:35:20pm

re: #243 Josephine

That's what my husband said.

Now we'll have to watch all of that guy's videos to see if any other images have been inserted.

/Or not.

I checked through the comments on YouTube. It would appear that there is only the one image, in this set of videos.

A number of people asked if it could be removed, but got no answer.

247 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:35:47pm

re: #240 Cognito

Million of people believed the James Frey story, even in today's media information age. It took the Smoking Gun to disprove it and James Frey was proven to be a complete Fraud.
I suggest you read the Bidstrup article. It didn't take a conspiracy to invent Jesus.

248 mjk  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:36:06pm

And so it goes.

249 Lynn B.  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:36:39pm

re: #235 Cognito

Good try, Cog, but I'm not biting. Go read Zombie's comments (and, oops, I see I characterized him/her as a woman above ... my perception of that constantly changes) on the Alvis Delk thread. Zombie has this well covered and I'm not going to try to duplicate the effort. Anyway, I've got a steak waiting for the grill and wine to open.

Later.

250 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:37:05pm

re: #245 Cognito

I'll take a look at it, but the very notion itself flies against a great deal of serious study. I'm talking about study by scholars at Harvard, Yale, Oxford, in Cairo, in Jerusalem -- take your pick.

Do you have an equivalent source, not originating from a "Gay Cowboy Ring Site"?

Gay Cowboy? Just read the story. Again any scholar you may quote has absolutely no contemporary evidence for a historical Jesus, and that is a fact.

251 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:37:09pm

re: #246 Flexaccount

Strange.

If it was reported and not deleted, that suggests the YouTube folks didn't watch it to the very end.

252 AndyMacOP  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:37:54pm

re: #237 Lynn B.

Well, ok, but I belong to the Order of Preachers, so you do the math!

;-)

Time to eat!

253 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:38:40pm

re: #250 theatheistjew

Gay Cowboy? Just read the story. Again any scholar you may quote has absolutely no contemporary evidence for a historical Jesus, and that is a fact.

And there we have it. "Your scholars don't have the mojo my scholar has."

Well, atheistjew, if what the best scholars say doesn't matter, then we cannot even define the field, here. Much less debate it.

254 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:38:49pm

re: #240 Cognito

Oh, if no such person as Jesus existed, and yet just a few years later a whole community of followers had spread around the known world -- well, we are indeed looking at an ancient conspiracy. A conspiracy to pretend a man existed when he did not, and persuade people of his worthiness.


The story of Jesus has many similarities to the story of Mithras. Mithraism was a very popular religion in Rome at the time. The Vatican was built on the ruin of a temple to Mithra. Christian added an anti-Roman aspect to their version and made it more contemporary.

255 mjk  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:39:03pm

I like what my holy land tour guides used to say when people said that King David didn't exist or Moses, or Jericho, or Jesus.

The more crap they dig out of the ground in the Middle East, the more it proves the Bible to be right.

Of course, you can pile on as you wish and I'll get the hell out. It's pretty clear I don't belong here anymore.

256 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:39:35pm

re: #249 Lynn B.

Lynn, check out my Judeophobe Watch site. You might get a kick out of it.

257 eclectic infidel  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:40:54pm

re: #123 littleO

Yawn.
I've an alternative suggestion. Offer religion classes as an purely elective course for those who wish to learn all measures of thought/comparisons. Those who do not wish to have their intelligence challenged needn't waste their time.
I believe Texas schools are going to do just that.

Passive aggressive and pissy, as well as insulting. Good job.

258 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:41:23pm

re: #253 Cognito

And there we have it. "Your scholars don't have the mojo my scholar has."

Well, atheistjew, if what the best scholars say doesn't matter, then we cannot even define the field, here. Much less debate it.

First off, you are claiming victory without providing a link, and secondly you didn't read the link I provided.
You are starting to annoy me because I think your mind is made up.
Don't forget, for 40 years, I assumed that Jesus and Moses were real people, until I did objective investigation to find out more about them.

259 Flexaccount  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:41:25pm

re: #251 Josephine

Strange.

If it was reported and not deleted, that suggests the YouTube folks didn't watch it to the very end.

I don't think anyone actually reported it to YouTube, they just complained to the "author" in the comments.

260 lifeofthemind  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:43:15pm

re: #170 sattv4u2

Ben and Jerry's Chunky Monkey?

Have political issues with B&J, this was Breyer's chocolate mint.

261 sattv4u2  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:45:10pm

re: #260 lifeofthemind

Have political issues with B&J, this was Breyer's chocolate mint.

good point (re: B&J)

262 reine.de.tout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:45:25pm

re: #242 sattv4u2

Warren or Jimmy?

Jimmy!

263 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:45:25pm

re: #258 theatheistjew

First off, you are claiming victory without providing a link, and secondly you didn't read the link I provided.
You are starting to annoy me because I think your mind is made up.
Don't forget, for 40 years, I assumed that Jesus and Moses were real people, until I did objective investigation to find out more about them.

You haven't asked for a link. But what link would you ask for -- a link to well-regarded scholarship regarding the man Jesus? Really?

You made the unconventional assertion -- the idea that Jesus never existed -- and so I asked for your source. And Bistrup was your answer? Does the "Gay Cowboy Ring Site" affiliation not raise any questions in your mind, regarding his seriousness?

264 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:46:17pm

re: #259 Flexaccount

Oh, I see.

265 twincitiesgirl  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:47:02pm

I was looking for a copy of this at my local library with no luck. I did find an earlier title written the same author--

Finding Darwin's God : a scientist's search for common ground between God and evolution

From Publishers Weekly via Amazon:

Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, explains the difference between evolution as validated scientific fact and as an evolving theory. He illustrates his contentions with examples from astronomy, geology, physics and molecular biology, confronting the illogic of creationists with persuasive reasons based on the known physical properties of the universe and the demonstrable effects of time on the radioactivity of various elements. Then standing firmly on Darwinian ground, he turns to take on, with equal vigor, his outspoken colleagues in science who espouse a materialistic, agnostic or atheistic vision of reality. Along the way, he addresses such important questions as free will in a planned universe. Miller is particularly incisive when he discusses the emotional reasons why many people oppose evolution and the scientific community's befuddled, often hostile, reaction to sincere religious belief. Throughout, he displays an impressive fairness, which he communicates in friendly, conversational prose. This is a book that will stir readers of both science and theology, perhaps satisfying neither, but challenging both to open their minds.

266 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:48:52pm

re: #255 mjk

I like what my holy land tour guides used to say when people said that King David didn't exist or Moses, or Jericho, or Jesus.

The more crap they dig out of the ground in the Middle East, the more it proves the Bible to be right.

Of course, you can pile on as you wish and I'll get the hell out. It's pretty clear I don't belong here anymore.

Before you go, watch the Bible Unearthed videos.
Those tour guides really don't know what they are talking about. See what real Israeli archeologists have to say.

267 Occasional Reader  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:51:36pm

re: #240 Cognito

Oh, if no such person as Jesus existed, and yet just a few years later a whole community of followers had spread around the known world -- well, we are indeed looking at an ancient conspiracy. A conspiracy to pretend a man existed when he did not, and persuade people of his worthiness.

Well, by that logic, every religion of which you're not a member is a "conspiracy theory". I guess that's one way to look at it.

268 DeathtotheSwiss  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:51:37pm

Sorely OT: [Link: news.aol.com...]
"The economy is certainly not going to be a positive for the Republicans," said Ray Fair, an economics professor at Yale university who built the earliest of the models in 1978.
His model, which assumed tepid U.S. economic growth of 1.5 percent and a 3 percent rate of inflation, predicted the Republican candidate John McCain's share of the vote would be 47.8 percent, handing Obama 52.2 percent.
"It is a decent margin but it is not a landslide," said Fair, who ran the numbers in April. "It would have been much larger if there had been a recession in 2008."

So a bad economy means Barry-raise-your-taxes-and-who-cares-about-prices- at-the-pump-Obama?

269 Mich-again  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:51:43pm

re: #234 theatheistjew

Why continue to identify yourself as a jew if you think Abraham and Moses and Isaiah were delusional psychotic liars?

270 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:52:00pm

re: #263 Cognito

You haven't asked for a link. But what link would you ask for -- a link to well-regarded scholarship regarding the man Jesus? Really?

You made the unconventional assertion -- the idea that Jesus never existed -- and so I asked for your source. And Bistrup was your answer? Does the "Gay Cowboy Ring Site" affiliation not raise any questions in your mind, regarding his seriousness?

I've read what he says, and I've read his other comments. I don't really care about his sex life.
I've also read the other sites I linked to you, and to my knowledge they don't link to gay cowboys. In fact, I have all kinds of blockers on my computer so I didn't even know about Bidstrup's ads or rings or whatever. Again, it doesn't take anything away from his argument.
Read it and try to refute it.

271 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:52:31pm

re: #254 Killgore Trout

The story of Jesus has many similarities to the story of Mithras. Mithraism was a very popular religion in Rome at the time. The Vatican was built on the ruin of a temple to Mithra. Christian added an anti-Roman aspect to their version and made it more contemporary.

From that link:

"Mithra was called 'the good shepherd,' 'the way, the truth and the light,' 'redeemer,' 'savior,' 'Messiah.' He was identified with both the lion and the lamb."

Killgore, I don't see any source citations for this page. Can you point me to them, please?

If Mithra lived circa 600 B.C., how do they know he was born on December 25th? That sounds odd to me.

272 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:54:25pm

re: #269 Mich-again

Why continue to identify yourself as a jew if you think Abraham and Moses and Isaiah were delusional psychotic liars?

I don't think Abaham or Moses existed. I never called anyone a psychotic liar either.
I'm a Jew by ethnicity. I would be allowed in Israel. And Hitler would have put me into a death camp for my ethnicity. I experience the Jewish culture, because most of my family is Jewish.
Is that a good enough reason?

273 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:56:38pm

re: #271 Josephine

From that link:

"Mithra was called 'the good shepherd,' 'the way, the truth and the light,' 'redeemer,' 'savior,' 'Messiah.' He was identified with both the lion and the lamb."

Killgore, I don't see any source citations for this page. Can you point me to them, please?

If Mithra lived circa 600 B.C., how do they know he was born on December 25th? That sounds odd to me.

December 25th was celebrated as his birthday by Pagans. Even looking at the bible to try to figure out Jesus' birthday, it couldn't be the 25th of December. The fact is that Constantine, I think, made the 25th his birthday so as to make it easier to convert the Pagans.

274 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:59:02pm

re: #271 Josephine

Mithraic Mysteries
Mithra was a sun god. His birth was celebrated around the winter solstice (when the sun is symbolically reborn). The birth of Jesus was moved to Dec 25 about 400 the 4th century by Roman Christians.

275 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 5:59:26pm

Actually, a lot of the Dionysus myth was usurped in the story of Jesus.
Check this out. I copied it 3 years ago.

276 hazzyday  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:01:35pm

re: #123 littleO

Yawn.
I've an alternative suggestion. Offer religion classes as an purely elective course for those who wish to learn all measures of thought/comparisons. Those who do not wish to have their intelligence challenged needn't waste their time.
I believe Texas schools are going to do just that.

Islam 101 then? You probably need to describe what you mean by religion classes. It's hard to interpret what you are saying. Of course you opened with a "yawn" which sets the tone for your content as uninteresting. Lol. I am laughing thinking about that.

I did have comparative religion in high school. I did learn about Islam and sufi's in high school. I was very impressed with Islam at the time. Subsequently after visiting some muslim countries and 9/11 not so much so. I would say now that my comparative religion class was very superficially and I came out of it misinformed.

277 Salem  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:02:26pm

re: #223 AndyMacOP

I get a little itchy about this. Many of the same people who would say there was no Jesus of Nazareth would also say there was no Julius Caesar, no Aristotle or no Alexander the Great, etc. Why does the existence of a person named Jesus son of Joseph get so much attention?

I will tell you why, because if he does exist, then his existence requires a very real response and a certain amount a fear about what lays beyond the end of earthly life. The words attributed to him are marvelous and life changing. They are full of love and full of truth. Read them! At the very least, they have inspired millions of people to not hate and to care for one another. Where his words are ignored and ridiculed, you will find pain, suffering and death.

I ask again: why is it so necessary for Jesus of Nazareth not to have existed?

It's like I've said before: Reverence negates Inquiry.

278 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:04:08pm

re: #275 theatheistjew

Don't forget Horus. Judaism was based on Babylonian religions and Buddhism was based on Jainism. All these religions were based on previous ones. I forget what the predecessor to Hinduism is but they are still around.

279 laZardo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:07:13pm

Good morrow Lizards, I've a bit of a quandary.

Remember that friend whom I asked to have placed on goddessoftheclassroom's list over that possible brain tumor? She just outed herself as an IDer on an IM session a couple days back.

My quandary is how I, an atheist-evolutionist who believes firmly that evolution contradicts scripture am to convince an IDer who also believes the same (though for the opposite reason, as I believe that evolution essentially makes humans no higher than other life forms here or elsewhere in the universe) that evolution is proven.

280 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:08:10pm

re: #278 Killgore Trout

Don't forget Horus. Judaism was based on Babylonian religions and Buddhism was based on Jainism. All these religions were based on previous ones. I forget what the predecessor to Hinduism is but they are still around.


Moses was most likely loosely based on Hammurabi, as you said, a Persian King.

281 hazzyday  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:08:29pm

re: #149 theatheistjew

I understand that. I just find it difficult to understand how someone could be heavily into mounds and mounds of evidence when it comes to evolution, yet sort of let their guard down and believe in a lot of unprovable hocus pocus that supposedly happened 2000 years ago.

People prove that to themselves through personal experience and observation. Some people are open to it some aren't. Having a guard up is probably an appropriate piece of terminology there.

There are as probably as many interpetationsof God And Christ on the planet as there are people.

282 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:08:41pm

re: #279 laZardo

Remember that friend whom I asked to have placed on goddessoftheclassroom's list over that possible brain tumor? She just outed herself as an IDer on an IM session a couple days back.


If she has a brain tumor, let it slide. Life is too short as it is.

283 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:10:34pm
284 laZardo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:11:25pm

re: #282 Killgore Trout

Actually, the MRI came out clean. Still need help with the quandary though, as she's a pretty decent person otherwise.

That and every time I think Mithra I think of an anime catgirl.

/that's what I get for being a stay-at-home nerd q:

285 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:11:36pm

re: #279 laZardo

Good morrow Lizards, I've a bit of a quandary.

Remember that friend whom I asked to have placed on goddessoftheclassroom's list over that possible brain tumor? She just outed herself as an IDer on an IM session a couple days back.

My quandary is how I, an atheist-evolutionist who believes firmly that evolution contradicts scripture am to convince an IDer who also believes the same (though for the opposite reason, as I believe that evolution essentially makes humans no higher than other life forms here or elsewhere in the universe) that evolution is proven.


The IDer is most likely wilfully ignorant or WI.
If not, tell them to view Potholer54's series of videos with an open mind.

286 laZardo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:13:36pm

re: #285 theatheistjew

I would suspect they're "WI" mainly because they also associate evolution not only with disproving God and "morality" but also with the devaluation of human life. Not that it's false, they just regard it as a bad thing.

287 hazzyday  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:20:36pm

re: #152 reine.de.tout

It's called faith, and that's why it's different from science. It's also why science should be taught in science classes, and faith taught at home, in houses of worship and/or in religion classes.

Why shouldn't faith be taught in schools? It is common to all religions and atheism. It doesn't have to be taught as a state sponsored religion. Only as a tool in life that is helpful to people. It is something important for people to understand. It is a lens into life that can be examined from many directions. My prediction is that creationists would find that they dislike having faith taught in schools. Kids being kids many would experiment.

Faith in God
Faith in no God
Faith in money
Faith in luck

We use reasoning to position the effect of our faith. Faith lets you feel you are perfect in your relationship to God, reason tells you you aren't quite there yet. I think missing either side of the equation tends to make seething.

288 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:21:27pm

re: #41 gunjam

I will agree with Ken Miller on one point: There is a battle afoot for America's soul, all right. No arguments there!

It's actually a battle between those who allow emotion to lead them and those who insist upon intellection.

However, i am fervently praying that the evolutionists do not have their way, as -- if they do -- America will lose its soul, after a manner of speaking.

You go ahead and pray againt the triumph of facts, logic, reason and rationality; that you fervently desire them to lose reveals much about you.

Besides, evolution simply does not fill the bill. It is a "work-around" to "get by" without acknowledging the truths of Scripture regarding the origins of the earth.

Evolution is science. Scripture (and which scripture, btw?) is religion. One is dealing with empirical knowledge. The other is dealing with dogmatic belief. They are two different games, to be played in two different playgrounds. Face it; Genesis, quite simply, cannot be literally true. The Catholic Church has no problem accepting it as metaphorical. Why do you have a problem accepting it as such?

I have said this before, but it bears repeating: As hard as the evolutionists fight for their point of view, it comes across as religious zeal to me.

What it should come across as is caring about the empirical facts of the matter, as the evidence demonstrates them to be, and the fervent desire to apprehend the world as it is, rather than as some would have us believe.

Here is a good resource for the "rest of the story" on the creation/evolution debate.

And here's the rest of the story on A.E. Wilder-Smith:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._E._Wilder-Smith

In 1965 he visited and promoted the false claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed at Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park. He was criticized by scientists over these claims. These supposed tracks were later discovered to have been forged by creationists who tried to claim humans and dinosaurs lived together.

According to the National Center for Science Education, Wilder-Smith's work The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution contains a variety of falsehoods and errors. Kenneth Christiansen, Professor of Biology at Grinnell College, reviewed the book stating "the most fundamental flaw of the book is an apparent confusion or ignorance (it is hard to tell) concerning our present understanding of the evolutionary process." He further noted that Wilder-Smith's work disregarded basic literature in the field discussed.

Creation ex nihilo is not an optional teaching for the earnest Bible believer. And I don't think the writer to the Hebrews is referring to protoplasmic ooze, either. :-)

Bible-quoting doesn't empirically prove anything but that you can locate Bible verses.

289 jaunte  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:25:13pm

Tonight I've learned that knickers, though they may not be in a twist, can nonetheless be rankled knickers.

290 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:25:46pm

re: #287 hazzyday

Why shouldn't faith be taught in schools? It is common to all religions and atheism. It doesn't have to be taught as a state sponsored religion. Only as a tool in life that is helpful to people. It is something important for people to understand. It is a lens into life that can be examined from many directions. My prediction is that creationists would find that they dislike having faith taught in schools. Kids being kids many would experiment.

Faith in God
Faith in no God
Faith in money
Faith in luck

We use reasoning to position the effect of our faith. Faith lets you feel you are perfect in your relationship to God, reason tells you you aren't quite there yet. I think missing either side of the equation tends to make seething.

It doesn't take any faith to be an atheist. I simply say there is no evidence that God exists and the world makes perfect sense without a God.
I don't require faith to make that statement.

You have plenty of time to teach kids faith in homes and your place of worship. Science should be a study of the physical world, and nothing more.

291 laZardo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:25:47pm

re: #288 Salamantis

I still find it quite contradictory that one can believe in evolution AND recognize that human life is "unique." If anything, about the only two things that make humans unique when it all boils down to it are opposeable thumbs and the recognition of our own mortality.

I believe it is that recognition of that mortality that played a key role in the creation of "religion," though I still have to properly put my finger on how.

292 hazzyday  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:26:40pm

re: #165 littleO

Charles, welcome old stick. I so enjoy your wit.

Kilgoretrout
Poe John Paul 11 may well have made condition for evolution, however, not in the way your trying to imply. He also believed, as is dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, that the entire Bible is true. He believed, as does Church teaching, in the devine revelation of Jesus Christ. John Paul also believed Christ will come again in final judgement.

"The entire bible is true" What the Pope and you believe about that line is probably different. The same for the term "final judgement" I am pretty sure that the Church evolves. Some things are written in stone, those things have the culture of the time washed off them and are interpreted in more refined ways over time.

293 Josephine  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:26:44pm

Thanks for the info and links, folks. "Flashpoint" is on now, so I will have to check them out later.

294 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:27:07pm

re: #163 lifeofthemind

Just understand I am not calling for teaching religion. I am calling for better teaching about religion.

I understand that, but what I am saying, again, is that it is impossible to do so realistically in any setting, except perhaps from a non theistic perspective, and certainly not in schools; the children would probably take it better than the parents.

The point, again, is that all religions contradict each other in key fundamentals. In doing so they implicitly ridicule all those but their own. Somebody will always be offended.

Then again, to properly understand "religion" one would have to cover a lot more ground than just the main three or four or five or six or seven or eight or nine or ten or.....................

295 Salem  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:30:13pm

re: #255 mjk

I like what my holy land tour guides used to say when people said that King David didn't exist or Moses, or Jericho, or Jesus.

The more crap they dig out of the ground in the Middle East, the more it proves the Bible to be right.

Of course, you can pile on as you wish and I'll get the hell out. It's pretty clear I don't belong here anymore.

Yeah, no way a tour-guide could be biased. They are truly the receptacles of all human knowledge.

296 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:30:43pm

Picadors unite.

297 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:30:56pm

re: #50 texasjihad

What is the battle for again?
If this is the battle for America's soul--then what is the alternative again? How is it possible to get this worked up about such an issue? If ID is so easy to discredit--why not let it be looked at. Is it that we must protect these poor kids from getting brainwashed? With the problems we have in the schools -- the secularists want to push away those who are the most constructive in terms of working hard and setting a good example of morality to the other kids.
You go girl--

Let me state this again, for the eleventy-twelfth time. Sectarian religious dogma belongs in public high school science class about as much as scientific data belongs in the pulpit: not at all. When you confuse science and religion, you do violence to both of them, something our framers well understood, thank goodness.

This is the kind of lying sophistry that creationists want to inject into public high school science classes to pollute naive and trusting young minds:

[Link: ase.tufts.edu...]

The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one
established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory - but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing
forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality
of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.

William Dembski, one of the most vocal supporters of intelligent design, notes that he provoked Thomas Schneider, a biologist, into a response that Dr. Dembski characterizes as "some hair-splitting that could only look ridiculous to outsider observers." What looks to scientists - and is - a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to most everyone else as ridiculous hair-splitting.

In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that
intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.

298 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:31:36pm

re: #291 laZardo

I believe it is that recognition of that mortality that played a key role in the creation of "religion," though I still have to properly put my finger on how.


You're on the right track. Humans aren't the only animals to have invented religion. Neanderthals was religion and a concept of an afterlife. It's quite possible that other predecessors of Homo Sapiens also have religion. I think it's a byproduct of awareness. I wonder if once we build a sufficient artificial intelligent computer will it create a religion too? Only time will tell.

299 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:34:13pm

re: #287 hazzyday

Why shouldn't faith be taught in schools? It is common to all religions and atheism. It doesn't have to be taught as a state sponsored religion. Only as a tool in life that is helpful to people.

Care to give some examples of how you would "teach" whatever it is that YOU call faith? Faith is not a method to be taught.

Faith in luck is superstition. We make our own luck, in conjunction with chance. I wouldn't equate that with faith in God if I were you.

Atheists don't have "faith" that there is no God, they just claim that there is no real evidence of one, and considerable evidence against.

300 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:34:30pm

re: #52 gunjam

re: #43 vibemanjoe

While I believe the revelation to be without error, I do not believe it to be complete. There are simply things about God and His works that we do not know. We do not know chronologically. We do not know mechanically. We do not know.

gunjam: The Genesis creation account is very clear about the chronological order of the creative week.

gunjam: You don't have to believe it, but you can't have it both ways : If you believe it, you are bound by it -- if you are logical person, that is.

Sal: But believing that Genesis is literally the case in the face of all of the empirical evidence for the age of the earth and the genetic common ancestry of species is eminently anti-logical, or at the very least, willfully self-delusory.

301 reine.de.tout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:36:15pm

re: #242 sattv4u2

Warren or Jimmy?

Jimmy!
re: #287 hazzyday

Why shouldn't faith be taught in schools? It is common to all religions and atheism. It doesn't have to be taught as a state sponsored religion. Only as a tool in life that is helpful to people. It is something important for people to understand. It is a lens into life that can be examined from many directions. My prediction is that creationists would find that they dislike having faith taught in schools. Kids being kids many would experiment.

Faith in God
Faith in no God
Faith in money
Faith in luck

We use reasoning to position the effect of our faith. Faith lets you feel you are perfect in your relationship to God, reason tells you you aren't quite there yet. I think missing either side of the equation tends to make seething.

Creationism is faith. It is not science.

Why shouldn't we teach faith in schools? You mean, apart from the legal prohibition against establishment of a government religion?

Well, it would either be a very specific faith, and probably not mine, which I would object to because it is not the government's decision what faith my child shall learn and follow. What credentials would this teacher have for teaching faith? Which branch of which church would issue those credentials and certification?

Or, it would be a very diluted faith, and again probably not mine, which I would object to for the same reasons as above, and also because faith should not be diluted, imo.

I find it incomprehensible that any parent would want to leave it to a public school class teacher to teach faith. Why would anyone give up to the government such a huge portion of their rights and responsibilities as parents?

302 laZardo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:36:38pm

re: #298 Killgore Trout

Come to think of it, humans probably defined religion as a basis for "morality" to help them compete better against the "unknown," whether with other human tribes or species. It would explain why morality is purely subjective... e.g. people in Western society condemn the stoning of women for adultery, which certain groups of people accept as a properly sacred act.

303 Occasional Reader  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:36:41pm

re: #295 Salem

Yeah, no way a tour-guide could be biased. They are truly the receptacles of all human knowledge.

My favorite tour guide story: I was touring the ruins of the pre-Incan Chavin de Huantar in northern Peru. Our tour guide says: "Seven was the sacred number of the Chavin culture. And we can see this, for instance, because this central plaza measures 49 by 49; and of course 49 is seven times seven."

Me: Um... that's 49 meters?

Tour guide: "Yes".

Me: Seeing as the metric system was a product of the French Revolution, I really doubt the Chavin culture used the meter.

Tour guide: "Well... it's just a theory! Okay! Just a theory!" [I'm not kidding... funny how that expression gets around]

304 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:37:48pm

re: #298 Killgore Trout

You're on the right track. Humans aren't the only animals to have invented religion. Neanderthals was religion and a concept of an afterlife. It's quite possible that other predecessors of Homo Sapiens also have religion. I think it's a byproduct of awareness. I wonder if once we build a sufficient artificial intelligent computer will it create a religion too? Only time will tell.

I read interesting theories, yes, theories, in the book The God Part Of The Brain.
Lets not forget, our ancestors couldn't explain lightning, much like they couldn't explain death. They also had no knowledge of sperm and eggs and why procreation worked.
The invention of superstition and supernatural explanations was the only thing that kept our ancestors sane. Sane enough to make it to procreation.
This is why it is actually hard to fight believing in God once you are told about him as a child.
We are naturally superstitious as well.
In fact, as an atheist, I've caught myself not moving out of my seat when a football team I bet on is on a potential winning drive:)
Even though I know it is completely absurd.

305 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:39:54pm

re: #302 laZardo


Come to think of it, humans probably defined religion as a basis for "morality" to help them compete better against the "unknown," whether with other human tribes or species.


That's my understanding. It also explains why blasphemy is a crime in early societies. If you believe in the gods of your tribe then you are less likely to betray them. Maintaining a religiously homogeneous population was important for the security of the community.

306 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:42:36pm

re: #60 gunjam

Kilgore Trout: And which scripture would that be? Are you suggesting we force Buddhists, Hindus and Jews study the New Testament in science class?

gunjam: I have been told that the argument can be made that the Hindu scriptures do teach a form of evolution. :-)

So, I guess I could say that your team is already teaching religion in science class.

Nope; not the case. Hinduism teaches a cyclical universe, but still maintains that living beings were created by the Gods (plural).

Balancing that with the Bible would do more good than harm from where I sit.

Rational, fair and objective people don't occupy your seat.

Accepting -- for the sake of discussion -- that the Bible cannot be taught in public school science classes, then ID would be a way of balancing the science class curriculum.

Nope; it would be exactly what the Disco Dewdes intended; a way to slip creationism into public high school science classes via the back door when US courts have quite rightly forbidden it from entering via the front (because it ain't science; it's religion - as even you just acknowledged - and religion does not belong in public high school science class.).

307 Killgore Trout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:43:12pm

re: #304 theatheistjew


We are naturally superstitious as well.
In fact, as an atheist, I've caught myself not moving out of my seat when a football team I bet on is on a potential winning drive:)
Even though I know it is completely absurd.


Humans have a tendency towards obsessive compulsive behavior wich is often manifested as religion. Musicians and atheletes are notoriously vulnerable. I'm a long time atheist and even I started to develop OCD's as a musician. It's one of the reasons I gave it up.

308 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:45:07pm

re: #68 Sharmuta

I knew he was going with "D"!

Cognito: I don't happen to believe gunjam is right. But I'll tell you that his thoughts on the thread -- earnest, as it were -- are a lot more palatable than a gloating list.

Sal: Calling bullshit on authentic, genuine, actual USDA grade A bullshit is eminently appropriate.

309 laZardo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:45:15pm

re: #307 Killgore Trout

Come to think of it, that would explain a lot of "moonbat" tendencies. The reason such ideologies are popular with them is because it really appeals to the base instincts. Go against the herd and you get thrown to the lions, as it were.

310 laZardo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:46:51pm

re: #309 laZardo

I just realized that I just led two posts with "come to think of it."

/OCD it is then. Moving on...

311 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:48:34pm

re: #83 Racer X

Its OK to use tact and grace in these debates. LGF has lost too many good people because feelings were hurt.

People do not have a right not to be offended in a free speech society, especially when their definition of being offended is for you to not agree with everything that they say.

312 grumpy old codger  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:49:40pm

I'd feel better if our schools taught real math, english, history and, God forbid, CIVICS.

313 hazzyday  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:52:02pm

re: #299 Naso Tang

It looks like you are teaching it right there. So I would use you as the good example. If you are afraid that I was implying a Christian faith, that wouldn't be the case. People can learn to be tolerant of other faiths. Even though I am having a hard time lately with islam. A non science class on faith probably would lean more to social anthropology.

Evidence for God or no God can only really be invoked by the person. A person takes a leap of faith one way or the other.

Atheist's lock themselves in the same box they think the Yec'rs are in. See no evil, Hear no evil, speak no evil. The world is just concrete like this class of science or this literal interpretation of the bible.

Yec'rs seem to try my patience a lot, Atheist not so much so. Probably because they aren't stretching for political power.

314 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:52:10pm

re: #308 Salamantis


Sal: Calling bullshit on authentic, genuine, actual USDA grade A bullshit is eminently appropriate.

Of course it is. But sometimes people are simply uninformed on this point or that; it doesn't mean that the person who first arrived at the apparently correct position has license to gloat.

Anyone can gloat, of course. But that doesn't make it decent.

315 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:56:36pm

re: #313 hazzyday


Evidence for God or no God can only really be invoked by the person. A person takes a leap of faith one way or the other.

Atheist's lock themselves in the same box they think the Yec'rs are in. See no evil, Hear no evil, speak no evil. The world is just concrete like this class of science or this literal interpretation of the bible.

Yec'rs seem to try my patience a lot, Atheist not so much so. Probably because they aren't stretching for political power.


Wrong again. Most atheists I know, started out believing in God from when they were told about God from their parents and other family members.
Most atheists I know, would be completely open to evidence of God.
Atheism is not a leap of faith, no matter how many times you want to type it.

316 hazzyday  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:57:15pm

re: #301 reine.de.tout

I am meaning faith here as an idea. Not a tax exempt religious organization. Faith as a noun. Not primarily associated with one particular religion. Entirely possible.

i share your fear of being subjected to a faith based curriculum originating out of a specific religious faith.

317 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 6:59:59pm

re: #123 littleO

Yawn.
I've an alternative suggestion. Offer religion classes as an purely elective course for those who wish to learn all measures of thought/comparisons. Those who do not wish to have their intelligence challenged needn't waste their time.
I believe Texas schools are going to do just that.

I have the best suggestion on that subject (best, because constitutional): offer religion classes in church.

Constitutionally, any religion could only be taught in public high school as part of a dispassionate and evenhanded perusal of all the major faiths, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahaiism, Mormonism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, and the many different Paganisms.

318 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:01:41pm

re: #316 hazzyday

I am meaning faith here as an idea. Not a tax exempt religious organization. Faith as a noun. Not primarily associated with one particular religion. Entirely possible.

i share your fear of being subjected to a faith based curriculum originating out of a specific religious faith.

I found a definition for faith in the way I think you are using it:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value or truthworthiness of a person, idea or thing.

Now what classes do you think they should teach this in?

319 laZardo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:01:56pm

BBL, finishing up a clean reinstall.

320 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:02:47pm

re: #140 cpuller

Why the focus on evolution so much lately?

Because of the attempts by Biblical literalist creationists such as the Disco Dewdes to shoehorn their religious dogmas into public high school science classes.

321 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:02:53pm

re: #317 Salamantis

I have a better idea. Teach evolution in church:)

322 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:03:35pm

re: #141 littleO

re134 taxfreekiller
I would hope religious education in public schools might rather lead to theology and the thoughts of the early Church Fathers in higher education.

There are Catholic schools for that sort of thing.

323 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:03:41pm

re: #313 hazzyday

It looks like you are teaching it right there. So I would use you as the good example. If you are afraid that I was implying a Christian faith, that wouldn't be the case. People can learn to be tolerant of other faiths. Even though I am having a hard time lately with islam. A non science class on faith probably would lean more to social anthropology.

Evidence for God or no God can only really be invoked by the person. A person takes a leap of faith one way or the other.

Atheist's lock themselves in the same box they think the Yec'rs are in. See no evil, Hear no evil, speak no evil. The world is just concrete like this class of science or this literal interpretation of the bible.

Yec'rs seem to try my patience a lot, Atheist not so much so. Probably because they aren't stretching for political power.

I think we are having a problem with some muddling of semantics here. You seem to have used faith interchangeably with religion at different times.

I Have taken "faith" to be an aspect of religion, primarily the acceptance of a "truth" without evidence. Hence, not in itself a way of thinking that can be taught, just an unquestioning acceptance of something else that is taught.

324 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:04:25pm

re: #314 Cognito

Of course- anyone can lie about their motivations as well. Doesn't make that decent either. So, it begs the question in my mind- am I not allowed to point out the arguments of the deceit that is ID?

325 Naso Tang  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:05:01pm

I have a long drive tomorrow. Time to hit the sack.

Goodnight all.

326 hazzyday  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:06:40pm

re: #315 theatheistjew

This is just me. I don't expect any single person to agree with this. Nor would I want them to. My idea of atheism is that it is "analysis paralysis" in action. It does take faith to believe in God. It's an abstract concept. Yec'rs are lacking the abstraction ability. Evolution will eventually breed them out of existence unless they can take control of the government by force. :-)

Atheist's are all from Missouri. No God unless they can see it. Proof must come first. From someone besides the atheist.

We probably understand faith differently. To me atheists are all about beliefs and faith in the knowable. Theist is in the word there.

327 hazzyday  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:07:07pm

re: #318 theatheistjew

Faith 101 Not Biology or math

328 triumphguy  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:07:07pm

If you disregard creation as the truth, you have to discredit the entire Bible. Its all or nothing. What in the world, aside from the obvious egos here, makes you qualified to pick and choose what Biblical teachings are false? Nothing. You are not qualified or anywhere nearly well enough informed or studied in Theology. From reading most of these posts, it's clear that the majority of posters don't understand the textual content of the Christian Bible.

Charles is slap dead wrong on this one. Science has yet to prove anything to the contrary of creationism- in fact, when they finally get to the truth (i.e. the world is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, cats caused the black plague, the list goes on... and on... and on...) science supports the Biblical view of the world and how it got here.

BTW- most of you seem to think Global Warming is hooey. Why? Science supports it...

329 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:08:22pm

re: #161 stretch

it seems that so many of the evolutionists here express such great concern for public schools, and for the poor education that public school students would receive if they were not taught fully in evolution doctrine. I can't help but think that a number of these evolutionists here are freeloaders - fully capable of paying their own way for their children, but instead ask that taxpayers support their lifestyles. its aggravating to see one expensive car after another lined up at the schools, dropping off their kids in the morning. we all need to be reminded that public school was started to give the poor a better chance and opportunity, not for the well-off to get a free ride. if the well-off would pay their own way (or if the rich kids were kicked out), then classes would be smaller, and all teachers would be better paid. who could be against that? And please don't claim that your high property taxes cover the cost - families who don't freeload on the public schools most assuredly still pay property taxes.

We have a deal in this country; everyone pays taxes to support public schools, and everyone who wants to send their kids to them can do so.

You don't like this deal? Find a country with a deal that you like better.

330 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:10:35pm

re: #328 triumphguy

when they finally get to the truth (i.e. the world is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, cats caused the black plague, the list goes on... and on... and on...)

Is this a joke?

331 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:10:36pm

re: #165 littleO

Charles, welcome old stick. I so enjoy your wit.

Kilgoretrout
Poe John Paul 11 may well have made condition for evolution, however, not in the way your trying to imply. He also believed, as is dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, that the entire Bible is true. He believed, as does Church teaching, in the devine revelation of Jesus Christ. John Paul also believed Christ will come again in final judgement.

The Catholic Chuch accepts Genesis as metaphor (not a literal description), and evolutionary theory as the sound, solid and valid science that it is.

332 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:11:44pm

re: #326 hazzyday
Atheists are detectives when it comes to God. But we are all open to signs, but highly highly doubtful any exist.

333 triumphguy  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:12:17pm

re: #322 Salamantis

Most every major and all top 10 (ivy) colleges were started by individuals or groups of Christian faith with the intent of educating people around those principles. Somewhere it has gone wayyyyyyy wrong.

334 triumphguy  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:13:20pm

re: #332 theatheistjew

I think you mean agnostics. Atheist beleive there is no God. At all. No how, no way.

335 hazzyday  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:13:26pm

re: #323 Naso Tang

You are probably right. In my mind faith is my own conception of the universe and how I motor through it. It's not a tax exempt organization. Though at the media level and in terms of the evolution arguments at LGF faith probably means a religious grouping.

What the ID people want is some spiritual value in society. I am fine with that.

Where they error is that they want it to be their values and they have gone to all these sneaky and dishonest ways to imitate a virus and infect themselves in the educational system. All very unsavory and for that of itself necessitates a good religious person to equate them with the Devil. For the is the image they represent more than that of God. Anyone thinking of supporting ID as promoted by the Discovery Institute and considers themselves a "honest" religious person should consider what side of light and darkness they want to be on here.

336 hazzyday  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:14:08pm

re: #332 theatheistjew

Atheists are detectives when it comes to God. But we are all open to signs, but highly highly doubtful any exist.

Well that made me laugh. I think that is a great definition.

337 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:14:26pm

re: #333 triumphguy

Most every major and all top 10 (ivy) colleges were started by individuals or groups of Christian faith with the intent of educating people around those principles. Somewhere it has gone wayyyyyyy wrong.

I'm really not understanding either of your posts. Except for the Global Warming part. Scientists agree the earth is warming up, but there is nothing definitive to how, if any, man is contributing to the exact degree of this warming.

338 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:16:31pm

re: #188 littleO

re#175 Andy
Well said.
Also remember that a son of a virgin from Nazerath was the only ' Holy Man ' in history to claim to be the Son of the living God, and also under death threat.

Read The Hero With A Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell; different religions are chocked full of various and sundry avatars and messiahs.

339 lifeofthemind  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:16:46pm

re: #294 Naso Tang
No reason to keep flogging this horse, we must agree to disagree. Just be careful, in your proper desire to stop religious partisans from destroying the educational process under the guise of ID, that you do not support the socialist alternative's efforts to gut the curriculum of meaningful content that helps students become citizens capable of making informed judgments on complex issues.

The socialist modernizers have created this History Curriculum.
Note that nthing for Europe before 1500 is mentioned:
1. Brilliant Non-Western Ancient Cultures, 3 per continent.
2. Evil European Divine Right Kings
3. Brilliant French Revolution
4. Evil Industrial Revolution
5. Evil Colonialism
6. Brilliant Marxist Analysis
7. Crisis of Capitalism WWII
8. Brilliant Decolonization and the UN
9. Evil Cold War, Neocolonialism
10. Love and the Internet, but
11. Threat of Globalism and Climate change.
12. Obama

340 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:17:10pm

re: #334 triumphguy

I think you mean agnostics. Atheist beleive there is no God. At all. No how, no way.

Lets get into a semantic debate shall we?
I say there is no evidence for God whatsoever, so I don't even consider the existence of something without evidence. The world makes perfect sense to me without acknowledging God or Gods.

What does this make me?

341 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:19:03pm

re: #339 lifeofthemind

I'm a capitalist who knows ID is crap.

342 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:19:34pm

re: #193 AndyMacOP

So as an atheist, you do believe in somethings that cannot be proven!

;-)

An absence of belief is not the same as a belief in absence. By your definition, theists are atheists, too; they do not believe in the reality of any of the gods of any religion but their own. Atheists simply believe in one god less than theists do.

343 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:21:44pm

If anyone was a socialist, it was Jesus.
Note: I don't believe Jesus ever existed:)

344 reine.de.tout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:22:20pm

re: #316 hazzyday

I am meaning faith here as an idea. Not a tax exempt religious organization. Faith as a noun. Not primarily associated with one particular religion. Entirely possible.

i share your fear of being subjected to a faith based curriculum originating out of a specific religious faith.

And where should the idea of faith be taught? Which class? And by whom? And with what credentials, necessary to properly lead the discussion?

How in the heck does anyone talk about the idea of faith without getting into specifics?

"faith" as a noun, as an idea, is covered, if I recall, in various works of literature, even those that do not use the specific word "faith".

Beyond that - faith is not generic - it is very specific, and I just do not see how it could be taught, in any class, without getting into those specifics or without promoting either faith or no faith as a preference. That is my job as a parent, not a teacher's job.

345 hazzyday  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:22:51pm

re: #328 triumphguy

Where are people disregarding "creation as truth" Sure the term creationism is used. But the context of all these threads are about Discovery Institute, Intelligent design folks who believe in a young earth. And that evolution isn't valid.

If you are of that bent, then the purpose of the content here is to probably embarrass you. Not on purpose, just by natural selection.

Would you agree that the Discovery Institute people have been dishonest in their work with school boards? Do you believe in transitional fossil records?

There are many end of the earth cults that sadly to them they live the next day. They are as earnest and literal as the young earthers.

346 triumphguy  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:23:24pm

re: #330 Sharmuta

A mis-post, actually. I was deleting the post. Only got half of it when I bumped the enter key.

The beginning of it was that science usually gets it wrong the first few trys. Think of all the reversals they have done. How many times has a egg been good, for you- no bad for you- well the yolk is bad for you, well maybe...

History is littered with thousands of examples where science controlled the popular thought, based on sound decisions by rational people of the time, using the science they had on had as fact. Very rational thought by the smartest minds of the times, and I mean that sincerely.

Strict Biblical Theology (the Christian Bible, specifically) has withstood all criticism to date, and it is by far the most studied and academically criticized piece of literature in the history of the world as we know it. Notice I said literature, not religion. Literal criticism goes far beyond the faith aspect of a religion. It goes into the historical accuracy of the writings- a far more in depth study that that of surface faith.

347 triumphguy  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:26:15pm

re: #338 Salamantis

This is true. The old testament dates back a looooong time, and though the centuries many tried to be the messiah and fulfill the prophecies of the OT. All that tried failed- except one. Jesus fulfilled every single one of them, which was a prophesy in itself.

348 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:26:19pm

re: #206 stretch

re: #187 Sharmuta


those hard working people who put their kids through private school at great sacrifice are to be commended. my only gripe is with the well-off, who could afford to do otherwise, instead chose to freeload on the public school system

So, even though they're propbably paying MORE in property taxes than most are to support public education, you want the rich to send their kids to toney prep schools to prepare them for superior ivy-league educations so those kids can perpetuate their parents' wealth-based class divisions instead?

Awful considerate of you not to want them to feel obligated to slum around with the common folks...;~)

349 slokat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:27:30pm

So in the interest of common ground:

1. Does every poster here believe that they themselves do in fact exist?
2. Is every poster here ready to believe that each and every other poster here actually exists?

(including sock puppets as extensions of the original poster)

Not a joke, serious questions.

350 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:28:26pm

re: #346 triumphguy

A mis-post, actually. I was deleting the post. Only got half of it when I bumped the enter key.

The beginning of it was that science usually gets it wrong the first few trys. Think of all the reversals they have done. How many times has a egg been good, for you- no bad for you- well the yolk is bad for you, well maybe...

History is littered with thousands of examples where science controlled the popular thought, based on sound decisions by rational people of the time, using the science they had on had as fact. Very rational thought by the smartest minds of the times, and I mean that sincerely.

Strict Biblical Theology (the Christian Bible, specifically) has withstood all criticism to date, and it is by far the most studied and academically criticized piece of literature in the history of the world as we know it. Notice I said literature, not religion. Literal criticism goes far beyond the faith aspect of a religion. It goes into the historical accuracy of the writings- a far more in depth study that that of surface faith.


Historical accuracy? No chance. It isn't a history book. It is not a science book either.
What exactly does your bible say about the following?
Age of the earth?
When did man come to earth?
The reason that Galileo was in such deep doo doo is because he was going against what was written in the bible.
What has science been wrong about lately?

351 triumphguy  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:28:57pm

re: #343 theatheistjew

There are census of the time that document the man being alive and of the lineage that is claimed. These are historical facts. the existence of Jesus has long been proven

352 slokat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:29:19pm

re: #343 theatheistjew

If anyone was a socialist, it was Jesus.
Note: I don't believe Jesus ever existed:)

Jesus wasn't an -ist of any human social/political stripe.

353 hazzyday  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:29:51pm

re: #344 reine.de.tout

Faith 101 Jesuit Priest in a public school setting as an experiment to see if it can be done.

Faith has everything to do with psychology and is described by social anthropology.

I think we can see from the thread discussions that it is something people wish to more broadly understand in our society than just as part of the family unit. Though I would like to see family values also taught. I think the me first nuclear values family structure has not held up well or evolved well with a fast paced western consumer society.

I would also add in the constitutional principles in play that make for a civilized United States.

354 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:30:25pm

re: #223 AndyMacOP

I get a little itchy about this. Many of the same people who would say there was no Jesus of Nazareth would also say there was no Julius Caesar, no Aristotle or no Alexander the Great, etc. Why does the existence of a person named Jesus son of Joseph get so much attention?

I will tell you why, because if he does exist, then his existence requires a very real response and a certain amount a fear about what lays beyond the end of earthly life. The words attributed to him are marvelous and life changing. They are full of love and full of truth. Read them! At the very least, they have inspired millions of people to not hate and to care for one another. Where his words are ignored and ridiculed, you will find pain, suffering and death.

I ask again: why is it so necessary for Jesus of Nazareth not to have existed?

Umm...like practically all other major religions, Christianity, too, has been historically responsible for instigating its own share of pain, suffering and death.

Just sayin', for purposes of historical accuracy. No memory holes allowed.

355 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:31:04pm

re: #351 triumphguy

There are census of the time that document the man being alive and of the lineage that is claimed. These are historical facts. the existence of Jesus has long been proven

Actually, there is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus. None whatsoever. We already have been through this earlier in the thread.

356 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:31:27pm

re: #346 triumphguy

That's because science is self-correcting. As our knowledge grows and our technology grows- science is better able to expand and refine our scientific understanding.

357 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:31:43pm

re: #352 slokat

Jesus wasn't an -ist of any human social/political stripe.

What is it believe Jesus said about material goods?

358 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:34:19pm

re: #244 Sharmuta

I really think that's at the heart of this issue. Most of us at LGF do not want the islamofascists "reverting' us by the sword, and we also don't want anyone else using science or whatever else to convert us to any other faith. I think mostly we're all people who are comfortable with our faith and just want to be left alone in that regard.

We most certainly don't want people camouflaging their faith as science and sneaking it into public high schools in order to convert our kids to their belief system without our knowledge and consent. And that's the crux of the matter.

359 slokat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:36:52pm

re: #357 theatheistjew

Which quote of many concerning possessions/money from this non-existent teacher would you like to discuss?

360 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:37:18pm

re: #355 theatheistjew

Actually, there is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus. None whatsoever. We already have been through this earlier in the thread.

And, again: To require "contemporary historical evidence" is ridiculous from the start. Because there's no contemporary historical evidence about anyone from the time, beyond rulers and so forth.

Of course there were no great facades carved with Jesus's name, or coins stamped with his image. What there was -- and here we arrive at our first reasonable expectation -- was accounts by historians who date to Jesus's generation.

361 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:38:27pm

re: #356 Sharmuta

That's because science is self-correcting.

Ah, no. That's a bit faithful.

Science doesn't do anything. It's just a method.

362 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:38:32pm

re: #269 Mich-again

Why continue to identify yourself as a jew if you think Abraham and Moses and Isaiah were delusional psychotic liars?

I was under the impression that being a Jew could be as much about ethnic identification as religious belief...

363 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:39:18pm

re: #361 Cognito

A self-correcting method.

364 slokat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:39:44pm

re: #362 Salamantis

If Abraham is a myth, than there is not an ethnicity to be a part of...

365 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:41:02pm

re: #363 Sharmuta

A self-correcting method.

No, the point is there's no 'self.' Science does not, in itself, do anything.

Sure, good scientists, following the method with fastidiousness, will avoid errors that bad scientists will not. But that's about it.

366 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:41:17pm

re: #360 Cognito

And, again: To require "contemporary historical evidence" is ridiculous from the start. Because there's no contemporary historical evidence about anyone from the time, beyond rulers and so forth.

Of course there were no great facades carved with Jesus's name, or coins stamped with his image. What there was -- and here we arrive at our first reasonable expectation -- was accounts by historians who date to Jesus's generation.

Not true. There were writings about many other people. There were over 40 known historians at the time. And not a word was written about Jesus.

367 triumphguy  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:42:04pm

re: #350 theatheistjew

Historical accuracy? No chance. It isn't a history book. It is not a science book either.
What exactly does your bible say about the following?
Age of the earth?
When did man come to earth?
The reason that Galileo was in such deep doo doo is because he was going against what was written in the bible.
What has science been wrong about lately?

It is as much a history book as any. The books with in the Bible are about the events and lives of real people in a real time in history. The events have been well documented in other ancient literature as well.

Not trying to stir you up, and I suspect you already know what my answers will be, but I'll play along this time:

Age of the earth?
Earth= about 6000 years. you have to go back through the lineages, but it's in there.

When did man come to earth?
Textural answer- the 6th day. there is still some debate by scholars on what a "day" meant.

The reason that Galileo was +
Not against what the bible said, but against popular opinion.

What has science been wrong about lately?
Global Warming

368 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:42:12pm

re: #361 Cognito

Ah, no. That's a bit faithful.

Science doesn't do anything. It's just a method.

Science takes empirical evidence and explains it.

369 reine.de.tout  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:42:16pm

re: #353 hazzyday

Faith 101 Jesuit Priest in a public school setting as an experiment to see if it can be done.

Faith has everything to do with psychology and is described by social anthropology.

I think we can see from the thread discussions that it is something people wish to more broadly understand in our society than just as part of the family unit. Though I would like to see family values also taught. I think the me first nuclear values family structure has not held up well or evolved well with a fast paced western consumer society.

I would also add in the constitutional principles in play that make for a civilized United States.

Now, that I agree with.

Solution to the problem? Not so easy.

I think it's entirely possible, though, to bring back, through discipline, high expectations for academic progress, high expectations for courtesy and respectful behavior, in other words, to bring some of what you're talking about back into our lives.

The public schools, I'm afraid, are so afraid of being sued, so afraid of being un-PC, that they have dropped any pretense, in many cases, for expecting academic performance or for expecting students to treat the teachers, staff and other students with courtesy and respect. This is seen in the failure of schools to impose any consequences for those who fail to succeed academically (social promotions to the next grade) and there are no consequences for those who refuse to adhere to a basic standard of decent, courteous and respectful behavior.

I don't think we need faith or religion taught in schools to bring that back - what's needed is some backbone by school administrators.

I might add, in private schools - they choose their teachers from the same pool of certified teachers that the public schools have access to. The private schools are successful where public schools are not because they expect their students to do well academically, do not promote students who are failing, and they have expectations for behavior, and the consequences for poor behavior are severe. There's no "magic" in private schools - they just do those things that the public schools won't.

370 slokat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:42:32pm

re: #363 Sharmuta

Cognito is right - One Modern Myth is that Science "self" corrects.

371 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:43:42pm

re: #364 slokat

If Abraham is a myth, than there is not an ethnicity to be a part of...

Not true. Even if my ancestry goes back only 500 years, I'm still an ethnic Jew. In fact, it would be true if it went back only 47 years in my case.

372 Cognito  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:45:39pm

re: #366 theatheistjew

Not true. There were writings about many other people. There were over 40 known historians at the time. And not a word was written about Jesus.

There were forty historians, you say, and none of them bothered to write about a man who lived almost his entire life in obscurity?

It makes far more sense that word might get around after a few years, instead of during his short period of political entanglement.

Yes, of course there might have been men who encountered Jesus and wrote about his life during those events. They might even have followed him, some might say.

373 slokat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:46:18pm

re: #371 theatheistjew

So now you are rewriting what it means to be a Jew... to fit your own beliefs?

374 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:46:43pm

re: #367 triumphguy

It is as much a history book as any. The books with in the Bible are about the events and lives of real people in a real time in history. The events have been well documented in other ancient literature as well.

Not trying to stir you up, and I suspect you already know what my answers will be, but I'll play along this time:

Age of the earth?
Earth= about 6000 years. you have to go back through the lineages, but it's in there.

When did man come to earth?
Textural answer- the 6th day. there is still some debate by scholars on what a "day" meant.

The reason that Galileo was +
Not against what the bible said, but against popular opinion.

What has science been wrong about lately?
Global Warming


Again, I've explained about Global Warming. Most scientists are not close to definitive about why Global Warming is happening. But they know it is happening.

The rest of your answers are not supported by any science whatsoever.
And the bible is as much of a history book about real people as is anything in the works of Theodor Geisel.

375 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:48:26pm

re: #372 Cognito

There were forty historians, you say, and none of them bothered to write about a man who lived almost his entire life in obscurity?

It makes far more sense that word might get around after a few years, instead of during his short period of political entanglement.

Yes, of course there might have been men who encountered Jesus and wrote about his life during those events. They might even have followed him, some might say.

It took 50 years for someone to even write about Christians. Sorry, but it shouldn't have taken very long to have something written about this man of miracles. I'm not buying it.

376 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:50:00pm

re: #373 slokat

So now you are rewriting what it means to be a Jew... to fit your own beliefs?

Not what it means to be a Jew. And I'm not rewriting anything. I'm stating a fact as to what a Jew is by definition. I'm a Jew. I'd be accepted to go to Israel. If I was around during Nazi Germany, I would have been thrown into a death camp.

377 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:50:44pm

re: #291 laZardo

I still find it quite contradictory that one can believe in evolution AND recognize that human life is "unique." If anything, about the only two things that make humans unique when it all boils down to it are opposeable thumbs and the recognition of our own mortality.

Self-conscious awareness is a pretty huge difference. It allows for language, technology, science, ethics, aesthetics, logic, philosophy, religion, and all the varied flavors of individual human endeavor.

And evolutionary theory is one of the most evidentially supported theories in the history of science. One need not believe what they can know via a dispassionate perusal of the empirical evidence.

I believe it is that recognition of that mortality that played a key role in the creation of "religion," though I still have to properly put my finger on how.

Perhaps it is born out of fear of eternal oblivion, combined with the conviction that anything is better than nothing, whether it be heaven, rebirth, transcending planes of existence, or whatever. Many people would probably even prefer eternal life in hell or being reincarnated as a cowpie-eating tumblebug than utterly and forever ceasing to exist, so even the mythic punishments provide some degree of comfort.

378 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:54:16pm

re: #302 laZardo

Come to think of it, humans probably defined religion as a basis for "morality" to help them compete better against the "unknown," whether with other human tribes or species. It would explain why morality is purely subjective... e.g. people in Western society condemn the stoning of women for adultery, which certain groups of people accept as a properly sacred act.

I think that it is highly likely that ancient societies cloaked their various moralities in the rainments of religion, in order to imbue culture-based ethical exigencies with cosmic force.

379 slokat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:55:48pm

re: #375 theatheistjew

I think you are having problems with dates. 33 AD = Jesus crucifixion
(give or take) Plutarch was alive and started writing about that time as a young man...

380 slokat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:56:58pm

I'm off to eat dinner and watch a dvd about a mythical John Adams...

381 triumphguy  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:57:22pm

re: #375 theatheistjew

It took 50 years for someone to even write about Christians. Sorry, but it shouldn't have taken very long to have something written about this man of miracles. I'm not buying it.

It didn't. There are writing from kings and prominent leaders all over the time and places Jesus is said to have traveled. There are many ancient writings and documents that support and validate the books in the Bible. What took 50 years was for church elders to canonize the writings into what is the Old and New Testaments, a.k.a. Holy Bible.

382 mich-again  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:58:34pm

re: #371 theatheistjew

Even if my ancestry goes back only 500 years, I'm still an ethnic Jew. In fact, it would be true if it went back only 47 years in my case.

But what would have been the bond that united those people years ago if not a common faith.

When do you think the Jews first become an ethnicity? You've already said you think Moses never existed. So who or what brought the Jews together than? Did David exist? How about Solomon?

383 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 7:58:55pm

re: #314 Cognito

re: #308 Salamantis

Sal: Calling bullshit on authentic, genuine, actual USDA grade A bullshit is eminently appropriate.

cognito: Of course it is. But sometimes people are simply uninformed on this point or that; it doesn't mean that the person who first arrived at the apparently correct position has license to gloat.

Anyone can gloat, of course. But that doesn't make it decent.

Sal2: Apparently, your definition of gloating is trying to point out that you think that another person is incorrect on the logic or facts. Except, of course, when you try to do it. Then it is just common human decency.

384 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:00:47pm

re: #381 triumphguy

It didn't. There are writing from kings and prominent leaders all over the time and places Jesus is said to have traveled. There are many ancient writings and documents that support and validate the books in the Bible. What took 50 years was for church elders to canonize the writings into what is the Old and New Testaments, a.k.a. Holy Bible.

Sorry, but there were none. And the earth is ancient. I don't think you want to know.

385 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:03:20pm

re: #379 slokat

I think you are having problems with dates. 33 AD = Jesus crucifixion
(give or take) Plutarch was alive and started writing about that time as a young man...

Plutarch was born 46 AD. When did write about Jesus? What did he say?
He had to have done so at least 25 years "after the fact"
Try again.

386 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:04:19pm

re: #328 triumphguy

If you disregard creation as the truth, you have to discredit the entire Bible. Its all or nothing. What in the world, aside from the obvious egos here, makes you qualified to pick and choose what Biblical teachings are false? Nothing. You are not qualified or anywhere nearly well enough informed or studied in Theology. From reading most of these posts, it's clear that the majority of posters don't understand the textual content of the Christian Bible.

Charles is slap dead wrong on this one. Science has yet to prove anything to the contrary of creationism- in fact, when they finally get to the truth (i.e. the world is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, cats caused the black plague, the list goes on... and on... and on...) science supports the Biblical view of the world and how it got here.

BTW- most of you seem to think Global Warming is hooey. Why? Science supports it...

Who are you to tell a billion Roman Catholics that they are blasphemous heretical apostates?

Science ascribes an age of 4.6 buillion years to the earth, 2+ billion years to life here, and shared-in-common ancestors for all of terrestrial life. Please point the applicable Biblical sections for these.

387 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:05:14pm

re: #330 Sharmuta

Is this a joke?

I think his nick might refer to Triumph the Insult Dog.

388 mich-again  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:06:59pm

re: #328 triumphguy

If you disregard creation as the truth, you have to discredit the entire Bible. Its all or nothing.

Does that go for the explanation of the heavens in Genesis? What is the altitude of the firmament?

389 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:07:30pm

re: #382 mich-again

But what would have been the bond that united those people years ago if not a common faith.

When do you think the Jews first become an ethnicity? You've already said you think Moses never existed. So who or what brought the Jews together than? Did David exist? How about Solomon?

I believe the Jews were an ethnicity before they were a monotheistic religion.
Yes, a common faith then developed. Most likely it was like we know it today around 450BC.
David may have existed, but he would have been King of a very small empire.
You should watch The Bible Unearthed, because I'm basing most of ideas on the archaeological findings discussed in the video.

The common beliefs basically created a common culture. Much like Irish Catholics have a culture, if one born in that culture becomes an atheist, he still will identify with the Irish Catholic culture.
Richard Dawkins recently said he considers himself a cultural Christian.

390 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:07:45pm

re: #333 triumphguy

Most every major and all top 10 (ivy) colleges were started by individuals or groups of Christian faith with the intent of educating people around those principles. Somewhere it has gone wayyyyyyy wrong.

And they evolved rather than remain that way. After all, they began before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. But they progressed, right along with the science that they vowed to teach better than all other institutions.

391 JamesWI  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:15:48pm

re: #367 triumphguy

It is as much a history book as any. The books with in the Bible are about the events and lives of real people in a real time in history. The events have been well documented in other ancient literature as well.

Not trying to stir you up, and I suspect you already know what my answers will be, but I'll play along this time:

Age of the earth?
Earth= about 6000 years. you have to go back through the lineages, but it's in there.

When did man come to earth?
Textural answer- the 6th day. there is still some debate by scholars on what a "day" meant.

The reason that Galileo was +
Not against what the bible said, but against popular opinion.

What has science been wrong about lately?
Global Warming

Ah, a YECer. The Bible is accurate about the age of the earth, huh? That sound you here is your credibility rapidly exiting the room.

392 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:18:34pm

re: #346 triumphguy

A mis-post, actually. I was deleting the post. Only got half of it when I bumped the enter key.

The beginning of it was that science usually gets it wrong the first few trys. Think of all the reversals they have done. How many times has a egg been good, for you- no bad for you- well the yolk is bad for you, well maybe...

History is littered with thousands of examples where science controlled the popular thought, based on sound decisions by rational people of the time, using the science they had on had as fact. Very rational thought by the smartest minds of the times, and I mean that sincerely.

Science has had a century and a half to work on evolutionary theory, through Darwin, Mendel, Watson & Crick, and soooo many more. Millions of empirical experiments and investigations have supported that theory, and no credible studies have contradicted it. None. In a century and a half. We, who are seeing to the first moments of the universe and out to the universal wall of light, and back to the Big Bang echo, have also decoded the genomes of humans and some other life forms (including chimpanzees), with the rest to follow. We have excavated fossil records of many various species transitions, and used the physically invariant decay rates of various radioactive isotopes to date both them and the earth in general. Contemporary science is not mistaken about these things.

Strict Biblical Theology (the Christian Bible, specifically) has withstood all criticism to date, and it is by far the most studied and academically criticized piece of literature in the history of the world as we know it. Notice I said literature, not religion. Literal criticism goes far beyond the faith aspect of a religion. It goes into the historical accuracy of the writings- a far more in depth study that that of surface faith.

Well there has been no independent scienctific confirmation for the Genesis contentions that the world was created a few thousand years ago, and that the species were created separately and as is. In fact, all existent empirical evidence unites to proclaim such assertions to be false.

393 mich-again  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:20:17pm

re: #389 theatheistjew

I believe the Jews were an ethnicity before they were a monotheistic religion.
Yes, a common faith then developed. Most likely it was like we know it today around 450BC.
David may have existed, but he would have been King of a very small empire.

Thats a pretty tall conspiracy theory there. At some point the people calling themselves the Jews devised an elaborate story explaining why they joined together, going all the way back to Abraham. Call me a skeptic there.

394 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:20:18pm

re: #347 triumphguy

This is true. The old testament dates back a looooong time, and though the centuries many tried to be the messiah and fulfill the prophecies of the OT. All that tried failed- except one. Jesus fulfilled every single one of them, which was a prophesy in itself.

Each messiah was a religious success within the context of its own religion. The Bible is far from being the only ancient text including messiahs.

395 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:22:17pm

Do creationists ever ask that if their assertions are right about a young earth or that evolution is wrong, why hasn't a YEC scientist been able to use science to prove the age of the earth is less than 6000 years old, or be able to falsify even one piece of evidence that supports evolution (actually they should be able to falsify it all)?

396 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:23:46pm

re: #393 mich-again

Thats a pretty tall conspiracy theory there. At some point the people calling themselves the Jews devised an elaborate story explaining why they joined together, going all the way back to Abraham. Call me a skeptic there.

It isn't. This is how many religions begin. I suggest you watch the Bible Unearthed series. I posted a link to it here already. Just Google Video "Bible Unearthed"
It is fascinating.

397 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:23:49pm

re: #351 triumphguy

There are census of the time that document the man being alive and of the lineage that is claimed. These are historical facts. the existence of Jesus has long been proven

Here we have a person who embraces all of the Biblical begats, and that they were the only begats in the lineage - from Adam forward, I'll wager. Most definitely a Young Earther.

If you truly believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, I have some oceanfront property in the Mississippi River delta to sell you...;~)

398 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:25:17pm

re: #397 Salamantis


If you truly believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, I have some oceanfront property in the Mississippi River delta to sell you...;~)


My guess is he might own some already:)

399 mossley  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:26:22pm

re: #367 triumphguy


Earth= about 6000 years. you have to go back through the lineages, but it's in there.


What is the lineage of David to Jesus? The Bible gives two widely different lineages. And both trace the lineage to Joseph, who wasn't really his father. One of them has to be wrong.

How did Judas die? The Bible gives two very different accounts. One of them has to be wrong.

The Bible claims that rabbits chew their cud, an absolutely false statement, along with the equally false statement that insects have four legs.

The Bible is a wonderful resource for religion, but of the top of my head are four examples of where it cannot be taken as literally correct. How do you reconcile a literal interpretation of it when it is self-contradictory? (And there are plenty of other examples.)

What has science been wrong about lately?
Global Warming


Global Warming is not science. It is dogma wrapped up in scientific-sounding nonsense. Much like what the DI puts out, except one has its emphasis in religion, the other politics.

400 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:26:29pm

re: #361 Cognito

Ah, no. That's a bit faithful.

Science doesn't do anything. It's just a method.

But scienTISTS historically correct each other using the scientific method, by uncovering each other's flaws in its application.

401 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:28:37pm

re: #364 slokat

If Abraham is a myth, than there is not an ethnicity to be a part of...

No, there are still plenty of Jews out there. And they're still gonna be there, and still gonna be Jews, regardless of any existence status of Abraham, on which I have no position.

402 mich-again  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:29:15pm

re: #396 theatheistjew

This is how many religions begin.

I don't know, I don't consider the Jewish faith just another religion. But maybe I'll watch that video just to see how they explain all of it.

403 mossley  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:30:06pm

re: #328 triumphguy

If you disregard creation as the truth, you have to discredit the entire Bible. Its all or nothing. What in the world, aside from the obvious egos here, makes you qualified to pick and choose what Biblical teachings are false? Nothing. You are not qualified or anywhere nearly well enough informed or studied in Theology. From reading most of these posts, it's clear that the majority of posters don't understand the textual content of the Christian Bible.


What qualifies you to judge people? Are you God? Does he tell you these things? What you don't understand is that the world is not bound by your opinion. Just because you say something is true does not make it so. There are plenty of Christians on this site who have no trouble believing that God is capable of using evolution. Just like we don't get upset over gravity, germ theory, thermodynamics, chaos theory, or any other of a host of theories that govern the world around us. I don't need to limit God's ability to what I want to believe.

404 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:31:00pm

re: #399 mossley

How did Judas die? The Bible gives two very different accounts. One of them has to be wrong.
********************************
Ahem, AT LEAST one of them has to be wrong.

405 Scorch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:31:13pm

I have been following these threads and everyones fascination with the ID debate. One thing is very common after the first few posts. It goes from a debate about ID being taught in public school to condemnation and ridicule of ones faith in God, if they dare mention his name. Since when do you think any self proclaimed atheist would ever let such a transgression be taught in their already conquered grounds without seeking the full extent of the ACLU's guiding hand. Paranoia reigns in what I once thought was a bastion of common sense.

406 Salem  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:32:11pm

re: #404 theatheistjew

How did Judas die? The Bible gives two very different accounts. One of them has to be wrong.
********************************
Ahem, AT LEAST one of them has to be wrong.

And if he's just symbolic, the point is moot.

407 theatheistjew  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:34:41pm

re: #405 Scorch

I have been following these threads and everyones fascination with the ID debate. One thing is very common after the first few posts. It goes from a debate about ID being taught in public school to condemnation and ridicule of ones faith in God, if they dare mention his name. Since when do you think any self proclaimed atheist would ever let such a transgression be taught in their already conquered grounds without seeking the full extent of the ACLU's guiding hand. Paranoia reigns in what I once thought was a bastion of common sense.

The fascination with ID debates is the fact that there are those around who still think it should be taught in science class. I'm fascinated such people exist.

408 mossley  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:35:14pm

re: #405 Scorch
In case you haven't noticed, this BS of an argument doesn't hold any water here. No one is attacking religion. You really need some fresh material.

409 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:36:25pm

re: #367 triumphguy

It is as much a history book as any. The books with in the Bible are about the events and lives of real people in a real time in history. The events have been well documented in other ancient literature as well.

Really? In what other books is Adam's existence documented? Besides in the Quran, I mean...after all, they stole most of their book from the Bible anyway.

Not trying to stir you up, and I suspect you already know what my answers will be, but I'll play along this time:

Age of the earth?
Earth= about 6000 years. you have to go back through the lineages, but it's in there.

When did man come to earth?
Textural answer- the 6th day. there is still some debate by scholars on what a "day" meant.

The reason that Galileo was +
Not against what the bible said, but against popular opinion.

What has science been wrong about lately?
Global Warming

We actually have written records that date older than 6000 years ago, not to mention the ruins of ancient cities, and shitloads of fossils and rocks. And humans and great apes share common ancestors, as does all of terrestrial life; this is crystal clear from our genes. You may not like these facts, but facts they are, regardless of your opinion of them.

And Galileo was indeed against the geocentric view of the solar system favored by the Roman catholic Church of that day, which is why he was forced to renounce it under pain of death. Had you lived back then, you would most likely be a Flat Earther as well as a Young-Earther, and be all too eager to torch the kindling at a stake-bound Galileo's feet for his profane blasphemy.

410 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:38:24pm

re: #408 mossley

Maybe I need another list of BS arguments.

411 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:38:28pm

re: #373 slokat

So now you are rewriting what it means to be a Jew... to fit your own beliefs?

I thought that YOU were doing that when you insisted that being a Jew had to depend upon the historical existence of Abraham.

412 jaunte  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:42:59pm

re: #410 Sharmuta

Well, ok, if you just want to keep gloating.

413 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:43:16pm

re: #381 triumphguy

It didn't. There are writing from kings and prominent leaders all over the time and places Jesus is said to have traveled. There are many ancient writings and documents that support and validate the books in the Bible. What took 50 years was for church elders to canonize the writings into what is the Old and New Testaments, a.k.a. Holy Bible.

None of the Synoptic Gospels were written by the apostles whose nemes they bear, and none of them were written within a half-century of Jesus' purported death, or by anyone who had known, spoken to, or even seen him. In fact, John was written even later than the other three, and is infused with the Platonic philosophical influence that was bequeathed to its author from the Greeks via the Romans.

414 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:44:40pm

re: #412 jaunte

I would, but I worry for the knickers.

415 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 8:52:22pm

re: #405 Scorch

I have been following these threads and everyones fascination with the ID debate. One thing is very common after the first few posts. It goes from a debate about ID being taught in public school to condemnation and ridicule of ones faith in God, if they dare mention his name. Since when do you think any self proclaimed atheist would ever let such a transgression be taught in their already conquered grounds without seeking the full extent of the ACLU's guiding hand. Paranoia reigns in what I once thought was a bastion of common sense.

The threads progress as they do because creationists consistently denounce all those who call themselves Christians but do not reject science, including a billion + Roman Catholics who accept evolution as sound and valid science and view Genesis as metaphorical, as false Christians. Following that, people both denounce such unreasoning religious bigotry, and demonstrate how irrational the belief behind it in a literalist reading of Genesis actually is when confronted with the empirical evidence that science has yielded.

416 Kulhwch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:06:47pm

re: #405 Scorch

I have been following these threads and everyones fascination with the ID debate. One thing is very common after the first few posts. It goes from a debate about ID being taught in public school to condemnation and ridicule of ones faith in God, if they dare mention his name. Since when do you think any self proclaimed atheist would ever let such a transgression be taught in their already conquered grounds without seeking the full extent of the ACLU's guiding hand. Paranoia reigns in what I once thought was a bastion of common sense.

You being a good case in point with your unevidenced claims.

}:)     [Your turn.]

417 swamprat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:11:02pm

Am I too late for the pie-fight? I like pie.

418 swamprat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:15:03pm

re: #399 mossley
Aye! But nah Troo Scottman puts sugar on h' porrrrrridge!

419 eclectic infidel  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:16:38pm

re: #328 triumphguy

And that is a statement of faith and faith alone as written by a true blue fundamentalist.

In sum: Ignore anything from reality that doesn't jive with your version of reality. Period. EndOfDiscussionKthnxBye.

420 Kulhwch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:18:18pm
re: #381 triumphguy
re: #375 theatheistjew

It took 50 years for someone to even write about Christians. Sorry, but it shouldn't have taken very long to have something written about this man of miracles. I'm not buying it.

It didn't.

It most certainly did.  Absolutely not in the lifetime of any of the principals in the mythos.

There are writing from kings and prominent leaders all over the time and places Jesus is said to have traveled.

Nope.

There are many ancient writings and documents that support and validate the books in the Bible.

Even if there are, which I doubt, what makes them right?  I'm beginning to smell a circular argument here.

What took 50 years was for church elders to canonize the writings into what is the Old and New Testaments, a.k.a. Holy Bible.

It took them that long to cherry pick what they wanted and to bury the embarrassing stuff, yes.

}:)     [Sorry about that.]

421 swamprat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:25:11pm

When I was a kid, the Hittites were a mythical race, with no basis in fact. Since then, they have evolved into a historical reality, instead of a hysterical mythology. Maybe Jesus will turn as real as the Hittites. ...Naw!

422 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:31:16pm

re: #421 swamprat

When I was a kid, the Hittites were a mythical race, with no basis in fact. Since then, they have evolved into a historical reality, instead of a hysterical mythology. Maybe Jesus will turn as real as the Hittites. ...Naw!

I've been known to be a Hittite; I get a little tight, and then start hitting on chicks...;~)

423 Kulhwch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:34:32pm
re: #367 triumphguy
re: #350 theatheistjew

Historical accuracy? No chance. It isn't a history book. It is not a science book either.
What exactly does your bible say about the following?
Age of the earth?
When did man come to earth?
The reason that Galileo was in such deep doo doo is because he was going against what was written in the bible.
What has science been wrong about lately?

It is as much a history book as any.

Just as much a historical text as The Wizard of Oz, yes.

The books with in the Bible are about the events and lives of real people in a real time in history.

Maybe, it'd have to be established from outside sources that those people all really lived and engaged in exactly those behaviors.  After all, it could be a novelization.

The events have been well documented in other ancient literature as well.

I note you cite no examples, of course.  Got any?

Not trying to stir you up, and I suspect you already know what my answers will be, but I'll play along this time:

Age of the earth?
Earth= about 6000 years. you have to go back through the lineages, but it's in there.

Even if we stick with just geology, you're already disproved out of the gate.  If we go to physics, astronomy, biology, etc., you've just been trashed.  Ow.

When did man come to earth?
Textural answer- the 6th day. there is still some debate by scholars on what a "day" meant.

No evidence of that as well, especially since it's based on the time line claimed in the previous assertion ...

The reason that Galileo was +
Not against what the bible said, but against popular opinion.

Again, incorrect.  Based on what the dominant religion said was the truth in regards to it's main holy book, which didn't and doesn't agree with science.  The only way it was popular opinion was because no one dared state another opinion or guess what?  Hemlock time!  Or worse!

What has science been wrong about lately?
Global Warming

Global Warming isn't even good enough to be considered bad science, it's scare tactics dreamed up by entrepreneurs (which rhymes with manures) who just want to make a buck off of a hysteria they started.

}:)     [Just like during the Anthrax scare a few years ago when people make a bundle off of various items to help you survive an attack with it.  Only difference was that the Anthrax scares were real, Global Warming is fake; but opportunists will always be around ... ]

424 laZardo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:42:43pm

re: #378 Salamantis

Back, and yes, in a sense. I would think that since early humanity didn't have the scientific capabilities to learn about what we know now not only regarding the "forces beyond our control" but also the "forces within," they often ascribed it to "God" and left the details for later on, if they actually wanted to find them out later on, anyway.

425 Kulhwch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:46:11pm

re: #421 swamprat

When I was a kid, the Hittites were a mythical race, with no basis in fact. Since then, they have evolved into a historical reality, instead of a hysterical mythology. Maybe Jesus will turn as real as the Hittites. ...Naw!

From here:

The first archaeological evidence for the Hittites appeared in tablets found at the Assyrian colony of Kültepe (ancient Karum Kanesh), containing records of trade between Assyrian merchants and a certain "land of Hatti". Some names in the tablets were neither Hattic nor Assyrian, but clearly Indo-European.

The script on a monument at Boğazköy by a "People of Hattusas" discovered by William Wright in 1884 was found to match peculiar hieroglyphic scripts from Aleppo and Hamath in Northern Syria. In 1887, excavations at Tell El-Amarna in Egypt uncovered the diplomatic correspondence of Pharaoh Amenhotep III and his son Akhenaton. Two of the letters from a "kingdom of Kheta" -- apparently located in the same general region as the Mesopotamian references to "land of Hatti" -- were written in standard Akkadian cuneiform script, but in an unknown language; although scholars could read it, no one could understand it. Shortly after this, Archibald Sayce proposed that Hatti or Khatti in Anatolia was identical with the "kingdom of Kheta" mentioned in these Egyptian texts, as well as with the biblical Hittites. Others such as Max Muller agreed that Khatti was probably Kheta, but proposed connecting it with Biblical Kittim, rather than with the "Children of Heth". Sayce's identification came to be widely accepted over the course of the early 20th century; and the name "Hittite" has become attached to the civilization uncovered at Boğazköy.

During sporadic excavations at Boğazköy (Hattusa) that began in 1906, the archaeologist Hugo Winckler found a royal archive with 10,000 tablets, inscribed in cuneiform Akkadian and the same unknown language as the Egyptian letters from Kheta — thus confirming the identity of the two names. He also proved that the ruins at Boğazköy were the remains of the capital of a mighty empire that at one point controlled northern Syria.

Under the direction of the German Archaeological Institute, excavations at Hattusa have been underway since 1907, with interruptions during both wars. Kültepe has been successfully excavated by late Professor Tahsin Özgüç (died in 2005) since 1948. Smaller scale excavations have also been carried out in the immediate surroundings of Hattusa, including the rock sanctuary of Yazılıkaya, which contains numerous rock-cut reliefs portraying the Hittite rulers and the gods of the Hittite pantheon.
...
The language of the Hattusa tablets was eventually deciphered by a Czech linguist, Bedřich Hrozný (1879—1952), who on 24 November, 1915 announced his results in a lecture at the Near Eastern Society of Berlin. His book about his discovery was printed in Leipzig in 1917, under the title The Language of the Hittites; Its Structure and Its Membership in the Indo-European Linguistic Family.

}:)     [How old are you?  LOL!]

426 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:50:01pm

re: #410 Sharmuta

Maybe I need another list of BS arguments.

We should not discuss ID at LGF because:

A) They make people yawn
B) They attack my religion
C) This blog is supposed to be about islam!
D) Knickers may be twisted or even rankled
E) Charles Johnson has become obsessed
F) A combination of any or all of the above

/sorry- couldn't resist

427 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:51:33pm

re: #424 laZardo

Back, and yes, in a sense. I would think that since early humanity didn't have the scientific capabilities to learn about what we know now not only regarding the "forces beyond our control" but also the "forces within," they often ascribed it to "God" and left the details for later on, if they actually wanted to find them out later on, anyway.

And now some folks inexplicably wish to attribute perfect wisdom to those ancient indegenous tribesmen, when in fact, by saying GodDidIt, they were pulling a kangaroo:

When Europeans first landed in Australia, they saw brown animals with enormous legs hopping about like bunny rabbits on steroids. They also ran into some aboriginal natives. So they pointed to some of the hopping animals, and asked a native what they were called.

"Kang Ga Roo", he answered. And so they became known as kangaroos.

Only later, once the aboriginal tongue was understood, did the Europeans learn that the English translation of Kang Ga Roo is "I Don't Know."

428 Kulhwch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:52:09pm
re: #351 triumphguy
re: #343 theatheistjew

There are census of the time that document the man being alive and of the lineage that is claimed. These are historical facts. the existence of Jesus has long been proven

I'm all a-twitter over the evidence and citations that you're going to present to us to establish your claims here.

}:)     [Man, I'm like a kid on Xmas Eve!]

429 laZardo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:53:36pm

re: #426 Sharmuta


C) This blog is supposed to be about islam!

E) Charles Johnson has become obsessed

C) This blog is about the people who through their silence let radical Islamists get away with too many things to be considered good taste.

E) Charles Johnson is actually a lizard who evolved to take anthropomorphic form. His reptilian nature also helped him make such efficient use of his intellect that he has been able to construct his Underground Headquarters (mentioned somewhere in the FAQ, need to dig that out) without grabbing the attention of anyone save for ranting conspiracy theorists. (:

430 laZardo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:55:42pm

re: #427 Salamantis

Heh, I remember that bit of Aussie trivia back from one of those world cultural festivals back from my first grade.

Makes you wonder about these so-called "progressives" now. XD

431 swamprat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:55:57pm

One of the shortest crucifixions in the history of man. Typically poison was given to the victim to end his suffering. Vinegar was used to cover the bitter taste of the poison. If this were a fictitious account, why weren't facts like the suspicious shortness of Jesus' death covered up? Why wasn't his displays of crankiness, while fasting, edited out? Why show his backpedaling from a Jews-only messiah, to a ever'body-come-on-in-messiah? Why include his association with the violent zealot sect who were known to carry short swords hidden in their clothes for the express purpose of killing the occupying roman soldiers whenever possible? For a made up story, the Jesus saga certainly could have been better written.

432 swamprat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 9:57:50pm

re: #425 Kulhwch
"Asimov's Critique of the Bible" had them as totally mythical.

433 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 10:00:51pm

Actually, this blog is about exposing anti-idiotarians of all types to the cleansing disinfectant sunlight of public perusal. ALL types. That means that none of your cherished and treasured cows are sacred here; if they merit it, they'll be mercilessly and relentlessly gored along with all the other deserving oxen.

Those who wanted to excuse Serb atrocities learned this lesson. Those who wanted to ally with the Vlaams Belang and other eurofascists learned this lesson. And now the creationists who want to infect our country's public high school science classes with their fundamentalist religious memes are learning this lesson as well.

434 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 10:04:38pm

Umm...exposing IDIOTARIANS of all types...PIMF!

435 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 10:05:50pm

But then again, being shorn of one's sacred cows is how idiotarians can become anti-idiotarians...;~)

436 swamprat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 10:05:57pm

re: #434 Salamantis
We guys got yer meaning.

437 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 10:06:13pm

re: #433 Salamantis

One slight correction, my friend- LGF exposes idiotarians as Charles and the Lizards are anti-idiotarians.

438 Sharmuta  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 10:06:53pm

re: #434 Salamantis

Oh- you beat me to it- I took too long thinking and typing.

439 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 10:08:55pm

I think that having one's mutational sacred cows selected against by logic and evidence and falling extinct by the wayside must be how idiotarians evolve into anti-idiotarians...hehe...

440 laZardo  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 10:14:28pm

re: #439 Salamantis

I get the feeling that my nihilist beliefs might put me in the void between the two. Gonna get back to you on that though.

441 swamprat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 10:15:11pm

re: #431 swamprat I do believe post #431 is going to piss off two completely different sets of people. I love the smell of sacred cow cooking over an open fire!

442 Kulhwch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 10:19:24pm
re: #347 triumphguy
re: #338 Salamantis

This is true. The old testament dates back a looooong time, and though the centuries many tried to be the messiah and fulfill the prophecies of the OT. All that tried failed- except one. Jesus fulfilled every single one of them, which was a prophesy in itself.

From here:

"Every case of alleged fulfillment of messianic prophecy suffers from one of the following failings: (1) the alleged Old Testament prophecy is not a messianic prophecy or not a prophecy at all, (2) the prophecy has not been fulfilled by Jesus, or (3) the prophecy is so vague as to be unconvincing in its application to Jesus...

I have examined more than two dozen alleged messianic prophecies which Christian apologists claim are fulfilled by Jesus. Although there are many more claimed such prophecies (e.g., McDowell (1972) lists 61 in some detail and refers to numerous additional verses without details), these are by far the best examples, by the apologists' own reckoning.[9] This examination shows that none stands up as a specific, detailed, and accurate prediction of an event which came to occur in the life of Jesus. Instead, the purported prophecies appear to be the result of deliberate attempts by the gospel writers and Christian apologists to find post hoc similarities between events described in the New Testament and the Hebrew scriptures. Messianic prophecies, contrary to apologists, do not provide evidence for Christian faith."

From here:

"With unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible, even if there had been some fulfilled ones, they would, in effect, have gotten "canceled out". The law of probabilities would allow some prophecies to come true, just as a matter of coincidence, provided that many of them do not come true. Thus, it is important for the advocate of the Argument from the Bible to insert premise (2). As it turns out, since in fact none of the alleged remarkable fulfilled Biblical prophecies really turn out to be that, all of the unfulfilled ones mentioned are a kind of "overkill". They could have been used for "canceling-out" purposes, but are not needed for that after all."

And from here:

Later, I will examine several examples of these "imaginary prophecies," but a more logical place to begin examination of the prophecy-fulfillment argument would be with what, for lack of a better term, I will call "nonprophecies." These involve those cases where, although alleged prophecies were quoted or referred to by New Testament writers, Bible scholars have been unable to find the original statement. An example is found in John 7:38 where Jesus said, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." If Jesus was right in saying that scripture said this, just where was it said? No such statement in the Old Testament scriptures has ever been located, yet "the scripture" to Jesus would certainly have been the Old Testament. In this statement, then, we apparently have a fulfillment that was a fulfillment of--what? How could there be a fulfillment of a prophecy that was never even made?

See also this, this, and this pdf file, among many.

}:)     [Here's a good Biblical prohecy on the advent of Mohammed ... ]

443 Salem  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 10:51:13pm

Moo!... *SHUNK*

ARRRGH! BUT WHY?! Wotta world, wotta worldddd...UNG-

444 Kulhwch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:09:37pm
re: #432 swamprat
re: #425 Kulhwch

"Asimov's Critique of the Bible" had them as totally mythical.

I'd love a page number so I could look that up next time I'm over at a friend's house, as it's almost impossible to believe that Isaac was wrong about anything ...

All I seem able to find on the web about it would be this:

Asimov cited the Sumerian invention of the wheel which (along with the taming of wild horses) led ultimately to the chariots used by the Kassites to overrun Babylonia; the invention of metallurgy that resulted in the iron weapons of the Hittites which were, in turn, used by the Dorians who destroyed the Mycenean and Ionian Greek civilizations; the mounted cavalry and spears and shields of the Assyrian hordes; the technique for telling direction by the stars that enabled the Phoenicians (formerly the settled citizens of Canaan or Palestine) to become the invincible seafaring arm of the early Persian Empire until conquered by the Romans using the same technology; Alexander's successful use of the Theban phalanx and the catapult; the Roman legion formation and the roads used by the Goths to destroy the remnants of the empire in its waning days, and so on and on.

Now I don't know if that was a direct quotation or not.  Perhaps the problem can be solved by looking at this:

The Hittites:

Hittite ruins: Forty-eight times in the Scriptures, a people called the Hittites are mentioned. We find them blocking Israel's path as it sought to enter the promised land. We read of Uriah, the Hittite, whom David sent to his untimely death. However, in all the records of antiquity, not a reference to those people was to be found, and therefore, the skeptics attributed them to the imagination and fiction. In 1876, George Smith, began a study of monuments at a place called Djerabis in Asia Minor. This city proved out to be old Carchemish, a capital of the ancient Hatti. We now know that the Hatti were the Hittites of the Bible, who, according to Prof. A.H. Sayce, "contended on equal terms with both Egypt and Assyria." The Hittites not only proved to be a real people, but their empire was shown to be one of the great ones of ancient times.

If the Hittites of the Bible actually turned out to be the Hatti, while the Hittites were a 2nd people not mentioned in the Bible, that could explain everything.  I'll try to follow this up if you don't have a citation, but if you have one, I'd appreciate it, as it will annoy me until I know ...

}:)     [I understood Asimov to be a fact-checking son-of-a-gun!]

445 Kulhwch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:19:47pm

re: #431 swamprat

One of the shortest crucifixions in the history of man. Typically poison was given to the victim to end his suffering. Vinegar was used to cover the bitter taste of the poison. If this were a fictitious account, why weren't facts like the suspicious shortness of Jesus' death covered up? Why wasn't his displays of crankiness, while fasting, edited out? Why show his backpedaling from a Jews-only messiah, to a ever'body-come-on-in-messiah? Why include his association with the violent zealot sect who were known to carry short swords hidden in their clothes for the express purpose of killing the occupying roman soldiers whenever possible? For a made up story, the Jesus saga certainly could have been better written.

From here:

The length of time required to reach death could range from a matter of hours to a number of days, depending on exact methods, the health of the crucified person and environmental circumstances.

}:)     [How long should he have lasted in the story?]

446 swamprat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:23:11pm

re: #444 Kulhwch Page though it. It was right at the beginning. Of course this is though the lens of my fading memory.

447 slokat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:27:19pm

re: #427 Salamantis

That kangaroo story is a myth

448 Kulhwch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:34:32pm
re: #338 Salamantis
re: #188 littleO

re#175 Andy
Well said.
Also remember that a son of a virgin from Nazerath was the only ' Holy Man ' in history to claim to be the Son of the living God, and also under death threat.

Read The Hero With A Thousand Faces, by Joseph Campbell; different religions are chocked full of various and sundry avatars and messiahs.

Holy Mithra, Batman, look what I found:

Well everyone, it's that day. Today we celebrate a holiday which is birth date of a man born of a virgin, with lowly shepherds in attendance. He was a man known as "The Way," "The Truth," "The Light," "The Life," "The Word," "The Son of God," and "The Good Shepherd." In fact, he was often pictured carrying a lamb on his shoulders. Sunday, his Lord's Day, is considered sacred to him, and has been for some time. Today we celebrate his life with the traditional methods surrounding him: gifts, hymns, candles, bells, and perhaps even communion. This man died and was put into a rock tomb, but rose from it after only three days. Because he rose, his followers believe that there will someday be a day of judgment where nonbelievers will perish, and believers will go to paradise forever. That's right, today is THE Taurobolia in which we celebrate the Messiah Mithra. {A}

Ooops, waitaminit . . . I think I was confused there. Give me a second . . .

No, the man/Deity I speak of is someone different. Because of him, we know of a loving father God who is omniscient and concerned for our welfare, since we are his children. Because of him, we can look forward to the Kingdom of God, Heaven, and don't have to worry about Hell, since we know we will rise again after we die . . . he is often called the Sun, and he was later made the supreme Deity of the Roman Empire in his title of Sol Invictus. We know of his angels and archangels, and we know of Satan. But our beliefs, which concentrates on works rather than on faith, will sustain us. I'm speaking of, of course, our faith in Zarathushtra, and our religion of Zoroastrianism. {B}

Dang, that's not quite right either.

Okay, he was a Deity that was killed without a bone being broken. He is our symbol of immortality, and he and his father are one: he is the manifesting son of God. He is known as the light of the world, and is the way, the truth, and the life by name and in person. He is the one true plant (vine?). He came down from Heaven, and in him has been assigned Eternity. He is a light that drives away the darkness. He was baptized by someone known as the Baptizer, and was born in a place associated with bread. He is known as the good shepherd, and is often depicted with a lambing crook. He is the Lamb and the Lion, and is identified with the cross and referred to as the Crst. He is part of the Trinity . . . he is a son of a virgin and the son of the Supreme Deity. He was carried off by the Evil One to the mountain top, where they contended. A star indicated his birth, and he is known as both the bringer of peace and he who brings the sword. As a child, he taught in the temple, and later had twelve followers, attested to in the revelations written by another. I'm speaking of, of course, the God Horus. {C}

}:)     [1/3 continued next post ... ]

449 swamprat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:35:35pm

re: #445 Kulhwch
He should have lasted days. There is mention that Pilot was surprised at how quickly he died. He had to be off the cross or post by Passover, (which was the next day), for ceremonial reasons. They were going to break his legs, so that he would be unable to support his weight and would therefore suffocate more rapidly....But he was gone. Of the four accounts of his death. Not all show him to be stabbed but of the stabbing we are told "water" and blood run out. Here is some googlization, take a look. Skim through and see the various takes on the matter. Here.

450 Kulhwch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:40:03pm

}:)     [ 2/3 ... continued from previous post.]

All right, I've got it this time . . .

This Deity/Savior was immaculately conceived and born of a spotless virgin (attended by angels and shepherds), through the agency of a holy ghost and in accord with prophecy. At birth he was presented with frankincense, myrrh, etc. While an infant, he was threatened with death by the ruling tyrant, but his parents fled with him, the tyrant slaughtering all the male children under two years of age. He was saluted and worshipped as the savior of men, and lived a life of humility and practical moral usefulness. He wrought many astounding miracles, including healing the sick, restoring the sight of the blind, casting out devils, raising the dead to life, and so on. He was finally crucified between two thieves. Afterwards, he descended to Hell, rose from the dead, and ascended back to Heaven in the sight of all men, as his biblical history declares. I'm speaking, of course, of our savior Vrishna. {F}

Dammitalltohell.

He was born of a spotless virgin and led a life of deep humility and piety. He retired to the wilderness and fasted for forty days, was worshipped as a God, and was finally crucified between two thieves, after which he was buried and descended into Hell, but rose the third day. His name was Quexalcote . . . {F}

Uh . . .

He was born of a virgin, who was visited by an angel to tell her that she carried the young godling. He is considered to be god incarnate. His human father was a carpenter, though the child was of royal descent. He was called `Savior' and was without sin. He was crucified between two thieves. We shall meet him again on the great and final day of judgment. His name was, of course, Krishna . . . {F}

Well, something's clearly wrong here . . .

Abraham Ben Samuel Abulafia,
Christopher Columbus,
Geuiseppe Desa,
Hung Sin-tsuan,
Jan Bockelson,
Jemima Wilkenson,
Jesus Christ,
Joan of Arc,
Maitreya,
Orix Bovar,
Rabbi Menachem Schneerson,
Sabbatai Zebi . . . {D},

. . . no, this isn't getting anywhere

Akditi, Juck-Shilluck,
Ahriman, Kumani,
Ajbit+Alom-Bhol, Mahaskti,
Amon Re, Num,
Aten, Manibozho,
Bochica, Marduk,
Brahma, Maui,
Coyote, Pachacamac,
Dohit, Parica,
Gamab, Radogast,
Inti, Tengri,
Jar-Sub, Yahveh . . . {E},

. . . nor is this (flipping through list of Saviors many crucified):

Adad of Assyria,
Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece,
Alcides of Thebes,
Atys of Phrygia,
Baal & Taut `The Only Begotten of God' of Phoenecia,
Bali of Afghanistan,
Beddru of Japan,
Budha Sakia of India,
Cadmus of Greece,
Chrishna of Hindostan,
Crite of Chaldea,
Deva Tat, and Sammonocadam of Siam
Divine Teacher of Plato,
Fohi and Tien of China,
Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico,
Hesus of Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids,
Hil and Feta of the Mandaites,
Holy One of Xaca,
Indra of Tibet,
Ischy of the island of Formosa,
Ixion and Quirinus of Rome,
Jao of Nepal,
Mikado of the Sintoos,
Mohamud/Mohomet of Arabia. {F}
Odin of the Scandinavians,
Prometheus of Caucasus,
Salivahana of Bermuda,
Thammuz of Syria,
Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls,
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls,
Wittoba of the Bilingonese,
Xamolxis of Thrace,
Zoar of the Bonzes,
Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia,
Zulis/Zhule/Osiris/Orus of Egypt,

Well, to hell with it. Let's all just get drunk and go naked. Where's my presents? Happy and safe holidays to you and yours. <G>

}:)     [1/3 continued next post ... ]

451 Kulhwch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:42:20pm

}:)     [ 3/3 ... continued from previous post.]

SOURCES: (Though there are many sources listed here, they all in reality come from {D}, which has many articles and much information reprinted in the collection. I recommend it highly.)

{A} Information for this came from Volume 2, Issue 9, edition of The Edelen Letter, from September 1992.

{B} Information for this came from The World Bible, Edited by Robert O. Ballou.

{C} Churchward's book Of Religion, first published in 1924.

{D} The Book. Also called: The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read, edited by Tim C. Leedom, ISBN 0-8403-8908-6.

{E} Ye Gods by Anne Baumgartner.

{F} Kersey Graves, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, Truth Seeker Co., New York, 1875.

(C) Copyright 1998 by Richard Smith. Permission to repost freely given, as long as it is done so unaltered and unedited.

So, yeah, saviors born of a virgin, etc., aren't as uncommon as one might think ...

}:)     [ 3/3 ... whew.]

452 swamprat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:43:21pm

re: #445 Kulhwch Found a scource that said 36 hours. I thought longer than that. It depended on self support. That nail through the feet was what made it take so long.

453 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:51:56pm

re: #447 slokat

That kangaroo story is a myth

Oh well; another popular myth bites the dust. The analogy I made regarding the actions of the ancient indigenous Middle Eastern tribesmen, however, is not falsified by that fact.

454 swamprat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:51:57pm

re: #450 Kulhwch
I'm surprised that you have brought out how many messiahs were in Israel. The region was crawling with them(if those quoted were from that time and locality; my apologies) Josephus wrote of Jesus; he wasn't impressed.

455 swamprat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:53:11pm

re: #454 swamprat

I'm surprised that you have haven't brought out how many messiahs were in Israel. The region was crawling with them(if those quoted were from that time and locality; my apologies) Josephus wrote of Jesus; he wasn't impressed.

456 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:56:09pm

Well, there were plenty of Sons of God running around back then; in many cases, the presiding cleric at the marriage got first shot at the bride; children conceived of this union were known as Sons of God, i.e., Sons of the Faith.

457 swamprat  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:58:10pm

re: #456 Salamantis.. Interesting

458 Kulhwch  Sat, Aug 2, 2008 11:59:10pm
re: #449 swamprat
re: #445 Kulhwch

He should have lasted days. There is mention that Pilot was surprised at how quickly he died. He had to be off the cross or post by Passover, (which was the next day), for ceremonial reasons. They were going to break his legs, so that he would be unable to support his weight and would therefore suffocate more rapidly....But he was gone. Of the four accounts of his death. Not all show him to be stabbed but of the stabbing we are told "water" and blood run out. Here is some googlization, take a look. Skim through and see the various takes on the matter. Here.

So out hours of exhaustion, in the hot sun of the area, after carrying the cross and a scourging, etc., that would have drained anyone, and taking into your hint of poisoning, the stab in the side (unless you're saying the Bible is incorrect), and you still think he went too quick, even though, as pointed out above:

The length of time required to reach death could range from a matter of hours to a number of days, depending on exact methods, the health of the crucified person and environmental circumstances.

Not sure I see what your point in this is.  If you're saying that the Bible is inaccurate in how it happened, how do you know, what is your forensic evidence other than it doesn't seem right to you, or other than supposition?  If you're saying the fact that it doesn't seem right to you indicates how right it actually is, I'm lost in a loop on that one ... for if it was right and it was too short, then it was right and it was too short which was right, etc.

}:)     [I am trying hard to see your point but it's escaping me ... ]

459 Kulhwch  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:01:31am

Okay, my brain just officially shut off.  (Never buy one of those kerosine-powered brains, you'll be refilling them constantly!)  So I'm off to bed.

}:)     [Goodnight all.]

460 swamprat  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:27:08am

re: #458 Kulhwch
If the story was a lie, it should have been better written. The writers did not know about the do-gooders with their poisoned soaked sponge. They included his association with the "zealot" sect. They did not know that the romans commonly played the game "hot hand" with their prisoners. The ideal human/god mix wilted like a flower. A noble god should have gone for a week. (I've found claims victims lasting of three days, just now. The savior of mankind often sniped at his students, and made disparaging comments about his followers- Not perfect. He was real. And as I said Josephus knew of him. And thought very little of him. Jesus was real. We have paper on him, as it were. The question of deity is another matter.

461 swamprat  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 1:13:08am

re: #460 swamprat...And as I said Josephus knew of him
Further reseach is indicating the passages in Josphus' journals about Jesus are fraudulent. I was mis-informed as to their content. They are sacarine, fawning unrealist praises that somehow only raised their head around the forth century. To say that I now suspect them would be putting it mildly.

462 freetoken  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 1:58:57am

The Miller videos must have so devastated any remaining believers in ID here (excepting the hard-core YEC crowd).... that the discussion is essentially over ... thus the new discussions over the historicity of Jesus, etc.

I suspect that the remaining 44% of the US population that believes man was created (in current form) less than 10,000 years ago are unlikely to change their minds (the numbers haven't budged in over 26 years.) That the observations of archeology (collected data) have not changed the minds of this segment (44%) of the US population is an interesting in itself.

Do 44% of the LGF readers think likewise? Does the lack of any serious arguments in this thread against Ken Miller's presentations mean that the registered posters at LGF now significantly do not represent a cross section of American thinking on this topic?

463 swamprat  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 2:11:18am

re: #462 freetoken..... watch the vids. Then you will know why they are not being disputed. Hint. They are not "devastating". And you are not "informed".

464 swamprat  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 2:14:12am

re: #462 freetokenThe last five seconds of Video 8 might be of particular interst to one as nuanced as yourself.

465 freetoken  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 2:39:42am

re: #463 swamprat

..... watch the vids. Then you will know why they are not being disputed. Hint. They are not "devastating".

Well, I've watched the first four vids. My conjecture about their "devastating" quality arises from the absence of anyone here who actually defends the scientific value of Intelligent Design. What are left on these threads are usually just outright creationists who don't even bother to don a lab coat.

And you are not "informed".

About...?

466 freetoken  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 2:43:37am

re: #464 swamprat

Yes, the picture of the guy with the sex toys (?), which was discussed up thread.

And your point is...?

467 theatheistjew  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 4:40:51am

Charles should have just posted the one long video instead of the broken up version.
Here it is in its entirety. No funny pictures at the end.

468 AuntAcid  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 4:59:52am

Sounded like it might be interesting but for the annoying laugh track.

469 Scorch  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 5:08:24am

re: #407 theatheistjew
I have not seen more than a couple of people who support ID and not evolution. The overwhelming posts are those who believe in god and evolution. Well missed yours Sal but this is my response to you also.

re: #408 mossley
Sorry mate but you might want to go back and read the posts especially your reply to me since I made no argument for ID or evolution.

re: #416 Kulhwch
All you have to do is read the posts to see the paranoia on the part of some in here who truly fear anyones belief in God. I do not believe in ID but am a devout Christian who believes in evolution. Common sense everything evolves but there are also things we will never understand completely.

470 freetoken  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 5:15:49am

re: #467 theatheistjew

The version Charles posted is from Miller's visit to Texas, is it not? That would be more recent than the video to which you linked (of a presentation in Ohio.)

471 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 5:28:52am

re: #9 sattv4u2

they didn't play baseball during the civil war, silly !

Actually, there is a picture in Ken Burns' book on the Civil War of a baseball game between union troops stationed at Fort Pulaski, GA and dated 1862:

[Link: www.nps.gov...]

And it wasn't the first one (though this one is an engraving, not an actual photograph):

“The First Picture of a Baseball Game”

On Saturday, September 12, 1857, “Porter’s Spirit of the Times,” a weekly newspaper devoted to sports and theater, featured a woodcut that, as best as can be determined, was the first published image of a baseball game.

According to the caption, action was from a game between the Eagle and Gotham Base Ball Clubs played on Tuesday, September 8, 1857, at the Elysian Fields in Hoboken, New Jersey. These two clubs were among the very earliest organizations devoted to the game, both being founded in the early 1850s.

[Link: www.vbba.org...]

So, yes, federal troops did play baseball during the conflict.

472 theatheistjew  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 5:41:15am

re: #470 freetoken

The version Charles posted is from Miller's visit to Texas, is it not? That would be more recent than the video to which you linked (of a presentation in Ohio.)

My mistake. I thought Charles reposted the Dover video.

473 theatheistjew  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 5:43:57am

re: #469 Scorch

I have not seen more than a couple of people who support ID and not evolution. The overwhelming posts are those who believe in god and evolution. Well missed yours Sal but this is my response to you also.

re: #408 mossley
Sorry mate but you might want to go back and read the posts especially your reply to me since I made no argument for ID or evolution.

re: #416 Kulhwch
All you have to do is read the posts to see the paranoia on the part of some in here who truly fear anyones belief in God. I do not believe in ID but am a devout Christian who believes in evolution. Common sense everything evolves but there are also things we will never understand completely.


I have absolutely no fear in anyone's belief in God. It doesn't bother me at all, as long as it isn't used to blur the lines between separation of church and state, which includes putting ID into science classes.

474 Throbert McGee  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 5:58:11am

Heck, as long as we're arguing about Jesus, I might as well throw this in... something I wrote back in 2002:


Okay, let's put JC's life story in rough sequence, based on the New Testament and those Apocryphal "Infancy Gospels":


1. He's a totally adorable baby whom people shower with presents (Matt. 2:11) and whose used diapers even have magical healing powers! (Arab. Ch. 11)


2. When he gets a little older, we get to see Li'l Jesus hanging out with Muppet Babies versions of his future Apostles and other Gospel characters, like Li'l Judas and Li'l Simon the Canaanite. (Arab. Ch. 35) Unfortunately, Li'l Jesus has turned into a complete shit and goes around putting the hoodoo on people for the most trivial offenses, like when a Li'l Pharisee stomps on this clay fish-pond that Jesus made as an Arts 'n' Crafts project. (Thom. Lat. Ch. 4) Plus, he sasses back to his teacher, and then promptly makes the poor man shrivel up and die when the dude tries to apply a little discipline. Joseph, ever the sharp one, comments to Mary, "Do not let him go outside of the door, because those that make him angry die" (Thom. Gk 1. Ch. 14), thereby revealing this to be a very early draft of that Twilight Zone story about the kid who would wish people into the cornfield. But when his mom and dad call him on it, he finally relents and undoes all his dark magic (Thom. Lat. Ch. 6), which is almost exactly what happens in Joe Dante's happy-ending remake of "It's a Good Life" in the 1983 movie version!


3. Later, he's nicer to the teachers (even though they're confused by this gifted-track student), but a bit sassy to his parents when they come a-lookin' for him (Luke 2:43-49)


4. Fast-forward a few years, and he's using his powers for fun things like turning water into wine for the wedding at Cana. He's rude to Mary again, though... (John 2:1-11)

475 freetoken  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 6:09:54am

re: #472 theatheistjew

My mistake. I thought Charles reposted the Dover video.

They cover much of the same material, but the Texas presentation is more up to date. Nevertheless the video you posted is informative.

476 texasjihad  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 6:34:23am

re: #297 Salamantis

Let me state this again, for the eleventy-twelfth time. Sectarian religious dogma belongs in public high school science class about as much as scientific data belongs in the pulpit: not at all. When you confuse science and religion, you do violence to both of them, something our framers well understood, thank goodness.

This is the kind of lying sophistry that creationists want to inject into public high school science classes to pollute naive and trusting young minds:

[Link: ase.tufts.edu...]

The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one
established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory - but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing
forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality
of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.

Let me reply to this again, for the eleventy-twelfth time.
You are not nor are you likely to be compelling with this phony "science" your stating louder that it is science does not make it science. It is a very open debate. I am so sick and tired of secular humanists who worship their phony science and pushing this crap as science in the schools ---when it is simply your religion.
ALL schools teach religion and they always have and they always will-- I think the separation of school and state is much more reasonable in the post Christian era.
This is another reason to home school.
You should be happy-- you take my money and build schools that are out of control and your humanism does not work on a practical level--AND YOU STILL COMPLAIN.

477 ebed_melech  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 6:58:04am

A reminder of some important allegations against Kenneth Miller, though I cannot confirm these personally.

478 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:10:58am

re: #83 Racer X

Its OK to use tact and grace in these debates. LGF has lost too many good people because feelings were hurt.

Dramatic exits by the creationist folks who insist evolution proponents are "bashing Christianity" are the by-product of their über-delicate sensibilities. Nothing more.

Reminds me of the skin thickness of adherents of a certain non-Buddhist sect, whose über-delicate sensibilities cause them to play the victimhood card every chance they get.

479 freetoken  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:19:44am

re: #477 ebed_melech

Skimming through that paper.... I conclude that you overused the word "important". That paper is just taking potshots at Miller's book... though Miller's arguments could be made by many people.

As for your claim that you "cannot confirm these personally".... that is just a lazy man's excuse. If you really cared, you could read that book of Miller's, then look up the references listed in that review (to which you linked), and do some first hand thinking about these issues... and maybe come up with some insight about it.

480 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:22:42am

re: #84 Cognito

Quite possible, Sharmuta. But then again I can't recall ever making a list.

Here's the point: I can accept that people can be wrong, or just uninformed, without deserving mockery and derision. Good people can have misplaced opinions. They're still good.

Willful ignorance is inexcusable, more so when you attempt to hijack a public education system to peddle your religious beliefs. A big no-no in my book.

Let's be honest, shall we? The ID advocates don't want to teach ID in order to inject God into the science curriculum, they want their version of God shoved down other people's children's throats.

That's unconstitutional. But, first and foremost, it's utterly immoral.

481 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:26:11am

Durango Bill’s Views on Creationists:

Creationism = Willful Ignorance
Intelligent Design = Creationism in Drag
Creationists are Willfully Ignorant and Proud of it

[Link: www.durangobill.com...]

Pretty much sums it up, IMO.

482 ebed_melech  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:28:22am

Since there's been interest in the alternative 'explanation' for the 64Myr T rex soft tisses -here's a recent creationist take on the rather weak constructions, though as he rightly points out - it's unusal for red cells and soft tissues to last even 10s of years, let alone 1000s, (for millions requires an act of sheer faith in the miraculous powers of Nature - characeristic only of the religious materialist used to stretching his credulity daily by reciting his credo in abiogenesis!).
Also interesting the foul smell associated with recently broken dino fossils -in certain locations. The original illustrations from Science, which are included in this response, are still staggering.

Here's a useful site for debunking recent nonsense about messianic prophecies.

Here's something on the 'acquisition' of citrate metabolism in bacteria.

A little reminder for poor Christopher Hitchens, less able to see than his salamander.

Finally, for those who like Ken Miller and the geologists who for decades who rejected the massive Missoula flood*, also still scoff at the Biblical testimony to a globally catastropic deluge - here's another look at the Mongolian Tarbosaurus fossil, now housed in the Japanese Hayashibara Museum, Charles posted this interesting find a short while back.


Now, one last suggestion - what about critiquing these sources without resorting to ad hominem !

*The decades of harsh and utterly foolish opposition to J Harland Bretz' ideas (no creationist himself) on the Missoula flood form an excellent psychological case study in the dangers of peer review, antitheistic preconceptions and the herd effect in blinding the consensus of scientific opinion to the evidence.

483 ebed_melech  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:31:31am

re: #479 freetoken

Thank you freetoken, and I agree there is a certain laziness in not being able to check these facts, in due course I would like to examine them.
I also think though that given the degree of credence give Ken Miller on this site that it's reasonable to raise publically aired doubts about his honesty and integrity (Charles has done the same with other sites - probably in some cases without being check his primary sources (Wiki for example - which we all know can sometimes be wildly biased).

I would be happy to see them properly and publically refuted, and which place better than here.

484 theatheistjew  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:38:37am

re: #476 texasjihad

What does ID actually predict? What scientific hypothesis does ID postulate?

485 ebed_melech  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:42:05am

By the way, do the non catastrophists here still believe that fossils formed slowly and incrementally over millions of years,as I was taught at school?

How do they explain beds like those in the Californian shale capturing trillions of fish, captured in agony hundreds of feet deep?

How do they explain the colossal dinosaur graveyards, some containing millions of intact specimens, such as those in the S African Karroo formation? Isn't that potent evidence at the very least of a massive global catastrophe?

Seems to me - Gilgamesh for all its many faults is a better guide to Earth's history than much modern geology.

486 theatheistjew  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:46:15am

re: #485 ebed_melech

By the way, do the non catastrophists here still believe that fossils formed slowly and incrementally over millions of years,as I was taught at school?

How do they explain beds like those in the Californian shale capturing trillions of fish, captured in agony hundreds of feet deep?

How do they explain the colossal dinosaur graveyards, some containing millions of intact specimens, such as those in the S African Karroo formation? Isn't that potent evidence at the very least of a massive global catastrophe?

Seems to me - Gilgamesh for all its many faults is a better guide to Earth's history than much modern geology.

What were the dates for these catastrophies? There is a scientific explanation for the colossal dinosaur graveyards. When do you think it happened btw? And what dating process was used to come to your conclusion?

487 freetoken  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:46:53am

re: #482 ebed_melech


Finally, for those who like Ken Miller and the geologists who for decades who rejected the massive Missoula flood*, also still scoff at the Biblical testimony to a globally catastropic deluge - here's another look at the Mongolian Tarbosaurus fossil, now housed in the Japanese Hayashibara Museum, Charles posted this interesting find a short while back.

Just another Creation on the Web sermon. And, all of these sermons from CotW are a one note tune.... extolling the evils of "uniformitarianism". That is just code for "we know where we lost this battle... so let's just pretend we didn't notice it..."


Now, one last suggestion - what about critiquing these sources without resorting to ad hominem !

*The decades of harsh and utterly foolish opposition to J Harland Bretz' ideas (no creationist himself) on the Missoula flood form an excellent psychological case study in the dangers of peer review, antitheistic preconceptions and the herd effect in blinding the consensus of scientific opinion to the evidence.

You so distort the process of science... you simply don't want to accept that the process of acquiring knowledge is slow and incremental and takes hard work. Along this path of discovery lay many blind alleys and continual reevaluation. This is scary to you, for you only want to be told things for which you would never have to have doubt and with which you'd have to wrestle.

488 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:50:56am

re: #147 Naso Tang

That is what is called reminiscing about the good old days (remember do you?), when it's hard to make realistic comparisons with anything. 100 years ago Christians ruled the earth and proved it (close enough to 100) with things like the Scopes Trial.

Students of 100 years ago would not pass any class today based on the level of knowledge they needed then to be successful, versus what is needed today.

That there are problems with education is obvious, but to suggest that religion in school can cure that is ridiculous.

Oh, the good ole days when the wonders of miscegenation were still enforced in the US... Maybe we should turn back the clock a few hundred years more and BBQ some atheists while we're at it, per lifeofthemind's suggestion.

489 freetoken  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:51:54am

re: #483 ebed_melech


I also think though that given the degree of credence give Ken Miller on this site that it's reasonable to raise publically aired doubts about his honesty and integrity (Charles has done the same with other sites - probably in some cases without being check his primary sources (Wiki for example - which we all know can sometimes be wildly biased).

However, what you linked to was not "publically aired doubts about his honesty and integrity" by an objective third party. The Creation on the Web site is the vested interest against which Miller is arguing! Of course they will try to poo-poo Miller's arguments.

As for accusing Charles on what he does or does not check... obviously Charles is quite capable of defending himself, but I suggest that it is obvious that he is not a newcomer to this issue and is not making posts randomly.

490 theatheistjew  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:02:26am

Gallup Poll results in America 49% accept evolution. 48% don't.
The more education one has the more acceptance. The more church attendance, the less acceptance.
68% of Repubs don't believe in evolution
35% of Americans admits that they don't accept evolution because of religious reasons. Only 7% of Americans are brazen (dimwitted) enough to actually say that they don't believe in evolution because of lack of enough evidence.
I'm pretty sure there aren't too many biologists in that latter category.
Youtube video on the results.

491 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:11:38am

re: #480 A. van Hilten

Willful ignorance is inexcusable, more so when you attempt to hijack a public education system to peddle your religious beliefs. A big no-no in my book.

Let's be honest, shall we? The ID advocates don't want to teach ID in order to inject God into the science curriculum, they want their version of God shoved down other people's children's throats.

That's unconstitutional. But, first and foremost, it's utterly immoral.

I see the argument for unconstitutional, Al. But how would this line of argument impact you as a Spaniard?

492 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:17:49am

re: #161 stretch

we all need to be reminded that public school was started to give the poor a better chance and opportunity, not for the well-off to get a free ride.

That's why you want to use the public education system as a means to indoctrinate the poor, who obviously can't send their offspring to private schools nor homeschool them. You want to turn unprivileged children into second class citizens unfit to compete in a global marketplace of ideas.

In short, you favor keeping these children in poverty for the rest of their lives so your religious views can be vindicated. Are you sure you're not one Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright by any chance?

493 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:24:38am

re: #492 A. van Hilten

You want to turn unprivileged children into second class citizens unfit to compete in a global marketplace of ideas.

OH NOOOO ! The Secret Plan has been discovered !

494 Charles  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:25:14am

re: #483 ebed_melech

I also think though that given the degree of credence give Ken Miller on this site that it's reasonable to raise publically aired doubts about his honesty and integrity (Charles has done the same with other sites - probably in some cases without being check his primary sources (Wiki for example - which we all know can sometimes be wildly biased).

A creationist who constantly spews misinformation and laughable pseudo-science all over our comments is complaining about "bias."

The "doubts" about Ken Miller's honesty are being raised by one of the most dishonest, fanatically dogmatic groups in the United States, a group that you yourself are connected with.

What a joke.

495 lifeofthemind  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:28:54am

re: #488 A. van Hilten

Oh, the good ole days when the wonders of miscegenation were still enforced in the US... Maybe we should turn back the clock a few hundred years more and BBQ some atheists while we're at it, per lifeofthemind's suggestion.

You don't have enough grief that you have to go around gratuitously dragging people into your arguments? That was a stupid and uncalled for remark. You show the lack of courtesy that dooms any argument. Even if you are right you are wrong. Even if I agree with your basic position I can and will not support or defend you after such a slander.

496 RickZ  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:38:59am

What I found interesting in this talk by Prof. Miller is the process for textbook approval by the Texas Board of Ed. being so transparent. We've seen what happens with history/social studies textbooks when the process is backroom when it comes to whitewashed muslim history being taught our kids. With no transparency, the pressures exerted on certain individual board members, with no citizen oversight, can be enormous. For the future of science in the classroom, hence the future of our children and of our country, the textbook approval process should be open and transparent. Parents, more often than not, know better than their educator betters.

497 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:40:12am

re: #491 mama winger

I see the argument for unconstitutional, Al. But how would this line of argument impact you as a Spaniard?

Hey, 9/11 attacks, Palestinian terrorism, the Holocaust (and its denial), ETA bombings, etc. don't impact me either. So I guess I should borrow a page from Markos over at DKos and utter a heartily "screw them" in reference to all the victims.

That's how your "logic" works, after all.

BTW, unless you really want to dispell once and for all any doubts about your utter lack morality, I'd suggest that you drop the ad-hominem arguments presto. The fact that I live in Spain has nothing to do with the merit of my arguments, capisce, Mama Wingnut? (Further I suggest that you refrain from posting my first name, or I'll report your comment to the janitorial engineer asap.)

Unless, that is, you want me to draw attention to the fact that you do believe in "demonic possesions" and such, à la Bubba Djinnall.

You have no sense of decency, that's plain to see. But I've become accustomed to having religious zealots like you posting personal data about me, i.e. attacking me instead of my arguments, which you apparently can't counter with reason.

But, as you know, two can play this game.

So, tell us, how's your lupus?

498 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:42:51am

re: #495 lifeofthemind

You don't have enough grief that you have to go around gratuitously dragging people into your arguments? That was a stupid and uncalled for remark. You show the lack of courtesy that dooms any argument. Even if you are right you are wrong. Even if I agree with your basic position I can and will not support or defend you after such a slander.

Sorry to nitpick, but it's called libel when done in writing.

499 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:45:39am

re: #497 A. van Hilten

First, Where did I post your first name ? I'm puzzled here.

Secondly,

So I guess I should borrow a page from Markos over at DKos and utter a heartily "screw them" in reference to all the victims.

That's how your "logic" works, after all.

I do not recall saying anything to that effect. What I asked was a straightforward question. I wanted you know how the constutionality of an issue would impact you as a non-citizen. I wondered about it, so I asked.

I actually agree with you that it is unconstitutional.

As for my morality, I suppose you are free to make up anything you like.

As far as my Lupus, it is under control at the moment thanks to my wonderful doctor's help and care. He's muslim BTW. Thanks for asking. :)

500 yma o hyd  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:46:35am

re: #497 A. van Hilten

That is a very nasty personal attack, which simply has no place in any debate.

501 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:52:02am

{mama winger}

How are you this morning?

502 least  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:52:16am

re: #491 mama winger

. . . Al. But how would this line of argument impact you as a Spaniard?


Hey Ma!
If'n you want, you can call me Al!
:)
Apparently he just wants to be A

His posts do reflect his tendency to be an A [ I apologize in advance for this statement. Couldn't resist. I'm weak. ]

503 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:53:07am

re: #501 goddessoftheclassroom

Good morning Goddess! I'm doing well, thanks!

How are you doing? Is school soon to start for you? I can't believe it is August already.

504 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:54:20am

re: #503 mama winger

Good morning Goddess! I'm doing well, thanks!

How are you doing? Is school soon to start for you? I can't believe it is August already.

I go back to work August 21; school starts August 25.

It's been a good break, but I'm looking forward to going back.

505 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:54:27am

re: #499 mama winger

Mama! Good to see you. Heard you were back here and wanted to give you a big ole {squeeze}!

506 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:54:50am

re: #502 least

OH - I see it now! AL.

Shoot - I really meant to hit the period key. Sorry Van Hilton if I inadvertently published your name. I do apologize - it was truly accidental.

507 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:54:51am

re: #503 mama winger

Good morning Goddess! I'm doing well, thanks!

How are you doing? Is school soon to start for you? I can't believe it is August already.

Good morning mama.... ((mama winger))......

508 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:55:32am

re: #504 goddessoftheclassroom

I go back to work August 21; school starts August 25.

It's been a good break, but I'm looking forward to going back.

Too short. Vacations are too too short. Good for you for doing what you love so much, that it calls you forward.

509 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:55:47am

re: #497 A. van Hilten

Please do not be a jerk. That was totally uncalled for.

510 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:56:18am

re: #505 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Mama! Good to see you. Heard you were back here and wanted to give you a big ole {squeeze}!

BIIIIIIIIIIG Ole SQUEEEEEEEEZE !


{plumpish one}

511 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:56:41am

re: #507 doriangrey

Hey there dorian - how be you this fine day?

512 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:57:28am

re: #511 mama winger

Hey there dorian - how be you this fine day?

Feeling guilty about feeling soooo good.... lol...lol...lol....

513 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:57:49am

It's been nice to see you but I really have to run

take care and GO CUBBIES ! ! !

:)

514 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:57:51am

re: #497 A. van Hilten

Mama winger is one of the BEST Lizards here. You words reveal more about yourself than you realize.

515 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:58:12am

first place

btw

lol

516 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:58:18am

re: #513 mama winger

It's been nice to see you but I really have to run

take care and GO CUBBIES ! ! !

:)

Bye!

517 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:58:54am

{gotc}

You are such a sweetheart


really gotta run -

518 Lynn B.  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:04:44am

re: #514 goddessoftheclassroom

Mama winger is one of the BEST Lizards here. You words reveal more about yourself than you realize.

And not for the first time.

519 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:05:33am

re: #502 least

Hey Ma!
If'n you want, you can call me Al!
:)
Apparently he just wants to be A

His posts do reflect his tendency to be an A [ I apologize in advance for this statement. Couldn't resist. I'm weak. ]

MW should have used "A.H.

520 yochanan  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:09:16am

re: #497 A. van Hilten

bring in the holocoust/nazis into any arugument where it is not relivant proves the person in question has no morals and or knowage of what the holocoust was.

but then A. van Hilten you don't suprise me.

521 yochanan  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:11:05am

i personally don't believe in I.D OR CREATIONISM at all but i just find A VAN HILTEN attacks to be more of a problem than the issue at all.

522 yochanan  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:12:52am

mama winger is a nice lady and i will have her back even if i disagree with the subject in question.

523 JeremyR  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:14:32am

re: #497 A. van Hilten

Charles, you need to have a section with the top ten that includes some bottom ones as well. It would be interesting I'm sure.

524 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:15:05am

re: #521 yochanan

i personally don't believe in I.D OR CREATIONISM at all but i just find A VAN HILTEN attacks to be more of a problem than the issue at all.

I agree.

It is entirely possible to have discussions and disagreements without being rude and insulting. And in fact, the power of a person's arguments, imo, loses its punch when ensconced in rude and insulting language. It just isn't necessary.

525 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:28:47am

re: #497 A. van Hilten

. . . You have no sense of decency, that's plain to see. But I've become accustomed to having religious zealots like you posting personal data about me, i.e. attacking me instead of my arguments, which you apparently can't counter with reason.

But, as you know, two can play this game.

So, tell us, how's your lupus?

You wrote the above to Mama Winger.

Any "arguments" you may have get lost in the sheer hatefulness of your insults.

And what are you afraid of, that you come back to threads that almost no one is looking at any more, to spew your hate?

526 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:30:51am

re: #500 yma o hyd

That is a very nasty personal attack, which simply has no place in any debate.

Actually, it was Mama Nutwinger who opened Pandora's box of personal attacks by indulging in some very "un-Christian" gratuitious and groundless speculation about my identity as soon as I made the mistake of revealing the tidbit that I do post here under my real name.

She, OTOH, has let it be known that she suffers from lupus. She's the one shooting the messenger here. If she wants to play that nasty game, then her lupus is fair game too.

527 yochanan  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:32:56am

well I do want the cubbies to make it to the world series SO WE CAN BEAT THEM

GO WHITE SOX.

the chicago media is in the tank for the cubbies as much as they are in the tank for obama.

528 yochanan  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:35:06am

re: #526 A. van Hilten

your posts prove how low you are.

i am a big boy i can take it but then i suspect big boys might scare you

529 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:36:19am

re: #526 A. van Hilten

Actually, it was Mama Nutwinger who opened Pandora's box of personal attacks by indulging in some very "un-Christian" gratuitious and groundless speculation about my identity as soon as I made the mistake of revealing the tidbit that I do post here under my real name.

She, OTOH, has let it be known that she suffers from lupus. She's the one shooting the messenger here. If she wants to play that nasty game, then her lupus is fair game too.

So, you reveal that you post here under your real name, and then you're upset because someone else mentions a fact that you yourself have revealed to everyone?

lol. I guess you would be happy if everyone else just shut up and let you drone on.

530 yochanan  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:38:51am

i think we have beaten this horse's patoot enough.

531 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:40:44am

re: #530 yochanan

i think we have beaten this horse's patoot enough.

he keeps showing up, I guess trying to get the last word. I'm going to keep checking.

532 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:42:50am

re: #525 reine.de.tout

You wrote the above to Mama Winger.

Any "arguments" you may have get lost in the sheer hatefulness of your insults.

And what are you afraid of, that you come back to threads that almost no one is looking at any more, to spew your hate?

Care to discuss the issue (which is ID and not my country of residence, FYI) instead of questioning my motives? Ah, just what I thought. It's about me, not my arguments.

C'mon, you've gotta be kiddin' me. If you have actually read my response to Mama Nutwinger, then you should be aware that she was lurking on this thread at the same time I was posting here... Hence my reply to her comment addressing an earlier comment of mine. And I'm the lurker? Whatever, ma'am.

Again, the thread is not about me, it's about some religious bigots injecting their creationist drivel into public education or attempting to do so under false pretenses.

533 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:49:36am

re: #532 A. van Hilten

Care to discuss the issue (which is ID and not my country of residence, FYI) instead of questioning my motives? Ah, just what I thought. It's about me, not my arguments.

C'mon, you've gotta be kiddin' me. If you have actually read my response to Mama Nutwinger, then you should be aware that she was lurking on this thread at the same time I was posting here... Hence my reply to her comment addressing an earlier comment of mine. And I'm the lurker? Whatever, ma'am.

Again, the thread is not about me, it's about some religious bigots injecting their creationist drivel into public education or attempting to do so under false pretenses.

I've already discussed the issue. Care to pay attention?

I'm lurking too. There. "Lurking" is not the issue. The issue is "lurking" for the purpose of spewing unnecessarily hateful and arrogant bull.

I have no problem with people who have faith or people who have none. And I not on the ID side of this argument, far from it.

It is possible to have a disagreement and argue points without being a bully.

I do not want creationists inserting their brand of faith into education. But neither do I want atheists inserting atheistic drivel into education either. It's just as wrong. But I can write out my arguments on this without resorting to the bullying tactic of insulting people. Your comments are full of insults, from the get-go. And you are surprised when people don't like it.

534 jorline  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:56:07am

re: #526 A. van Hilten

Actually, it was Mama Nutwinger who opened Pandora's box of personal attacks by indulging in some very "un-Christian" gratuitious and groundless speculation about my identity as soon as I made the mistake of revealing the tidbit that I do post here under my real name.

She, OTOH, has let it be known that she suffers from lupus. She's the one shooting the messenger here. If she wants to play that nasty game, then her lupus is fair game too.

Very tacky...even for you AVH. I've heard about your vile comments, after reading your post here and other threads I see they weren't bullshitting.

Advise...state your point respectfully and let the chips fall where they may. Condescending, low blow remarks never enhance your arguments.

535 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:56:23am

re: #529 reine.de.tout

So, you reveal that you post here under your real name, and then you're upset because someone else mentions a fact that you yourself have revealed to everyone?

lol. I guess you would be happy if everyone else just shut up and let you drone on.

I have never revealed my first name. Get it? However, lil' Mama Winger and her clique of religious zealots deemed appropriate to scorn me on account of my real identity, but these people are so mentally challenged that, at first, they got the wrong guy: one Joost A. van Hilten. Now, they know exactly who I am, and have divulged my first name at least in another thread, which is tantamount to giving away my phone number and email address. This is information I have not volunteered, and has nothing to do with the topic under discussion in this or any other thread. Period.

It's considered personally identifiable information/data and hence off limits in an Internet discussion (unless you intend to harass me).

That's everything you need to know about them. That's the kind of spiteful, mean, twisted persons they are. They can't address any of my arguments, so they try to dig as much dirt as they can about me.

536 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:58:45am

re: #535 A. van Hilten


That's everything you need to know about them. That's the kind of spiteful, mean, twisted persons they are. They can't address any of my arguments, so they try to dig as much dirt as they can about me.

Poor innocent as the driven snow little you.

537 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:59:24am

re: #534 jorline

Very tacky...even for you AVH. I've heard about your vile comments, after reading your post here and other threads I see they weren't bullshitting.

Advise...state your point respectfully and let the chips fall where they may. Condescending, low blow remarks never enhance your arguments.

OTOH, using my real identity to try and smear me is a class act... The Christian thing to do. I see where you are coming from. And I'm not impressed in the least. Nice company you keep, "jorline."

538 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:01:23am

re: #537 A. van Hilten

OTOH, using my real identity to try and smear me is a class act... The Christian thing to do. I see where you are coming from. And I'm not impressed in the least. Nice company you keep, "jorline."

About as classy as hiding behind an anonymous nic while hurling insults.

539 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:01:25am

re: #536 doriangrey

Poor innocent as the driven snow little you.

I gather you're one of those zealots who have no problem dragging another person's name through the mud in order to make your point. Too bad it isn't working.

540 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:01:56am

re: #535 A. van Hilten

Apparently you did not read my post above where I said that the typo was just that. I did then and do now apologize for the inadvertant error which resulted in the apparent typing out of your actual first name.

It was meant to be a period, and became an l instead. I do not know what more to say than that I am sorry for the unfortunate circumstance that has caused this upset.

Say what you will against me, but please do not keep repeating this error as 'proof' of what you perceive as my evil intentions towards you.

Of which, btw, I have none.

541 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:02:41am

re: #539 A. van Hilten

I gather you're one of those zealots who have no problem dragging another person's name through the mud in order to make your point. Too bad it isn't working.

You gather wrong, your comments are insulting and vile and have no place in any civil discourse.

542 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:02:49am

re: #538 doriangrey

About as classy as hiding behind an anonymous nic while hurling insults.

You obviously need to learn how to read... something other than the Bible, simpleton.

543 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:03:38am

re: #542 A. van Hilten

You obviously need to learn how to read... something other than the Bible, simpleton.

Over the line.

544 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:04:20am

re: #542 A. van Hilten

You obviously need to learn how to read... something other than the Bible, simpleton.

Physician heal thy self.

545 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:08:56am

re: #539 A. van Hilten

I gather you're one of those zealots who have no problem dragging another person's name through the mud in order to make your point. Too bad it isn't working.

Where did you get that from? That's a heck of an assumption. What happened to your "logic"?

546 jorline  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:10:46am

re: #537 A. van Hilten

OTOH, using my real identity to try and smear me is a class act... The Christian thing to do. I see where you are coming from. And I'm not impressed in the least. Nice company you keep, "jorline."

I never said it was the "Christian thing to do", AVH...and that they appologized. I see where you're coming from as well and it's from a much lower plain. At least the company I keep will not stoop to your level. Again, state your point of view and move on. You sound smart enough to present your point of view without resorting to name calling and nasty comments.

Have a great day.

547 jorline  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:12:15am

re: #546 jorline

I never said it was the "Christian thing to do", AVH...and that they apologized. I see where you're coming from as well and it's from a much lower plain. At least the company I keep will not stoop to your level. Again, state your point of view and move on. You sound smart enough to present your point of view without resorting to name calling and nasty comments.

Have a great day.

pimf for the apologized...too quick on the trigger...LOL

548 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:14:31am

re: #535 A. van Hilten

I have never revealed my first name. . . . Now, they know exactly who I am, and have divulged my first name at least in another thread, which is tantamount to giving away my phone number and email address. This is information I have not volunteered, and has nothing to do with the topic under discussion in this or any other thread. Period.

It's considered personally identifiable information/data and hence off limits in an Internet discussion (unless you intend to harass me).. . .

You post under A. van Hilten. You yourself have revealed that you post under your real name. A. van Hilten is plenty enough "identifying" information for anyone to find out who you are.

You set yourself up on this, and now you want to blame someone else. And you want to ensconce that blame in the vilest possible language.

You want everyone else to go away (or you come into a thread that appears to be closed) so that you can write out your deep thoughts without having to address anyone who might disagree. You're a coward.

549 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:15:50am

re: #540 mama winger

Apparently you did not read my post above where I said that the typo was just that. I did then and do now apologize for the inadvertant error which resulted in the apparent typing out of your actual first name.

It was meant to be a period, and became an l instead. I do not know what more to say than that I am sorry for the unfortunate circumstance that has caused this upset.

Say what you will against me, but please do not keep repeating this error as 'proof' of what you perceive as my evil intentions towards you.

Of which, btw, I have none.

Mama, I'm afraid you already showed your true colors when you Googled my name and came up with that "Joost A. van Hilten." You even accused me of "stealing blood." (I'd hope that was tongue-in-cheek, but I'm at a point now, after so many ID threads, where irony and sarcasm are lost on me.)

And you haven't been the only one at LGF who's resorted to Googling my name, BTW.

And you keep questioning my motives instead of addressing the meirts of my arguments.

I live in Spain, and I'm sure lots of people here commenting on this issue are NOT american citizens / residents. So why take up issue with my place of residence? Why the need to resort to an ad-hominem?

Obviously, if you didn't have that information you wouldn't be smearing me on account of that. You are using whatever information you have to shut me down.

But it won't work.

550 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:17:51am

re: #549 A. van Hilten

You are using whatever information you have to shut me down.

Really ?

I think you may have over-estimated the importance you have in my life.

By all means - post away.

551 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:19:01am

re: #550 mama winger

Really ?

I think you may have over-estimated the importance you have in my life.

By all means - post away.

plus plus plus plus plus!

552 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:20:29am

re: #543 mama winger

Over the line.


Of course, smearing me using one Joost A. van Hilten as a pretext wasn't, because you were doing it for a just cause. What a little hypocrite you are, Ms. Biblethumper.

553 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:23:05am

re: #552 A. van Hilten

As enlightening as this discussion, is Aperiod, I have to get back to my band of religious zealots. We are short one brass player. You don't by any chance know how to blow your own trumpet, do you? We are always looking for fresh talent.

have a good one

554 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:24:42am

re: #550 mama winger

Really ?

I think you may have over-estimated the importance you have in my life.

By all means - post away.

Ooops. Sorry. I assumed you were actually addressing me and questioning my motives since I "come back to threads that almost no one is looking at any more." My bad.

555 jorline  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:36:39am

re: #554 A. van Hilten

Ooops. Sorry. I assumed you were actually addressing me and questioning my motives since I "come back to threads that almost no one is looking at any more." My bad.

Read the last line of your #491 AVH...what an ass-hat, a real class act.
Have a great time in this thread and post away.

556 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:37:41am

re: #548 reine.de.tout

You post under A. van Hilten. You yourself have revealed that you post under your real name. A. van Hilten is plenty enough "identifying" information for anyone to find out who you are.

You set yourself up on this, and now you want to blame someone else. And you want to ensconce that blame in the vilest possible language.

You want everyone else to go away (or you come into a thread that appears to be closed) so that you can write out your deep thoughts without having to address anyone who might disagree. You're a coward.


"A. van Hilten is plenty enough 'identifying' information for anyone to find out who you are."

Well, apparently religious zealots in the US aren't computer savvy enough to Google my actual name and come up with any relevant results, as Mama Nutwinger's discovery of my quasi-namesake (poor ole "Joost A. van Hilten", I wonder if we're somehow related) reveals.

And since I didn't volunteer my first name, it does remain off-limits to you, no matter how you look at it.

But even if I had volunteered that information it would still be wrong to go after me because of who I am (this fits the definition of "character assassination" to a tee), instead of refuting my arguments.

This even a thick-as-a-brick, madrassah-going Disco Freak should understand.

557 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:40:06am

re: #555 jorline

Read the last line of your #491 AVH...what an ass-hat, a real class act.
Have a great time in this thread and post away.

If my opinions are so irrelevant and my arguments so easily dismissed, then why do you people go ballistic over a mere difference of opinion?

558 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:42:47am

re: #556 A. van Hilten

"A. van Hilten is plenty enough 'identifying' information for anyone to find out who you are."

Well, apparently religious zealots in the US aren't computer savvy enough to Google my actual name and come up with any relevant results, as Mama Nutwinger's discovery of my quasi-namesake (poor ole "Joost A. van Hilten", I wonder if we're somehow related) reveals.

And since I didn't volunteer my first name, it does remain off-limits to you, no matter how you look at it.

But even if I had volunteered that information it would still be wrong to go after me because of who I am (this fits the definition of "character assassination" to a tee), instead of refuting my arguments.

This even a thick-as-a-brick, madrassah-going Disco Freak should understand.

So, you believe it's wrong to go after someone because of who they are, because that is "character assassination"?

Your own words to others here makes it appears that you believe it's only wrong to go after YOU, but you going after anyone else is fair game.

Hypocrite, AND coward.

559 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:43:44am

re: #557 A. van Hilten

If my opinions are so irrelevant and my arguments so easily dismissed, then why do you people go ballistic over a mere difference of opinion?

Nobody is going ballistic over a mere difference of opinion, whats bothering people is the disrespect and insulting manner you address anyone who disagrees with you.

560 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:47:15am

re: #558 reine.de.tout

So, you believe it's wrong to go after someone because of who they are, because that is "character assassination"?

Your own words to others here makes it appears that you believe it's only wrong to go after YOU, but you going after anyone else is fair game.

Hypocrite, AND coward.

Want some cheese with that whine, ma'am?

I went after Mama Nutjob once she imparted some of her Christian wisdom by smearing me on another thread. It's called self-defense, in case you're wondering.

561 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:48:18am

re: #560 A. van Hilten

Want some cheese with that whine, ma'am?

I went after Mama Nutjob once she imparted some of her Christian wisdom by smearing me on another thread. It's called self-defense, in case you're wondering.

No it's not, it's called childish and immature behavior un befitting civil discourse.

562 jorline  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:51:17am

re: #557 A. van Hilten

If my opinions are so irrelevant and my arguments so easily dismissed, then why do you people go ballistic over a mere difference of opinion?

My comment and that of a lot of other people had nothing to do with the relevancy of your arguments, AVH. Please read my last post again...slowly if you have to, hell, you can even follow it with your finger if it helps. I said your LAST comment in #491 about mama winger was uncalled for. If you can't figure out that people are pissed at you for the arrogant way in which you present yourself and the nastiness of your comment...there's no hope for you.
As I state twice before, believe and post your opinion all you want...just do it in a respectful manor. If someone as a different opinion as your's...so be it. Agree to disagree, but keep the peace.

Rooms all yours AVH.

563 jorline  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:54:16am

re: #559 doriangrey

Nobody is going ballistic over a mere difference of opinion, whats bothering people is the disrespect and insulting manner you address anyone who disagrees with you.

Hell, dorian just said the same thing I told you in #592, AVH...starting to see the parallel? Wake up and smell the coffee.

564 jorline  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:56:24am

re: #563 jorline

Hell, dorian just said the same thing I told you in #592 559, AVH...starting to see the parallel? Wake up and smell the coffee.

fixed

565 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:57:04am

re: #563 jorline

Hell, dorian just said the same thing I told you in #592, AVH...starting to see the parallel? Wake up and smell the coffee.

All AHV can see is mean old religious zealots ganging up on poor little him. He has done nothing wrong in his own eyes and cannot understand why he is being chastised for defending his honor.

566 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:57:21am

re: #559 doriangrey

Nobody is going ballistic over a mere difference of opinion, whats bothering people is the disrespect and insulting manner you address anyone who disagrees with you.

This is from the guy who accused me of "hiding behind an anonymous nic while hurling insults."

Look if you want to be taken seriously, the first thing you need to do is to not make a fool of yourself by claiming I "hide behind an anonymous nic."

We're having this discussion (completely unrelated to ID / DI, BTW) because Mama Nutwinger saw it fit to derail the thread using my personal information as a pretext and has done so in the past to the point of stalking me through the threads.

If I were to "hide behind an anonymous nic" none of this BS would be happening. Get it?

567 Scorch  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:59:40am

re: #492 A. van Hilten

OMG! Like I said earlier paranoia running rampant in these posts.

568 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:01:46am

re: #562 jorline

My comment and that of a lot of other people had nothing to do with the relevancy of your arguments, AVH. Please read my last post again...slowly if you have to, hell, you can even follow it with your finger if it helps. I said your LAST comment in #491 about mama winger was uncalled for. If you can't figure out that people are pissed at you for the arrogant way in which you present yourself and the nastiness of your comment...there's no hope for you.
As I state twice before, believe and post your opinion all you want...just do it in a respectful manor. If someone as a different opinion as your's...so be it. Agree to disagree, but keep the peace.

Rooms all yours AVH.

Your lips say no, but your keyboard says yes. You dudettes can't have enough of me? I mean, you keep coming back for more. Must be doing something right to tick the likes of you off.

569 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:01:55am

re: #566 A. van Hilten

This is from the guy who accused me of "hiding behind an anonymous nic while hurling insults."

Look if you want to be taken seriously, the first thing you need to do is to not make a fool of yourself by claiming I "hide behind an anonymous nic."

We're having this discussion (completely unrelated to ID / DI, BTW) because Mama Nutwinger saw it fit to derail the thread using my personal information as a pretext and has done so in the past to the point of stalking me through the threads.

If I were to "hide behind an anonymous nic" none of this BS would be happening. Get it?

That is not an accusation, it is a statement of FACT. The definition of anonymous is that no one knows who you really are. Mama winger made it perfectly clear that posting your first name was entirely accidental, and had you yourself not confirmed that it was in fact your name you would have remained anonymous.

570 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:04:37am

Just a theory...funny how humans think they know everything. LOL.
Where did matter come from? Just wondering.

571 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:05:22am

re: #567 Scorch

OMG! Like I said earlier paranoia running rampant in these posts.

And here comes the ultimate lurker with 91 posts under his belt during a FOUR YEAR time span... Not bad for a prolific writer.

Sock puppet much?

572 swamprat  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:05:53am

re: #463 swamprat I see that charles has dinged me down for this. I found this strange. I feel that video 8 very elegantly shows why religion and evolution should not be considered to be at odds with one another. My comment about being "informed" was a jib at you for not watching the vids. The other comment was, of course a worthless and undeserved flame. Charles down-ding has me wondering.

573 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:07:32am

re: #566 A. van Hilten

We're having this discussion (completely unrelated to ID / DI, BTW) because Mama Nutwinger saw it fit to derail the thread using my personal information as a pretext and has done so in the past to the point of stalking me through the threads.

Oh dear.

Stalking you?

I asked you a question about your interest in US Constitutional law. I searched my nic for the last 30 days and I find no posts even addressing you.

This is stalking?

I think that word does not mean what you think it means.

574 texasjihad  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:10:50am

re: #484 theatheistjew

What does ID actually predict? What scientific hypothesis does ID postulate?

And what explanation for life does an atheist make.
The more we see the more evidence for thoughtful design is amassed.
The God hater Richard Dawkins thinks aliens brought it--nice.

575 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:12:43am

re: #574 texasjihad

That's not an answer to the question that was posed.

576 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:13:35am

re: #569 doriangrey

That is not an accusation, it is a statement of FACT. The definition of anonymous is that no one knows who you really are. Mama winger made it perfectly clear that posting your first name was entirely accidental, and had you yourself not confirmed that it was in fact your name you would have remained anonymous.

You obviously suffer from a serious reading comprehension impairment bordering on dysfunctional.

I'll explain it again: I post here under my actual name. The fact that my first name is abbreviated doesn't make it "an anonymous nic."

Learn how to read before you post.

577 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:14:52am

re: #573 mama winger

Oh dear.

Stalking you?

I asked you a question about your interest in US Constitutional law. I searched my nic for the last 30 days and I find no posts even addressing you.

This is stalking?

I think that word does not mean what you think it means.

But I thought you were gone? Comin' back for more? You've just made my point, BTW.

578 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:15:09am

re: #574 texasjihad

And what explanation for life does an atheist make.
The more we see the more evidence for thoughtful design is amassed.
The God hater Richard Dawkins thinks aliens brought it--nice.


You do realize that technically speaking God is an Alien, right? Since God was not born on planet earth he is an alien intelligence.

579 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:17:50am

re: #576 A. van Hilten

You obviously suffer from a serious reading comprehension impairment bordering on dysfunctional.

I'll explain it again: I post here under my actual name. The fact that my first name is abbreviated doesn't make it "an anonymous nic."

Learn how to read before you post.

You are wrong, leaving your name incomplete for the purpose of concealing your identity is the classic definition of anonymity.

580 swamprat  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:19:24am

re: #444 Kulhwch


I'd love a page number so I could look that up next time I'm over at a friend's house, as it's almost impossible to believe that Isaac was wrong about anything ...


Look on the very first page. I think it is near a part where he gives small, nodding credit to something like(paraphrased) itinerant, nomadic sheepherders getting it right about life coming from water before land. It is in the Genesis section, at the beginning.

581 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:21:12am

went back thru June too

I don't see anythin

I'm gonna go look up the definition of stalking

in my funk and wagnall's

582 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:22:12am

re: #576 A. van Hilten

You obviously suffer from a serious reading comprehension impairment bordering on dysfunctional.

I'll explain it again: I post here under my actual name. The fact that my first name is abbreviated doesn't make it "an anonymous nic."

Learn how to read before you post.

And you, sir, seem to be suffering from a logic comprehension impairment bordering on dysfunctional.

Here again, you yourself make it clear that you post under your real name

And yet you said the vilest things to Mama Winger for accidentally typing your real name, for which she apologized (at least twice, by my count), and then you have continued to pile on.

583 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:28:00am

re: #579 doriangrey

You are wrong, leaving your name incomplete for the purpose of concealing your identity is the classic definition of anonymity.

Oh, boy.

You really need to get an education, don't you? Fortunately for you, Wikipedia can help you get started on the road to literacy:

In information security and privacy, PII is any piece of information which can potentially be used to uniquely identify, contact, or locate a single person. Whilst the acronym PII is commonly used, there is no common or agreed use of the words from which it is created. Common variants are personal identifiable information, personally identifiable information, personal identifying information and personally identifying information.

One can even find personal identified information in Google.

Although the concept of PII is ancient, it has become much more important as information technology and the Internet have made it easier to collect PII, leading to a profitable market in collecting and reselling PII. PII can also be exploited by criminals to stalk or steal the identity of a person, or to plan a person's murder or robbery, among other crimes. As a response to these threats, many web site privacy policies specifically address the collection of PII, and lawmakers have enacted a series of legislation to limit the distribution and accessibility of PII.

Repeat after me:

"any piece of information which can potentially be used to uniquely identify, contact, or locate a single person."

584 Irish Rose  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:28:31am

Seriously folks, can't you find something better to do on a beautiful summer Sunday afternoon?

I'll bet that Charles has something that he'd rather be doing.

Unfortunately, though, he's stuck having to sit here and babysit "mature" adults who have nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon than call each other names, and fling poo at each other.

585 swamprat  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:31:36am

re: #465 freetoken

My apologies for being snarky. If you think you are too drunk to post, you are.

586 mama winger  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:32:11am

re: #584 Irish Rose

You are quite right, Irish Rose. This has become pointless.

587 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:34:25am

re: #582 reine.de.tout

And you, sir, seem to be suffering from a logic comprehension impairment bordering on dysfunctional.

Here again, you yourself make it clear that you post under your real name

And yet you said the vilest things to Mama Winger for accidentally typing your real name, for which she apologized (at least twice, by my count), and then you have continued to pile on.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

I volunteered personal information: "A. van Hilten."

I didn't disclose my first name.

You have no right whatsoever to disclose my first name, at least according to this blog's rules (which is, incidentally, why Stinky deleted part of a comment where other poster had purposefully revealed my first name).

Get it?

588 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:35:11am

re: #586 mama winger

You are quite right, Irish Rose. This has become pointless.

Agreed. I'm going.

MamaWinger - know that you are highly thought of and folks just won't take to you being treated rudely, including some of us who disagree with you about other things.

Have a great day!

589 swamprat  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:35:42am

Please guys. Intelligent and informed debate. We might pick up a little knowledge as we proceed. You never know.

590 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:36:21am

re: #570 tex68

You are a child, with your petty dings.

591 swamprat  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:36:28am

re: #585 swamprattired

592 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:38:02am

re: #583 A. van Hilten

Repeat after me:

"any piece of information which can potentially be used to uniquely identify, contact, or locate a single person."

anonymous
One entry found.

anonymous


Main Entry:
anon·y·mous Listen to the pronunciation of anonymous
Pronunciation:
ə-ˈnä-nə-məs
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anōnymos, from a- + onyma name — more at name
Date:
1631

1 : not named or identified

593 Spar Kling  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:39:54am

The video by Ken Miller was informative and entertaining--actually far more so than most TV celebrities, and I certainly would have enjoyed taking some of my college biology classes from him!

Dr. Miller recognizes the astounding capabilities of DNA and respects people of faith who believe God had a hand in all this. I completely agree with him that science should be unfettered by dogmatism of any kind, yet subject itself to criticism by peer review, and that religious opinion is not relevant in science classes and should never be a part of any science curriculum.

Furthermore, I don't have a problem with accepting evolutionary mechanisms--and I once did believe in evolution--but there are serious problems about current explanations on scientific (not religious) grounds.

Just as in law or with political disputes, it's important to consider both sides of any issue. I do this before voting on propositions and you probably do so as well.

Here are a few disagreements that I have regarding the points he made in his presentation:

- Peer review is necessary but flawed (I've provided a peer review on one occasion and have been reviewed on other occasions). Unfortunately, the prejudices of the reviewers will sometimes prevent publication of well-researched papers and approve others that were flawed. As Dr. Miller well knows, ID articles have been routinely excluded from publication and broad scientific scrutiny--some very deservedly so, others not.

- His critique of irreducible complexity is overly simplistic and unconvincing. So, I'll also use an admittedly over-simplified illustration in return: a mousetrap and the door on a bird cage might both share the same spring, but this is not evidence that one led to the other, nor that the presence of the spring in both refutes intelligent design.

- The illustration of the analysis of the 23 versus 24 pairs of chromosomes in humans versus chimpanzees sounds good until you consider how this could have happened. Start with a mutation that fuses a pair of chromosomes. How will this mutant create a viable zygote without serious or fatal genetic problems? For this scenario to work, you would need thousands of simultaneous and identical mutations in order for such a dramatic change to take hold in a population. I believe that mathematical analysis puts it at about 5-15% to be sustainable.

- The ad hominem assertion that ID is not science is easily refuted. Few scientists will discount the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life--certainly Carl Sagan didn't. It would also be safe to conjecture that perhaps half of this intelligent life could be more intelligent than Homo sapiens. That this conjectured intelligent life could experiment with genetic engineering is not beyond the realm of possibility, after all Homo sapiens does. So, studying organisms with genetic engineering as a possibility still remains within the scrutiny of science, because it could, in fact, happen. Whether it has is subject to scientific debate and experimental verification. See [Link: www.panspermia.org...] for example.

Again, I'm completely against the inclusion of religious (or anti-religious) curriculum in science classes. But evolutionary theory is far from settled and should not be protected from serious scientific challenges.

Ken Miller's video is great, but only one side of the debate. Please note that a straw dummy argument highlighting nefarious creationist plots is not the other side of the debate.

- sk

594 Hanoch  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:42:02am

What a surprise: a leftist professor from Brown University trying to debunk ID!

595 jaunte  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:43:18am

re: #593 Spar Kling

I'm curious about the articles you refer to here:

"As Dr. Miller well knows, ID articles have been routinely excluded from publication and broad scientific scrutiny--some very deservedly so, others not."

Can you point us to any of the papers you think have been undeservedly excluded from broad scientific scrutiny?

596 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:43:45am

re: #590 Sharmuta

Whatever youngster next time you ding me down explain why, kido!
How older are you anyway? Childish...seems child get bother when some does something back to them, freaking crybaby!

597 reine.de.tout  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:45:18am

re: #590 Sharmuta

You are a child, with your petty dings.

Sharm - there's one who does it to me, too. IGNORE.

598 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:47:55am

re: #597 reine.de.tout

So it ok for someone to ding you like sharm did me but it's not ok to ding then back? What planet are you from?

599 jaunte  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:49:26am

re: #598 tex68

If you disagree with another poster's point, make an argument about it.

600 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:52:17am

re: #596 tex68

So you admit you went through this entire thread and dinged down every single one of my comments due to pettiness and you're calling ME a child?

So- instead of behaving like an adult and asking me why I dinged you, your response was to behave in a petty manner, and you're calling ME a child?

I know why you dinged me down on every comment I made on this thread- because you're a petty whiner. I dinged you down because you posed the same talking point we've seen on every single one of these threads. Not that a pestilent child deserves an explanation.

601 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:52:20am

re: #528 yochanan

your posts prove how low you are.

i am a big boy i can take it but then i suspect big boys might scare you

I'm unimpressed by your false bravado. I have nothing but deep contempt for anybody who makes phony excuses for genocidal maniacs like Karadzic, and you certainly seem to fall in that category lately. But go on and talk that macho talk if it makes you feel better.

602 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:53:27am

re: #596 tex68

Now that I've explained myself, I expect to see you post your reasons for every single ding down you gave me.

603 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:54:44am

re: #592 doriangrey

anonymous
One entry found.

anonymous


Main Entry:
anon·y·mous Listen to the pronunciation of anonymous
Pronunciation:
ə-ˈnä-nə-mə s
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anōnymos, from a- + onyma name — more at name
Date:
1631

1 : not named or identified 2 : of unknown authorship or origin 3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability
— anon·y·mous·ly adverb
— anon·y·mous·ness noun

C'mon, be a good boy and Google non-sequitur. I'm sure Mr. Webster can help you out.

604 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:55:12am

re: #598 tex68

Dinging every single comment made by one person who gave you one ding is PETTY, pal.

605 theatheistjew  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 11:55:43am

re: #593 Spar Kling

What scientific hypothesis does ID make? I've asked this before, but no one seems to answer when they want to say there are two sides.
There aren't two sides.
And the only thing being debated with respect to evolution is how fast it happened and where and what time individual processes took place.

There is NO DEBATE.

606 doriangrey  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:04:24pm

re: #603 A. van Hilten

C'mon, be a good boy and Google non-sequitur. I'm sure Mr. Webster can help you out.

I'm sure he can help you with the phrase intellectually dishonest. As long as no one knows who you really are, you are by definition anonymous. Your invocation of PII is a clear indication that you are fully aware of the fact that you were posting anonymously. Were you not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity your actual identity could not be revealed because it would already be public knowledge.

607 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:06:43pm

re: #604 Sharmuta

Dinging every single comment made by one person who gave you one ding is PETTY, pal.

Maybe next time you will not be so quick to ding someone...I guess you learned your lesson, kido. Do you know where matter comes from, geinous? Astonish me with your great wisdom, little one.

608 jaunte  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:07:40pm

re: #607 tex68

I wish you would stop embarassing the state of Texas.

609 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:08:44pm

re: #599 jaunte

Get a clue...late to the party of which you weren't invited.

610 jaunte  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:10:35pm

re: #609 tex68

"to which"

611 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:10:53pm

re: #608 jaunte


I wish you would get a freaking clue, first before you post a incompetent reply.

612 Josephine  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:11:38pm

re: #596 tex68

re: #607 tex68

re: #609 tex68

Would these qualify as trolling?

613 swamprat  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:11:57pm

re: #593 Spar Kling

-

The illustration of the analysis of the 23 versus 24 pairs of chromosomes in humans versus chimpanzees sounds good until you consider how this could have happened. Start with a mutation that fuses a pair of chromosomes. How will this mutant create a viable zygote without serious or fatal genetic problems?


This process is referred to as human birth. And you know very well that a singe variant can give rise to an entire herd that carry the same variation. This works to the good as well as the bad. Evolutionary theory is not protected. The cat-fights that go on in their midst are astounding. What is passing for "intelligent design" at this moment is a joke and a fraud. This does not exclude future discoveries and theories. Watch video 8 and then consider your position on even-handedness. While the genetic side of evolution is amazing, consider that most of the fossil evidence is buried in dirt. Even with this handicap, the case is pretty strong. Plus there are existing transitional species. And what is your explanation for this We have a vestigial tail. We can't fight with it, or wrap it around a twig. It is a left over. If we are made in G ds image, and G d is an eternal spirit, with no physical body, then what the heck does it matter as to the structure that we are currently inhabiting? I liked your first two paragraphs, by the way.

614 jaunte  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:12:13pm

re: #611 tex68

Now I understand why you choose to ding, rather than post. Knowing your limitations is good.

615 Josephine  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:13:42pm

re: #614 jaunte

Now I understand why you choose to ding, rather than post. Knowing your limitations is good.

One might almost call it "geinous".

616 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:14:02pm

re: #609 tex68

jaunte doesn't need your permission- it's not your blog. Just who the hell do you think you are to boss posters around on a blog that doesn't belong to you?

617 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:14:13pm

re: #610 jaunte

still haven't figured it out yet....I will do it reallllly slow.....sharmata.....dinged me, FIRST... but didn't....give...a...reason....so...i...gave...it. ..a...taste...of...it's....own...medicine...go...i t.

I hope that helped.

618 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:15:48pm

re: #612 Josephine

Troll? You disappoint me/

619 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:16:12pm

re: #617 tex68

Translation: I am too much of a child to ask why I was dinged so I resorted to a knee-jerk reaction and behaved in a petty manner by dinging every comment down regardless of their merit.

620 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:17:06pm

re: #616 Sharmuta

You sound like you're whining now. You dinged my post and I asked why then you were pissed that I did it to you, grow up!

621 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:18:28pm

re: #620 tex68

No- you didn't ask me why until AFTER you dinged all of my comments. Not only are you trolling you are lying.

622 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:18:53pm

re: #619 Sharmuta

You just don't get it..and still haven't asked my question. You make me laugh.

623 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:19:31pm

re: #622 tex68

sorry "answered" not "asked"

624 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:21:39pm

re: #622 tex68

You just don't get it..and still haven't asked my question. You make me laugh.

How asinine is this comment?

625 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:22:04pm

re: #623 tex68

Yes I did.

626 Josephine  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:22:19pm

re: #618 tex68

Troll? You disappoint me/

I can live with that.

Now I'm off to scrub and paint a couple of closets.

627 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:23:55pm

re: #614 jaunte

Now I understand why you choose to ding, rather than post. Knowing your limitations is good.

Knowing my limitations?...I just don't have the time...but you can try me.
Don't post alot on this blog but I do read it everyday.
Not a fast typer mainly because I have no feeling in one hand due to a car accident so I really don't like to type long winded answers.

628 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:25:41pm

re: #626 Josephine

Thanks! I am off to run errands in about 5 minutes.

629 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:27:19pm

re: #625 Sharmuta

Where does matter come from? Just asking. Ding, No reason.
Goodbye young one I hope you learned your lessen today.

630 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:28:18pm

re: #629 tex68

1) re-read the thread. I gave you an answer.
2) I will not be intimidated by you or anyone else as to how I use the ratings system.

631 Irish Rose  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:29:04pm

re: #628 tex68

Thanks! I am off to run errands in about 5 minutes.

But before you go, please take into consideration that you prevented the overworked and underpaid owner of this blog from enjoying another hour of his quiet Sunday afternoon, because you wouldn't STFU.

632 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:29:19pm

re: #621 Sharmuta

No- you didn't ask me why until AFTER you dinged all of my comments. Not only are you trolling you are lying.

RFLOL...why did you ding my post? My stomach hurts from all the laughter.

633 Sharmuta  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:29:46pm

re: #632 tex68

Are you capable of READING?!

634 tex68  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:30:50pm

re: #631 Irish Rose
Same to you!

Sorry, Charles...I don't usually comment but some other can't seem to do the same.

635 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 12:33:57pm

re: #593 Spar Kling

- The ad hominem assertion that ID is not science is easily refuted.

Bwahahaha! Best comment so far. The creationist crowd is completely beyond parody these days.

636 mossley  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 2:21:08pm

re: #593 Spar Kling


- The ad hominem assertion that ID is not science is easily refuted.


Then do it. None of the ID crowd have been able to establish it as science.

This has been asked numerous times:
What testable, falsifiable hypotheses does ID put forth? What testable, falsifiable theories have been presented by the DI? On what grounds can the DI claim that ID is a scientific theory?
Calling it science doesn't make it so.

But evolutionary theory is far from settled and should not be protected from serious scientific challenges.


Except for the fact that it's survived 150 years of challenges. Not a single shred of evidence exists to refute evolution. All research has only added to its soundness. The challenges to evolution are based on religion, not science.

637 RickZ  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 3:09:37pm

re: #636 mossley

Except for the fact that it's survived 150 years of challenges. Not a single shred of evidence exists to refute evolution. All research has only added to its soundness. The challenges to evolution are based on religion, not science.

And when muslims are on your side, as in ID, then maybe one should rethink their position on the issue.

638 mossley  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 3:47:05pm

re: #637 RickZ

And when muslims are on your side, as in ID, then maybe one should rethink their position on the issue.


Ain't that the truth!

639 A. van Hilten  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 4:31:09pm

Apparently Mama Nutwinger can't help coming here to derail a thread on evolution / ID while posting at a thread titled "Scientism: Theology for the Brain Damaged" over at One Cosmos...

mama winger said...
The posts here are very interesting. I hope to be able to join in the discussion when I have more time.

Would that be okay?

8/02/2008 12:16:00 PM

They have a very 'colorful' epithet for the lizard master and the lizardoids there but apparently Mama Winger, Ma Sands et al. don't really mind in the least the fact that douchebag of Gagdad Bob has made it his goal in life to insult Charles and LFG for having been banned.

Remember, Mama, that's not the Christian thing to do. I do hope your unconditional apologists here will eventually find out the kind of person you are.

640 Sloppy  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 6:11:26pm

Re: A. van Tilten, #639

I'm one of Mama Winger's unconditional apologists, but do not get involved in ID/evolution arguments. I read on another thread that someone over here was messing with Mama Winger, and came over to swing a shillelagh on her behalf. She's one of LGF's most valued and respected members, and I'm on her side, period.

641 Scorch  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 6:19:33pm

re: #571 A. van Hilten

After viewing your posts may god help mankind if your prolific at all. You paranoid little spud.

642 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 6:57:10pm

re: #476 texasjihad

Let me reply to this again, for the eleventy-twelfth time.
You are not nor are you likely to be compelling with this phony "science" your stating louder that it is science does not make it science. It is a very open debate. I am so sick and tired of secular humanists who worship their phony science and pushing this crap as science in the schools ---when it is simply your religion.
ALL schools teach religion and they always have and they always will-- I think the separation of school and state is much more reasonable in the post Christian era.
This is another reason to home school.
You should be happy-- you take my money and build schools that are out of control and your humanism does not work on a practical level--AND YOU STILL COMPLAIN.

You once again make a bare assertion that all of this painstakingly documented and multiply verified science is phony, and is 'crap'. Quite frankly, this absurd and nonsensical assertion of yours is empirically provable as, and has been empirically proven to be on countless occasions to be, a blatant and baldfaced lie. I carefully and meticulously outlined to you precisely why the artifactual retroviral DNA evidence logically entailed that humans and great apes share common ancestors. Statistically speaking, common ancestry is not 'open to debate', however much you might fervently wish it to be. You can delude yourself into embracing the fantasy of the world the way you desire it to be; I prefer to live in the world that in fact empirically is, want others to not be forcefed your particular sectarian delusions at young and impressionable ages, and will not just sit back quietly and allow you and others of your execrable ilk to pollute the minds of other peoples' children with your reality-denying memes. Science will be taught in high school science classes. Religion will not be taught there! You can damage the minds of your own kids with such lies; I will not merely quiescently accede to your cohorts' push to damage the minds of the kids of others.

Once again, science is not worshiped; it is merely accepted. You have your pious little religious lies, such as that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that all species were created separately, as is, in the span of 6 days, to worship as your twisted little cognitive icons and emotional idols.

I understand the emotional comfort and pull of the parables for the naive and young, but, dammit, man, kids are eventually told that Santa Claus didn't put their presents under the tree, but their parents did; likewise, they should be eventually told that some deity or other didn't mold them out of dust and blow life in their nostrils a few thousand years ago, but that their parents, and their grandparents, and their great grandparents, on back through billions of years, are how they came to be, and how they came to be as they are.

643 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:02:32pm

re: #477 ebed_melech

A reminder of some important allegations against Kenneth Miller, though I cannot confirm these personally.

Sounds like the usual Disco Dewde sour grapes that creationist balloons have been so ably deflated and shown to be comprised of naught but hot air. When you can't refute the message, try to slime and smear the messenger, even though ad hominem has been known to be a logical fallacy for 2500 years.

You're going to have to discredit not Ken Miller, but refute his ARGUMENTS, on their MERITS - and that's precisely what you cannot mange to do.

644 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:24:38pm

re: #482 ebed_melech

Since there's been interest in the alternative 'explanation' for the 64Myr T rex soft tisses -here's a recent creationist take on the rather weak constructions, though as he rightly points out - it's unusal for red cells and soft tissues to last even 10s of years, let alone 1000s, (for millions requires an act of sheer faith in the miraculous powers of Nature - characeristic only of the religious materialist used to stretching his credulity daily by reciting his credo in abiogenesis!).
Also interesting the foul smell associated with recently broken dino fossils -in certain locations. The original illustrations from Science, which are included in this response, are still staggering.

Yeah; I really respect the 'science' coming out of a YEC site that refers to people who radiometrically date dino bones as 'long-agers'...not! You are still trying to defend a view that people weren't even around to produce the written records we have from before 4000 bc. All one can answer to such assertions is to hope that one's interlocuter manages to continue to avoid institutionalization as long as he is not a danger to himself and others.

Allow the science to work. Unlike in your frozen religious dogmas, new things are discovered in science every day. We may be able to learn much concerning the tissue structure of ancient animals if this fossilizing-mineral-dissolving technique proves to be widely efficacious.

Here's a useful site for debunking recent nonsense about messianic prophecies.

I see that their purpose is evangelization...surprise!

Here's something on the 'acquisition' of citrate metabolism in bacteria.

The citrate is being METABOLIZED; this means that its carbon is being used in the E. Coli for cell construction. Apparently creationontheweb.com is a fantasy site for the credulous and the gullible, crammed with serial misrepresentations and feckless lies. But considering the ludicrousness of the stance they are endeavoring to defend, it is difficult to discern how they could possibly come up with anything more credible.

A little reminder for poor Christopher Hitchens, less able to see than his salamander.

What part of 'vestigal' do these IDiots not understand? Answer: ANY part of ANYTHING that does not jive with their breathed-life-into-Adam's-nostrils-6000-years-ago dogma.

Finally, for those who like Ken Miller and the geologists who for decades who rejected the massive Missoula flood*, also still scoff at the Biblical testimony to a globally catastropic deluge - here's another look at the Mongolian Tarbosaurus fossil, now housed in the Japanese Hayashibara Museum, Charles posted this interesting find a short while back

.

There is in fact no geological evidence for a worldwide flood, and if all the glaciers and icecaps melted to the last ice crystal, vast tracts of land - whole continents - would still be above sea level.

Now, one last suggestion - what about critiquing these sources without resorting to ad hominem !

*The decades of harsh and utterly foolish opposition to J Harland Bretz' ideas (no creationist himself) on the Missoula flood form an excellent psychological case study in the dangers of peer review, antitheistic preconceptions and the herd effect in blinding the consensus of scientific opinion to the evidence.

But such tripe is so eminently lampoonable; you ask too much when you request that we not ridicule the ridiculous.

645 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:30:31pm

re: #483 ebed_melech

Thank you freetoken, and I agree there is a certain laziness in not being able to check these facts, in due course I would like to examine them.
I also think though that given the degree of credence give Ken Miller on this site that it's reasonable to raise publically aired doubts about his honesty and integrity (Charles has done the same with other sites - probably in some cases without being check his primary sources (Wiki for example - which we all know can sometimes be wildly biased).

I would be happy to see them properly and publically refuted, and which place better than here.

The open-and-shut case that Ken Miller makes refuting Behe's claims of irreducible complexity has also been made by others; its logical and evidential validity and soundness is independent of the reputation of any particular person who proffers it. Even if you manage to smear a scientist until he is just a slick strip of slime - which, in the case of Ken Miller, you can't - the evolutionary assertions yet stand unrefuted, and Behe's creationist contentions still lie discredited.

646 texasjihad  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:35:17pm

re: #642 Salamantis

Look who ever you are--you do not know me and I do not know you. It is not likely we will have even the slightest influence on each others thinking. I did research your issue with the retrovirus effect on what was know by scientist as junk DNA. The idea that we can know the timing on when this viruses would have had the effect is not settled.
The minute you think you can have a say over the way fathers teach their children is the day you better be willing to die for you position. That is the thing that makes those who live to please God very dangerous. We will be willing to die for our ideology -- because we are convinced that is the right thing to do. Historically, that is why solders fight. It is the idea behind a just war. It was the idea behind our own war for independence.
You have a world view--everyone does. For many it is not self consistent. If your view is self consistent you should be willing for locally schools to decide what origins they want to teach. You should also be willing for people of conscience to forbid the killing of the pre-born in their state. If you want a totalitarian government or you want the courts and not the people to make the laws. Then you will need guns and men willing to die.

647 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 7:40:22pm

re: #485 ebed_melech

By the way, do the non catastrophists here still believe that fossils formed slowly and incrementally over millions of years,as I was taught at school?

Some catastrophes happened millions of years ago. There have been five separate massive die-offs, the most recent one was 65 million years ago, when a meteorite struck around the Gulf of Mexico, and the resultant climats change killed off the dinos.

How do they explain beds like those in the Californian shale capturing trillions of fish, captured in agony hundreds of feet deep?

And of course you can testify that they died in agony. If they are hundreds of feet deep they sure as holy hell are more than 6000 years old. Perhaps a falling meteorite of an erupting volcano boiled some fish in the ocean, and they fell to the bottom, to be subsequently covered by silt.

How do they explain the colossal dinosaur graveyards, some containing millions of intact specimens, such as those in the S African Karroo formation? Isn't that potent evidence at the very least of a massive global catastrophe?

There have been several of those, and they all date from times inconvenient to your beliefs.

Seems to me - Gilgamesh for all its many faults is a better guide to Earth's history than much modern geology.

Yeah, right, sure...millions of cases of radiometric dating of rocks and fossils and many chunks of the selfsame rock formations on different continents as the result of tectonic plate drift prove nothing as far as life and the earth being more than 6000 years old goes. And all those bloody knife wounds in her body prove nothing as regards the cause of Nicole Brown Simpson's death.

648 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:05:47pm

re: #646 texasjihad

Look who ever you are--you do not know me and I do not know you. It is not likely we will have even the slightest influence on each others thinking. I did research your issue with the retrovirus effect on what was know by scientist as junk DNA. The idea that we can know the timing on when this viruses would have had the effect is not settled.

You are either dense or dishonest as regards the artifactual retroviral DNA evidence. The degree of degradation of the sequences dates them, and dates them to millions of years ago, before either great apes or humans existed. And they know what they were degraded out of, because they have been able to compare many different instances of the selfsame sequences and reverse enginner them, and produce long-extinct retroviruses. So don't try to hand me that 'not settled' crapola. The thinking people here aren't buying it.

The minute you think you can have a say over the way fathers teach their children is the day you better be willing to die for you position. That is the thing that makes those who live to please God very dangerous. We will be willing to die for our ideology -- because we are convinced that is the right thing to do. Historically, that is why solders fight. It is the idea behind a just war. It was the idea behind our own war for independence.

Like I said; you damage your own kids any way you choose. When you start forcing your particular religious delusions into high school science classes and corrupting the minds of other peoples' kids is when you have to answer to people like me.

You have a world view--everyone does. For many it is not self consistent. If your view is self consistent you should be willing for locally schools to decide what origins they want to teach. You should also be willing for people of conscience to forbid the killing of the pre-born in their state. If you want a totalitarian government or you want the courts and not the people to make the laws. Then you will need guns and men willing to die.

Nope; I am not prepared to shitcan the US Constitution to pander to your fundamentalist literalist sensibilities and force Christian Sharia upon this great nation. The executive enforces the laws of this country, the legislative passes them, and the judiciary interpret them. Our Constitution's Founders and Framers were wise to demand that these powers be separated, to prevent the sectarian religious Talibanization that would be forced upon a populace in order to save their souls, by just such people as yourself. I am prepared to kill and to die to prevent that from happening, because I love my country. And so are many others, and we already have guns.

And as far as the 'pre-born' are considered (I see you're now throwing another unrelated issue in here, in hopes of rallying support), I am pro-choice until fetal viability, and will not stand by quietly while you reproductively bechador and burqa-ize half our population. Nor have I. I have been on those barricades, and stand ready to man them again.

I have slept in abortion clinics on Christmas and Mother's Day so that people like you would have to take a life - mine - in order to firebomb them. I have taken the blows those fervent souls dealt with their picket signs on my own shoulders while shielding womens' bodies. I have received hundreds of telephoned death threats a day against myself and my wife from good faithful pious fundamentalists, had my home surveilled, had my car sabotaged, and had my family cat hung from a noose in a tree in my back yard, with a note safety-pinned to its belly that read You're Next, Baby Killer! I sent one of them to prison for five years. And I have had a fundamentalist preacher, who has now been executed by the state, shotgun murder friends and fellow clinic escorts in front of a clinic.

649 Salem  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:14:04pm

re: #646 texasjihad

Look who ever you are--you do not know me and I do not know you. It is not likely we will have even the slightest influence on each others thinking. I did research your issue with the retrovirus effect on what was know by scientist as junk DNA. The idea that we can know the timing on when this viruses would have had the effect is not settled.
The minute you think you can have a say over the way fathers teach their children is the day you better be willing to die for you position. That is the thing that makes those who live to please God very dangerous. We will be willing to die for our ideology -- because we are convinced that is the right thing to do. Historically, that is why solders fight. It is the idea behind a just war. It was the idea behind our own war for independence.
You have a world view--everyone does. For many it is not self consistent. If your view is self consistent you should be willing for locally schools to decide what origins they want to teach. You should also be willing for people of conscience to forbid the killing of the pre-born in their state. If you want a totalitarian government or you want the courts and not the people to make the laws. Then you will need guns and men willing to die.

You and all of your "soldiers" should be easy to outsmart, since you are likely borderline retarded. Or maybe "borderline" would be too flattering. Regardless, your fantasy of a modern crusade would be short-lived.

650 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:24:12pm

re: #570 tex68

Just a theory...funny how humans think they know everything. LOL.
Where did matter come from? Just wondering.

The word 'theory' means something vastly more sound, valid and solid in scientific parlance than it means in common locution:

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

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Sal: Humans certainly don't know everything, but this doesn't mean that we don't know some things, such as the age of the earth and the common ancestry of all terrestrial life. And apparently matter/energy manifested as a result of a quantum fluctuation known as the Big Bang. But we are still investigating the particulars, and soon we will be investigating them via the new Large Hadron Collider.

651 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:32:25pm

re: #574 texasjihad

And what explanation for life does an atheist make.

Atheists don't. That is a belief stance. Scientists do. It's called evolution via random mutation and nonrandom environmental selection, and the full and considerable weight of a century and a half of scientific investigation and experiment stands foursquare behind it.

I know you're trying to divert the conversational focus from evidence vs. its lack, and from testability vs. untestability, to Good Old God vs. Bad Old Atheists, just like the Disco Dewde Wedge Document tells you to do, but we all read that document, too, and we won't let you get away with it.

The more we see the more evidence for thoughtful design is amassed. The God hater Richard Dawkins thinks aliens brought it--nice.

Actually, umm, no. The idea that aliens might have come here and dropped off some spare life - an idea to which I do not subscribe, dus to the vast distances between stars, btw - would just kick the evolutionary can down the road, but not off it, as such beings would themselves have had to evolve on their own home worlds.

652 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:43:31pm

re: #593 Spar Kling

The video by Ken Miller was informative and entertaining--actually far more so than most TV celebrities, and I certainly would have enjoyed taking some of my college biology classes from him!

Dr. Miller recognizes the astounding capabilities of DNA and respects people of faith who believe God had a hand in all this. I completely agree with him that science should be unfettered by dogmatism of any kind, yet subject itself to criticism by peer review, and that religious opinion is not relevant in science classes and should never be a part of any science curriculum.

Furthermore, I don't have a problem with accepting evolutionary mechanisms--and I once did believe in evolution--but there are serious problems about current explanations on scientific (not religious) grounds.

Just as in law or with political disputes, it's important to consider both sides of any issue. I do this before voting on propositions and you probably do so as well.

But There aren't two sides of this issue. IDiots offer NO SCIENTIFICALLY CREDIBLE ALtERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS. Even a leading Disco Dewde, George Gilder, admitted that ID was "without content." ALL THEY DO is attack evolutionary theory, and their motivations are not scientific but religious.

Here are a few disagreements that I have regarding the points he made in his presentation:

- Peer review is necessary but flawed (I've provided a peer review on one occasion and have been reviewed on other occasions). Unfortunately, the prejudices of the reviewers will sometimes prevent publication of well-researched papers and approve others that were flawed. As Dr. Miller well knows, ID articles have been routinely excluded from publication and broad scientific scrutiny--some very deservedly so, others not.

The few people with degrees in life science who are willing to call themselves IDers, either 'peer' review each other's work in comfy little pseudoacademic circle jerk, or send their articles to obscure periodicals explicitly set up to accept IDiotic articles, or strive to sneak them into more credible periodicals, hoping they'll fly beneath the radar of a sleepy editor, or write some stuff that doesn't even bring the subject up, so they can leverage that publication into an appeal to authority for their more crackpotted stuff.

To be continued:

653 eclectic infidel  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:43:38pm
654 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:58:02pm

re: #593 Spar Kling

- His critique of irreducible complexity is overly simplistic and unconvincing. So, I'll also use an admittedly over-simplified illustration in return: a mousetrap and the door on a bird cage might both share the same spring, but this is not evidence that one led to the other, nor that the presence of the spring in both refutes intelligent design.

It's called evolutionary convergence. When the situations and circumstances are ecologically isomorphic, mutations that contain similar solutions to ecological exigencies tend to be selected. The most prominent example of this is the multiple independent cases of eye evolution.

- The illustration of the analysis of the 23 versus 24 pairs of chromosomes in humans versus chimpanzees sounds good until you consider how this could have happened. Start with a mutation that fuses a pair of chromosomes. How will this mutant create a viable zygote without serious or fatal genetic problems? For this scenario to work, you would need thousands of simultaneous and identical mutations in order for such a dramatic change to take hold in a population. I believe that mathematical analysis puts it at about 5-15% to be sustainable.

The artifactual retroviral DNA sequence evidence shows that the statistical probability that humans and great apes did NOT share a common ancestor is so vanishingly small that one could get a finger cramp from holding down the zero key between the decimal mark and the percentage sign.

- The ad hominem assertion that ID is not science is easily refuted. Few scientists will discount the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life--certainly Carl Sagan didn't. It would also be safe to conjecture that perhaps half of this intelligent life could be more intelligent than Homo sapiens. That this conjectured intelligent life could experiment with genetic engineering is not beyond the realm of possibility, after all Homo sapiens does. So, studying organisms with genetic engineering as a possibility still remains within the scrutiny of science, because it could, in fact, happen. Whether it has is subject to scientific debate and experimental verification. See [Link: www.panspermia.org...] for example.

Do you realize how far away the home planets of other possible beings must be for the light from their star-suns to take millennia to reach us, how much amazing physics would be required for them to construct durable-for-centuries-and-completely-supplied spacecraft that could even travel a tenth of lightspeed (18,600 miles PER SECOND (not hour), or 3600 times as fast as we can now go), and how long it would take such spacecraft to reach us even at such speeds?

Again, I'm completely against the inclusion of religious (or anti-religious) curriculum in science classes. But evolutionary theory is far from settled and should not be protected from serious scientific challenges.

Scientists challenge, and refine, the theory all the time. But no serious scientific challenges are to be expected from the Disco Dewdes and other people of their religiously motivated ilk.

Ken Miller's video is great, but only one side of the debate. Please note that a straw dummy argument highlighting nefarious creationist plots is not the other side of the debate.

- sk

But nefarious plots is all that they've got to work with, since they can't produce the credible empirical science.

655 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 8:59:45pm

re: #594 Hanoch

What a surprise: a leftist professor from Brown University trying to debunk ID!

What a surprise; a nameless creationist posting a baseless slur concerning an Ivy League professor who is debunking his cherished religious fantasy!

656 eclectic infidel  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:01:18pm

re: #594 Hanoch

What a surprise: a leftist professor from Brown University trying to debunk ID!

Miller's politics were included in the videos? Let's run with this for a moment though, if a conservative-minded professor debunked ID, would you side with him/her on this issue?

657 Kulhwch  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 9:56:56pm

re: #469 Scorch

re: #416 Kulhwch
All you have to do is read the posts to see the paranoia on the part of some in here who truly fear anyones belief in God. I do not believe in ID but am a devout Christian who believes in evolution. Common sense everything evolves but there are also things we will never understand completely.

I don't see anyone here fearing that others believe in any Deity.  (Did you have any God in mind, or just something like the Godhead, etc.?)  However, I do think it just prudent to fear those who are fundamentalist in their belief in any Deity, as those are the people just as likely to burn you at the stake or shoot you if they think you're an abortion doctor, the same people who are fascists and wish to control everyone's else religion under the auspices of standing up for their own.

Sad to state, but there's little difference between Islamofascists and Christofascists (or even Judeofascists), that tiny cross-section of every faith that makes it hard on all the other members of that faith.  Fundamentalism is the problem, and I think we need to get a handle on it before it burns the world up.

}:)     [But your claims remain unevidenced ... ]

658 Kulhwch  Sun, Aug 3, 2008 10:04:23pm

re: #460 swamprat

Well, that's good for a bellylaugh, but because you didn't like how the myth was written doesn't de facto mean it was real life.  But I like that we've discovered a new fallacy ... what shall we call it?

}:)     [The Fallacy of Siskel and Ebert?]

659 Kulhwch  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 12:01:32am

re: #328 triumphguy

If you disregard creation as the truth, you have to discredit the entire Bible.

Okay.  Already been done.

Its all or nothing.

Guess it's nothing then.  Thanks for understanding.

What in the world, aside from the obvious egos here, makes you qualified to pick and choose what Biblical teachings are false?

The same things that qualify you to pick and choose which Biblical teachings are true.

Nothing.

You have no such credentials?  Then why should we listen to you?

You are not qualified or anywhere nearly well enough informed or studied in Theology.

Untrue ... I happen to be more qualified than Adam was, for instance.

From reading most of these posts, it's clear that the majority of posters don't understand the textual content of the Christian Bible.

One doesn't have to understand the context of a statement to understand it's bad science.  A different context for the statement doesn't change the science.  Never occurred to you, did it?

Charles is slap dead wrong on this one.

Sorry, Binky, you're full of shit.

Science has yet to prove anything to the contrary of creationism- in fact, when they finally get to the truth (i.e. the world is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, cats caused the black plague, the list goes on... and on... and on...) science supports the Biblical view of the world and how it got here.

LOFL!  Did you ever just shoot yourself in the foot!

Did I say full of shit?  Hell's bells, you're soaking in it!

BTW- most of you seem to think Global Warming is hooey. Why? Science supports it...

Untrue on that one as well.  Some scientists support it; a lot of them don't.  Per your reasoning, then, you're saying that Cretinism™ and other beliefs of the IDiots are just as valid as Global Warming?

}:)     [Man, you're just sad ... ]

660 A. van Hilten  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 12:24:44am

re: #640 Sloppy

Re: A. van Tilten, #639

I'm one of Mama Winger's unconditional apologists, but do not get involved in ID/evolution arguments. I read on another thread that someone over here was messing with Mama Winger, and came over to swing a shillelagh on her behalf. She's one of LGF's most valued and respected members, and I'm on her side, period.

Well, guess what? She's posting at another site where they call OUR HOST by some very unflatering monicker. He's, you know, the guy who is paying for the bandwidth over here so she can bad mouth him over there at that moron's site, in a thread on science (read evolution) no less. And, in case you don't know, they call us "Liztards" (as in lizardoid retards).

All this while claiming to be "a good Christian" (which she obviously isn't).

Maybe you like being treated like pondscum by holier than thou hypocrites, I certainly don't.

mama winger said...
The posts here are very interesting. I hope to be able to join in the discussion when I have more time.

Would that be okay?

8/02/2008 12:16:00 PM

If Mama Wingnut is in such good company at One Cosmos, then maybe she should stay there. Why come here and crap on this "Liztard" blog?

She's already a registered poster at Douchebag Bob's site (luring Disco dollies to a life of vice much, Bob?), so maybe she's biding her time here until the moment when she can pull a dramatic exit out of her melodramatic ass (or Stinky breaks out the clue bat, whichever comes first).

661 A. van Hilten  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 12:27:05am

re: #641 Scorch

After viewing your posts may god help mankind if your prolific at all. You paranoid little spud.

Bite me.

662 A. van Hilten  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 12:47:40am

re: #660 A. van Hilten

Just one quote from the blog where "Ms. Biblethumper" is a registered poster.

Remember, this is the place where Ma Sands, Mama Winger et al. feel so at home:

This Liztardian attitude involves a kind of invincible ignorance disguised as healthy skepticism. It reminds me of Bion’s description of the psychotic mind, which, he said, combined the characteristics of arrogance, stupidity, and curiosity. When you put those three together, you end up with a kind of arrogant, omnipotent ignorance that is inordinately proud of its own stupidity. Thus the childlike self-assuredness of the Head Lizard in denigrating what transcends him. He is such a mental twerp -- a nothing, really -- in the context of the timeless celestial truth he mocks (and which mocks him right back; I am only the messenger).

And some people here continue to make excuses for these raving hypocrites in religious drag. Have you no shame?

663 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 2:02:56am

Here are a couple of real gems directed at me by Ma Sands:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Salamantis, you told me, several days ago, that your parents had brought you up in the admonition of the LORD, and that you have turned from that and spurned it. That alone disqualifies you from this discussion, for all this is foolishness to those who do not believe. It is written. :)

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Salamantis, I think you, as well as Charles misunderstood my comment --which isn't too hard to do, as I so often end up coming across unintentionally ambiguous: it is not me that made the decision......it was said in the Bible, by God Himself, that the things of Him are unintelligible to them that don't believe Him.....
__________________________________________________ _______

Sal again: Now I could be wrong about this (although I don't think so), but I think that it must require a hubris of elephantine proportions to be able to arrogate to oneself the right to decide for God who is and who is not disqualified from a discussion of the lack of empirical scientific evidence behind the depiction of humans and dinos coexisting side by side in a creationist 'muesum', and to make public pronouncements on Divine Behalf, based upon one's Perfect Understanding of God's Mind on the matter.

664 A. van Hilten  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 3:29:01am

You're right, Sal. Ma Sands is a nasty piece of work in her own right, too.

This is what she had to say about the Lizard-in-Chief over at One Cosmos in a thread titled "What is the Liztard, that the Cosmos is Mindful of Him?:"

Anonymous said...

Why, indeed, should I be mindful of him?
--joan of argghh!

Or rather, as the thought has finally clarified itself unto words in my slow brain :) , why ARE we mindful of him....

I have seen many hearts wounded and bleeding, by his hand, the greater crescendo beginning around last November....

Having the "position of authority" that he does by dint of being owner of a blog, he operated, up until then, in a goodly manner to turn many

hearts toward himself as only one of a delighted and delightful vital community.

I believe in the God of the impossible, and still, daily, nearly unceasingly, have been lifting him up before the Throne....

None of God's words come back to Him void.....and plenty of them have been directed Charles' way........something has got to give..... :)

--Ma Sands

7/28/2008 10:35:00 AM

This is where this bunch of resentful self-important twirps gather to spout their filth and venom and insult the lizard master behind his back.

These bigots manage to pray for the salvation of your soul and insult your intelligence with their ill-hidden contempt all in the same breadth. And then accuse you of bashing Christianity (as if they were the only Christians worthy of that name).

665 yochanan  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 3:32:18am

getting out my handy can of troll repellent spraying the room


much better.

666 A. van Hilten  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 3:35:08am

re: #665 yochanan

getting out my handy can of troll repellent spraying the room


much better.

Hey, Mr. Macho, do you also cross-post at One Cosmos? Are you a backstabber too?

667 Salem  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 4:04:15am

Wow, that One Cosmos is a real think-tank, huh? Good riddance to anyone jerking in that circle. What a load of insipid blather.

668 A. van Hilten  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 4:50:54am

re: #667 Salem

Wow, that One Cosmos is a real think-tank, huh? Good riddance to anyone jerking in that circle. What a load of insipid blather.

And full of stories about "demonic possessions" to boot:

Gagdad Bob said...
Yes. Often the hair on the back of your neck stands up.

I remember being in the presence of a demon during my internship at Camarillo State Mental Hospital, a man who was clearly morally insane. Looking into his eyes was like looking into the eyes of a giant lizard. I only saw him once. That was enough.

8/01/2008 10:54:00 AM

Demons are everywhere according to these wacky religious freaks.

However, since this guy is a self-avowed mental healthcare professional you really have to wonder if he's for real or if he simply run away from the asylum he was committed to by impersonating a shrink. His posts seem to come straight out of cuckoo land.

This is what the creationist fringe looks like these days. A bunch of irrational nutjobs like Bobby Djindal who'd like to "exorcize" you and your children into conformity with their religious views.

669 rboa[deleted]  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 5:45:14am
670 mossley  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 7:11:02am

re: #669 rboa

You have finally done it. I no longer believe in God. For it there was a God, he would never let us endure sure a BORING topic so often! I have said it before and I'll say it again:


No one makes you read it.


1) You will NEVER meet anyone making a living with evolution


You think evolutionary biologists work for free?


2) This topic is trivial yet people love to talk about it because it makes them feel 'scientific'. This is about as technical as opening a soda.

Again, no one makes you read it. Do you get off on whining?

Most of us realize the inherent danger of deliberately trying to dumb down the American public by using a campaign of lies and distortions to attack science as a bad thing. So is trying to force a religious dogma that is easily proven false into schools as science.


3) This topic takes away valuable resources from genuine topics that need to be addressed in education (math, reading, writing, economics, etc.).

First off, who made you the topic Nazi? This is Charles' site, and he can damn well post whatever he wants. Again, no is making you stay here and read this.

Second, how is this distracting? Is there a set limit to the number of topics that a blog can cover on one day? Wouldn't the posts on, say music or the open threads, be less "worthy" in your opinion since they don't actually address a vital issue facing the public?

Finally, as mentioned above, the attempts to get ID taught in school rely on a deliberate attack on science and the scientific method. How can students learn anything when the DI crowd is trying to deliberately install a fear and distrust of learning in them?

671 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 7:55:29am

I found this particular complaint of Ma Sands over at Gagdad Bob's to be most informative:

"I have seen many hearts wounded and bleeding, by his hand, the greater crescendo beginning around last November...."

Correct me if I'm, wrong, but isn't that when Charles began standing against those who would have allied us with eurofascists such as the Vlaams Belang? (checking...) Nope; I'm not wrong; it began on Oct. 19th, with this post:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

and continued on Oct. 23rd, with this post:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

after which the posts began to come daily, as the back and forth was joined with eurofascist-friendly people and sites such as Atlas Shrugged, the Brussels Journal, Fjordman, and Gates of Vienna, and then more than daily, as more and more corruption was uncovered, such as the connections between US domestic racist organizations and eurofascist political fronts (the rapid posting continued into the next year, when it began slacking off around the end of January, and there have been a total of 70 postings on the subject; Charles continues to post on it, however, whenever he discovers something new, there was a post in April, there were two in May, three posts in June and another three in July).

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

The same thing has been happening lately on the evolution threads, as the cynical and dishonest misrepresentation of science and scientific evidence and advances, and the seamy connections between domestic creationist organizations such as the Disco Institute and ICR and foreign Islamocreationist groups such as Harun Yahya are increasingly revealed. There have, so far, been 54 posts related to evolution; I fully expect quite a few more, as Charles continues to find more interesting commentaries, significant advances, shameful deceptions, and disturbing connections about which he decides to inform us.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

The fact that Ma Sands would mourn this site's principled rejection of alliances with the ideological heirs of Nazis tells me more than I ever wanted to know about her...Speaking personally, once I discover that someone's heart hearts euronazis and their symps, I cease to care how much it bleeds.

672 Charles  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 8:12:49am

re: #671 Salamantis

I've checked out what is going on at that blog, and anyone who approves of it and posts comments there will now have more time to do it. Because they're not welcome to continue using my web site.

673 scottishbuzzsaw  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 8:22:39am

re: #671 Salamantis

re: #672 Charles


The 'bedfellows' have indeed been strange these last few months, haven't they? And it continues...

674 Yashmak  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 8:38:44am

Sal, I have to ask.

Do you store pre-templated responses to the oft-repeated memes of the ID'ers? For instance, I note several dozen comments ago, that you confronted the 'theory as common speech vs. theory as scientific term' meme. . .and it seems you used much the same post as the several other times you've confronted that same meme.

Perhaps, given how many times you have had to refute each one of these repeatedly presented bits, you have something approaching a 'muscle-memory' response, and you don't even have to think about what you type anymore. . .it just flows out. It was when I reached that point that I gave up responding on these topics. I realize that often it's new people presenting these questions/statements. . .but it quickly starts to feel like trying to hammer a nail into a steel block. "I've said this dozens of times already. . ."

You are a determined one, that's for sure. I don't have the patience. . .so I'll make myself feel better by up-ticking your recent comments.

675 Charles  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 8:40:07am

I just took a few minutes to actually read the volumes of verbiage Gagdad Bob has been posting, and wow. Just wow. The guy is seriously unhinged.

676 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 8:57:45am

re: #674 Yashmak

Sal, I have to ask.

Do you store pre-templated responses to the oft-repeated memes of the ID'ers? For instance, I note several dozen comments ago, that you confronted the 'theory as common speech vs. theory as scientific term' meme. . .and it seems you used much the same post as the several other times you've confronted that same meme.

Perhaps, given how many times you have had to refute each one of these repeatedly presented bits, you have something approaching a 'muscle-memory' response, and you don't even have to think about what you type anymore. . .it just flows out. It was when I reached that point that I gave up responding on these topics. I realize that often it's new people presenting these questions/statements. . .but it quickly starts to feel like trying to hammer a nail into a steel block. "I've said this dozens of times already. . ."

You are a determined one, that's for sure. I don't have the patience. . .so I'll make myself feel better by up-ticking your recent comments.

When a refutation works, I tend to stick with it (there's a story about a football coach who kept making 4 or 5 yards every time he ran off the left inside; he did it six times in a row, then someone shouted down and asked him if he had any other plays, to which he shouted back that he had plenty, and that he'd show some of them off as soon as the other team managed to stop the one he was running - which isn't gonna hafta happen with my refutations, because they're solid, both logically and empirically). Repetition has indeed engendered both recall and recognition memory, and when the selfsame lie or error keeps popping up, the selfsame correction naturally suggests itself. But I don't keep them in ready-to-copy-and-paste puter files; they are cognitively stored (it's called understanding...;~).

As long as people continue to lie and misrepresent concerning this topic, I will continue to correct those lies and misrepresentations. I refuse to allow silence to be misconstrued as acquiescence, either personally or concerning this fine site upon which we have the privilege to post. Quite simply, I don't want people reading it to get the wrong idea about it, and accidentally get the idea that it is idiotarian, because idiotarian comments were left unresponded to, and thus decide not to try to join our fine community, even though they might have much of worth to contribute here, merely because they get the wrong idea that we are other than we are.

677 scottishbuzzsaw  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 9:04:21am

re: #676 Salamantis

Quite a unique site here, isn't it? A fine representation of our pluralistic society gathering around one common denominator ~ refutation of idiocy, wherever it might occur.

678 Charles  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 9:05:16am

re: #674 Yashmak

That's what that little red heart icon is for, actually. If you read or post a comment that you think has a good point that might need to be repeated, click the heart to save it to your "My Favorites" page.

679 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 9:28:43am

"Scientism: Theology for the Brain Damaged"
[Link: www.blogger.com...]

mama winger said...
The posts here are very interesting. I hope to be able to join in the discussion when I have more time.

Would that be okay?

8/02/2008 12:16:00 PM

Gagdad Bob said...
Of course, dive right in. Who do you think we are, Queeg?

8/02/2008 12:18:00 PM

I believe that Captain Queeg is Gagdad Bob's site nick for Charles.

Besides LGFers Kirly, Mama Winger Yank in theEU, and Ma Sands, I have found that Lance, Babbazee, Goodbye Natalie, ChenZhen and Kepler Sings have posted there in the last ten days, but I believe, although I am unsure, that the latter folks are already gone from here. Of course, I might not recognize some nicks; other folks might post there under different nicks, and still others post anonymously.

There is a Sal who occasionally posts there, but I assure everyone that it is not me. Not to mention that it is surpassingly obvious just from reading his/her posts.

680 A. van Hilten  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 10:17:06am

re: #679 Salamantis

I believe that Captain Queeg is Gagdad Bob's site nick for Charles.

Classy, ain't it?

681 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 10:25:57am

re: #679 Salamantis

Interesting. With the exception of ChenZhen (who was banned long before for other reasons), most of those commentors tended to be very critical of Charles's posts on this very topic.

Read Gaghdad's site just today to see what was there. He's gone over the edge into LGF stalkerdom with some of his comments. Reminds me of when the fascist sympathziers left for GoV where they felt free to attack us here on LGF. Leaves you wondering about some folks, you know.

682 Hanoch  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 1:46:58pm

re: #655 Salamantis

What a surprise; a nameless creationist posting a baseless slur concerning an Ivy League professor who is debunking his cherished religious fantasy!

As I understand it, something is "baseless" when there are no facts to support the assertion. Given that this "Ivy League professor" has donated a considerable sum to the Obama campaign, I think it is a safe bet that he, like most of his Ivy league brethren, sits on the left side of political spectrum. And given that those on the left are frequently quite hostile to anything religious, I think it is perfectly fair to note his potential biases. I recognize this rubs the evolution faithful like yourself the wrong way, but I thought the disclosure of pertinent information more important than the risk of offense.

683 Charles  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 1:50:49pm

re: #682 Hanoch

As I understand it, something is "baseless" when there are no facts to support the assertion. Given that this "Ivy League professor" has donated a considerable sum to the Obama campaign, I think it is a safe bet that he, like most of his Ivy league brethren, sits on the left side of political spectrum. And given that those on the left are frequently quite hostile to anything religious, I think it is perfectly fair to note his potential biases. I recognize this rubs the evolution faithful like yourself the wrong way, but I thought the disclosure of pertinent information more important than the risk of offense.

I guess it's easier for you to dismiss Miller if you demonize him as a "leftist."

So how do you dismiss the ruling of lifelong Republican and G.W. Bush appointee Judge John E. Jones in the Dover Monkey Trial?

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

684 Hanoch  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 1:57:50pm

re: #656 eclectic infidel

Dear Mr. Infidel:

For someone to have "debunked ID", as you put it, that person would have to prove that the universe does not, in fact, have a purposeful creator. If Professor Miller has done that, I (and the rest of the world) must have missed it. There is a world of difference between "debunking ID" and arguing that the scientific method is incapable of addressing ID.

685 Hanoch  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 2:06:40pm

re: #683 Charles

I am not dismissing or demonizing him. I am just pointing out that if you are going to rely upon him, you ought to have some sense of where he is coming from. If a scientist takes issue with evolutionary theory, no one here hesitates in pointing out his/her particular associations (e.g., with the Discovery Institute, etc.). I think that is perfectly fair too.

Why the double standard?

686 Charles  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 2:12:00pm

re: #685 Hanoch

I am not dismissing or demonizing him. I am just pointing out that if you are going to rely upon him, you ought to have some sense of where he is coming from. If a scientist takes issue with evolutionary theory, no one here hesitates in pointing out his/her particular associations (e.g., with the Discovery Institute, etc.). I think that is perfectly fair too.

Why the double standard?

There's no double standard. Kenneth Miller's political leanings are irrelevant to the scientific issues.

Looks like you're going to ignore Judge John E. Jones, of course, because he's inconvenient to the pseudo-argument you're making.

687 mossley  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 2:44:52pm

re: #682 Hanoch

Then show where his scientific reasoning is at fault. You can't, because what he says is the truth and you cannot counter it. Instead, you rely on a smear campaign in an attempt to diminish what he has to say. Where, exactly, does the Bible encourage deliberate lying? I seem to have missed those passages.

688 Hanoch  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 3:31:27pm

re: #686 Charles

I'm not so sure political leanings are irrelevant. My experience is that those on the left (particularly the far left), generally, are far less likely to be committed religiously than their counterparts on the right.

My guess is that scientists who question the evidence that man evolved from amoebas are generally not subscribers to leftist political doctrine. If you think the evidence is to the contrary, I'll listen. (I think you are getting too far afield with Judge Jones though--I am talking about scientists).

689 Yashmak  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 3:32:21pm
For someone to have "debunked ID", as you put it, that person would have to prove that the universe does not, in fact, have a purposeful creator.

- Hanoch

No, the fact that what you say CANNOT be disproven is what debunks ID as science. The fact that the fundamental concept of ID is untestable, unobservable, and unmeasurable, and as such cannot ever be either proven or disproven is what debunks it as real science.

That's not a difficult concept to grasp.

690 Hanoch  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 3:47:09pm

re: #689 Yashmak

When you "test", "observe", and "measure" an amoeba transforming into a human, you and I will be in complete agreement. Let me know when you succeed.

691 Yashmak  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 4:28:04pm
When you "test", "observe", and "measure" an amoeba transforming into a human, you and I will be in complete agreement. Let me know when you succeed.


- Hanoch

It would be difficult for a person to more completely misrepresent evolutionary theory, or to display more complete ignorance of same, than you have in this quote.

692 Hanoch  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 4:38:07pm

re: #691 Yashmak

Wow, that hurts!

693 mossley  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 4:43:20pm

re: #690 Hanoch
Your willful ignorance is amazing. Do you actually think such a blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of evolution actually helps your point? If so, you pretty much have to admit you have no point to make.

694 texasjihad  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 4:45:01pm

re: #648 Salamantis

I do apologize for the off topic. Again the battle for the American soul is in place. The original planned parenthood thought was to kill as many blacks as possible -- yet to be fair-- I cannot see that as the motive today. I think the "you only go around once in life" is the main driving philosophy today if I had to guess. Maybe some think that over population is a problem but I am not sure. What is sure is the way women who kill their young feel about it later. The naturalists probably blame those mean Christians for telling them it is murder.
This issue is so full of twists and turns. It is killing in that it stops a beating human heart. It is killing based on the location of the child, others desire for the child and degree of dependence on the mom--not on the idea of human life being made in God's image. If we killed all unwanted two year olds it would make more sense to some. (many babies that are thought to be unwanted turn out to be loved when they are born)
If a man is seen going from school bus to school bus killing children as he goes, and if most of us could--we would shoot him dead without hesitation and we would get the blessing of man and God. It would not matter if the children being murdered could not live without some help from others or if their parents loved and planned them. It would not matter if they were very young. Yet those men do get paid to kill children every day because the highest court in the land says that we cannot stop them. We condemn those who deny the killing of the Jews yet we deny ourselves that this killing of some 34 million children is wrong. Abortion is or is not murder whether you or I or the Supreme court "think" it is.
I do not condone the killing of court protected killers as long as the opportunity is there to replace the judges and change the law. But it is very hard to let it go. It is amazing to me that those who protect the killers count on the defenders of children to be unwilling to kill others for the cause. Based on the post modern view of truth we not only could kill for the sake of justice --we have an obligation to do so.

695 Charles  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 5:50:51pm

Oh brother.

696 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 6:59:56pm

re: #682 Hanoch

As I understand it, something is "baseless" when there are no facts to support the assertion. Given that this "Ivy League professor" has donated a considerable sum to the Obama campaign, I think it is a safe bet that he, like most of his Ivy league brethren, sits on the left side of political spectrum. And given that those on the left are frequently quite hostile to anything religious, I think it is perfectly fair to note his potential biases. I recognize this rubs the evolution faithful like yourself the wrong way, but I thought the disclosure of pertinent information more important than the risk of offense.

Well, what would you say if he had donated to McCain's campaign? McCain accepts evolutionary theory as sound and valid science, too.

Personally, I think that the attempt, by the fundamentalist literalist anti-science religious, to connect a political position that they despise with an acceptance of science that they also despise, smacks of ad hominem, unintended irony, and hypocrisy.

697 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 7:03:57pm

re: #684 Hanoch

Dear Mr. Infidel:

For someone to have "debunked ID", as you put it, that person would have to prove that the universe does not, in fact, have a purposeful creator. If Professor Miller has done that, I (and the rest of the world) must have missed it. There is a world of difference between "debunking ID" and arguing that the scientific method is incapable of addressing ID.

What has indeed been refuted, discredited and debunked by Ken Miller, among many others, is the irreduceable complexity argument that has been trumpeted by the Disco Dewde shills in order to push their intelligent design PR propaganda relabeling of young-earth creationism, pursuant to the Wedge Strategy.

698 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 7:07:10pm

re: #685 Hanoch

I am not dismissing or demonizing him. I am just pointing out that if you are going to rely upon him, you ought to have some sense of where he is coming from. If a scientist takes issue with evolutionary theory, no one here hesitates in pointing out his/her particular associations (e.g., with the Discovery Institute, etc.). I think that is perfectly fair too.

Why the double standard?

Because neither political party is publicly anti-evolutionary theory, as are the Disco Dewdes. Membership in them automatically reveals anti-science biases in the matter, whereas membership in either major political party indicates nothing of the kind.

699 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 7:10:45pm

re: #690 Hanoch

When you "test", "observe", and "measure" an amoeba transforming into a human, you and I will be in complete agreement. Let me know when you succeed.

We can find a good chunk of common DNA between amoebas and humans. Do you think it got there by accident, or by common ancestry - or was it snuck in there by a lying deity to 'test our faith'? And would you also have voted OJ innocent despite the DNA evidence? Regardless of the facts, logic and truth of the matter, and just because you liked him, like you like fundamentalist Biblical literalism?

700 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 7:27:11pm

re: #694 texasjihad

I do apologize for the off topic. Again the battle for the American soul is in place. The original planned parenthood thought was to kill as many blacks as possible -- yet to be fair-- I cannot see that as the motive today. I think the "you only go around once in life" is the main driving philosophy today if I had to guess. Maybe some think that over population is a problem but I am not sure. What is sure is the way women who kill their young feel about it later. The naturalists probably blame those mean Christians for telling them it is murder.
This issue is so full of twists and turns. It is killing in that it stops a beating human heart. It is killing based on the location of the child, others desire for the child and degree of dependence on the mom--not on the idea of human life being made in God's image. If we killed all unwanted two year olds it would make more sense to some. (many babies that are thought to be unwanted turn out to be loved when they are born)
If a man is seen going from school bus to school bus killing children as he goes, and if most of us could--we would shoot him dead without hesitation and we would get the blessing of man and God. It would not matter if the children being murdered could not live without some help from others or if their parents loved and planned them. It would not matter if they were very young. Yet those men do get paid to kill children every day because the highest court in the land says that we cannot stop them. We condemn those who deny the killing of the Jews yet we deny ourselves that this killing of some 34 million children is wrong. Abortion is or is not murder whether you or I or the Supreme court "think" it is.
I do not condone the killing of court protected killers as long as the opportunity is there to replace the judges and change the law. But it is very hard to let it go. It is amazing to me that those who protect the killers count on the defenders of children to be unwilling to kill others for the cause. Based on the post modern view of truth we not only could kill for the sake of justice --we have an obligation to do so.

And yet you defend God. When God would have to be far and away the world's biggest abortionist, as fully a third of pregnancies miscarry - naturally abort - before they come to term. Which begs the question of whether God is just rectifying a Deific mistake made by allowing the pregnancy to happen in the first place.

You make erroneous comparisons between embryos, fetuses and schoolbus-riding children in a cynical attempt to manipulate emotions; well I will have none of that. You might put up pictures of aborted fetuses; I can counter with pictures of women who bled to death from shoving coathangers and knitting needles up their vaginas in desperate attempts to abort before Roe vs. Wade became legal. I have talked with many of the women entering the clinics. They have pondered agonizingly upon their decisions, and do not take them lightly, as one would decide the style of haircut one wants at a beauty parlor. Many of them are filled with the same desperation that an animal gnawing off a paw caught in a trap demonstrates; they will do ANYTHING rather than carry the pregnancy to term.

Embryos and fetuses are not living, breathing, born human beings. They are not even potential human beings, as the very designation 'potential' entails eventual actualization, and, as we have noted, fully a third of pregnancies naturally abort. Rather, an embryo or a fetus is a possible future human. And when it is a matter of favoring the life of a fetus or an embryo, a possible future human, or the liberty of a born woman, an actual present human, the latter must logically take precedence. Such matters are like the Schiavo case; they should remain between the immediate family, the doctor, and their consciences, and the state and the coercive religious should butt their intruding asses out of such intensely pesonal and private decisions.

701 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 7:45:58pm

This poem is about the connection between racial and gender enslavement.

The Fundamentals

"Abortion is murder!", the witch-burners bray
As they kneel on their hard wooden floors to pray
That all the damned heathens will see the light
And be saved from Hell's bondage by bonfire bright
And Cain's crosses glowing in southern night.

Our mothers and sisters and daughters and wives
Are reduced to receptacles, their whole lives
Possessed by one purpose: to nurture cells
More worthy of life, for they might be male
Like Jesus - thus wombs are warped into jails.

Poor Eve is the pattern primordial, damned
By gender, as race consigned sons of Ham
To servitude, their God-burned cross their coal
Complexion, and if one should flee their fold
Love says, "Scourge the body to save the soul."

If knowledge of ethics is primal sin
Then 'teaching all nations' commits again
The error, but teach they must, for their bane
Is difference; they're driven to all souls train
For Heaven, where all seraphs sing the same.


This poem is actually only partially true; in fact, a Southern Baptist minister in my hometown relentlessly campaigned against the local abortion clinics, and bussed parishioners there weekly to protest. Until the issue became personal, when his own underaged daughter became pregnant. That week, no one got bussed in from his church, and his daughter was snuck in for her procedure; the next week, he was busing them in again.

Pastoral Counseling

Her weeping is a tiny, tinny sound
Crawling from the fallen receiver.
Precautions have failed us. We have
A Situation to address. She
Came to me for consolation
A troubled teen unable to
Handle her desires: nor I mine.
Her flesh was firm and ripe
And mine weak.
I have betrayed faith, flock, family
And the trust they and this girlchild
Placed in me. Unable to
Bear this revelation spreading further
I choose my sole recourse, to betray anew
And to embrace iniquity and
Lie with abomination.
I lift the receiver and speak to her
In practiced tones, both balming and commanding.
Go to the clinic, I tell her; I'll pay for it.
And shiver as ghost nails
Rake my back like a lover's clutches:
A dead hare crossing the grave of my convictions.


I wanna tell you a stroy about my wife. Before I ever met her, she was a young Naval officer who had been sent to Italy. She was lonely and vulnerable, and became intimately involved with a fellow officer. She used a diaphragm, but it failed her and she became pregnant.

She was a staunch Roman Catholic, and so was the commander of her military unit, so she came to him with her problem, and he advised her to 'do the right thing' by carrying the pregnancy to term and then offering it up for adoption; she agreed.

As soon as she passed the point beyond which abortion was not permitted, this brutal, cruel and hypocritical bastard called her up before a unit assembly and denounced her as a whore and a strumpet. Meanwhile, the male officer's name never came up, and other women in the unit were discovering they were pregnant, flying to Germany for weekend abortions, and suffering no unit ramifications. The experience emotionally shattered her, and she resigned her commission and returned to the states. I subsequently met her in a college we both attended on the GI Bill.

I have NO RESPECT WHATSOEVER for these coercively self-righteous and hypocritical SOBs. This is America, dammit, where people have historically come to be free from the tyranny of others. Let these twisted ghouls run their OWN fucking lives, and leave other people alone to run theirs.

702 eclectic infidel  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 7:48:16pm

re: #689 Yashmak

- Hanoch

No, the fact that what you say CANNOT be disproven is what debunks ID as science. The fact that the fundamental concept of ID is untestable, unobservable, and unmeasurable, and as such cannot ever be either proven or disproven is what debunks it as real science.

That's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Well said. I was about to respond and then realized that perhaps, just perhaps someone else already beat me to the punch. :)

703 Spar Kling  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 8:48:44pm

re: #595 jaunte

Can you point us to any of the papers you think have been undeservedly excluded from broad scientific crutiny?

Well, if you insist, here are a couple:

Nature rejected a paper on the weak interaction theory by Enrico Fermi
Nature rejected a paper on Cerenkov Radiation (Pavel Cerenkov)
Nature rejected a paper on photosynthesis by Johan Deisenhofer, et al
Nature initially rejected a paper on black hole radiation by Stephen Hawking

Oh, and for some reason Watson and Crick never submitted their landmark paper on DNA to peer review. Go figure.

Please understand that I'm not against peer review, but it's very well understood in the scientific community that the peer review process, while filtering out a great deal of junk, is flawed and subject to a great deal of prejudice. Just ask several college professors and please let us know if I'm wrong.

Oh yeah, and Ewen and Pusztai's paper on the effects of feeding genetically modified potatoes to rats? All six of the Royal Society's reviewers judged it flawed, while five out of six reviewers for The Lancet gave it favorable reviews.

- sk

704 jaunte  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 9:04:03pm

re: #703 Spar Kling

I should have specified "papers suggesting Intelligent Design which you think have been undeservedly excluded from broad scientific scrutiny." I do think you understood what I meant.

"Oh, and for some reason Watson and Crick never submitted their landmark paper on DNA to peer review. Go figure."


Here's the reason for the Watson and Crick paper not going through the process:

3) Nature (founded in 1869)——and hundreds of other scientific journals—help push science forward by providing a venue for researchers to publish and debate findings. Today, journals also validate the quality of this research through a rigorous evaluation called peer review. Generally at least two scientists, selected by the journal’s editors, judge the quality and originality of each paper, recommending whether or not it should be published.

Science publishing was a different game when Watson and Crick submitted this paper to Nature. With no formal review process at most journals, editors usually reached their own decisions on submissions, seeking advice informally only when they were unfamiliar with a subject.
[Link: www.exploratorium.edu...]

705 Spar Kling  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 9:07:38pm

re: #605 theatheistjew

What scientific hypothesis does ID make? I've asked this before, but no one seems to answer when they want to say there are two sides.

There aren't two sides.

And the only thing being debated with respect to evolution is how fast
it happened and where and what time individual processes took place.

There is NO DEBATE.

A pity, because there are a lot of really interesting ideas out there!

If you're at all interested in biology, please take the time to browse around in [Link: www.panspermia.org...] . You'll be happy to know that it's not religious and offers some challenging perspectives if you have an open and inquiring mind. This site promotes a "third way" that's different from both Darwinism and ID.

Regarding ID, let me ask you a question. How would you be able to tell the difference between an organism that's considered natural to Earth and one that's been genetically modified by a scientist?

- sk

706 Salamantis  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 9:24:50pm

re: #705 Spar Kling

A pity, because there are a lot of really interesting ideas out there!

If you're at all interested in biology, please take the time to browse around in [Link: www.panspermia.org...] . You'll be happy to know that it's not religious and offers some challenging perspectives if you have an open and inquiring mind. This site promotes a "third way" that's different from both Darwinism and ID.

Regarding ID, let me ask you a question. How would you be able to tell the difference between an organism that's considered natural to Earth and one that's been genetically modified by a scientist?

- sk

From #651:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

The idea that aliens might have come here and dropped off some spare life - an idea to which I do not subscribe, dus to the vast distances between stars, btw - would just kick the evolutionary can down the road, but not off it, as such beings would themselves have had to evolve on their own home worlds.

707 Spar Kling  Mon, Aug 4, 2008 11:27:05pm

re: #613 swamprat

This process is referred to as human birth.

No, you need to review your Biology textbook. It's pretty rare for organisms to be able to produce a viable zygote from gametes with a different number of chromosomes. For example, a hybrid between a horse (32 pairs of chromosomes) and a donkey (31 pairs of chromosomes, is nearly always sterile (fertile mules are extremely rare). Lions and tigers have the same number of chromosomes (19 pairs each).

There have been attempts at hybridizing humans and chimpanzees (humanzee), but no successful results have been documented. Also, geneticist David Reich has proposed a theory that humans and chimpanzees did interbreed regularly after speciation. This is to try to explain why the X chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees seem to have diverged more recently than the Y chromosome. I don't think this theory is widely accepted though.

And you know very well that a singe variant can give rise to an entire herd that carry the same variation.

Not true at all. As I said, a mutation must appear fairly frequently for it to take hold in a population—this was the conclusion of one of the founders of field of population genetics (Fisher), who published studies on the mathematics of natural selection (yes, he was an evolutionist) –and positive mutations are extremely rare. I believe evolutionists currently estimate that the selection advantage of a positive mutation is between .1 and 1%, so the probability of that any single positive mutation survives random death is very low (calculated at only 0.2% with a 0.1% advantage). When you start combining the probabilities, the chances for macroevolution are vanishingly small, especially within the timeframes available. So to paraphrase Ken Miller, "We got the math. You lose."

We have a vestigial tail. We can't fight with it, or wrap it around a twig.

I sit on mine. Pretty handy in my opinion.

If we are made in G ds image, and G d is an eternal spirit, with no physical body, then what the heck does it matter as to the structure that we are currently inhabiting?

While I happen to agree with you, I will point out to you that your statement is a religious belief, not a scientific one. Note that ID takes no position on who the designer was.

I liked your first two paragraphs, by the way.

Thank you.

-sk

708 A. van Hilten  Tue, Aug 5, 2008 12:36:57am

And to think some people here where claiming this thread was dead...

709 nathanbrazil  Tue, Aug 5, 2008 2:11:40am

Ken Miller has misrepresented Behe's idea and then argued against it. Not a good proof against ID. Number 2 (and critically important) You don't prove evolution - which is what Miller is trying to do -by connecting proteins (i.e. parts that already exist). You have to show how proteins came about in the first place. You have to show how information was ADDED from point to point, also.

710 Salamantis  Tue, Aug 5, 2008 3:22:45am

Spar Kling, when a mutation is dominant (rather than recessive) and useful vis-a-vis the environment, a single case can engender an entire population, as happened with the Morgan Horse, which may be traced back to a single dominant mutant stallion named Figure, foaled in the 1790's.

And nathanbrazil, if you are still talking about proving something via scientific indicyion, you really don't understand how the empirical scientific method proceeds. Nothing is ever considered to be absolutely proven the case, on priniple, for this would foreclose any future in which subsequent data, ragardless of its content, could modify a theory. However, things can be shown to be the case with statistical probabilities practically indistinguishable from certainty, as the artifactual retroviral DNA sequence isomorphisms between humans and great apes demonstrate vis a vis common ancestry.

Ken Miller DID NOT misrepresent Behe's irreduceable complexity argument; what he did was to show that in every case where Behe has contended irreduceable complexity, the complexity was indeed reduceable.

How proteins came about in the first place is origins of life theory, not evolutionary theory; evolutionary theory has to do with how nonrandom environmental selection acts upon already-present randomly mutating populations.

And yes, information can be gained in open systems; the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to a system receiving energy from an external source.

711 Kulhwch  Tue, Aug 5, 2008 6:33:19am

re: #709 nathanbrazil

Ken Miller has misrepresented Behe's idea and then argued against it. Not a good proof against ID. Number 2 (and critically important) You don't prove evolution - which is what Miller is trying to do -by connecting proteins (i.e. parts that already exist). You have to show how proteins came about in the first place. You have to show how information was ADDED from point to point, also.

Looking ....

Registered since: Oct 15, 2006 at 12:52 pm

No. of comments posted: 6
No. of links posted: 0
Show comments within last 7 days

Ah, but of course ...

}:)     [What are you using for bait, chum?]

712 Charles  Tue, Aug 5, 2008 8:07:34am

re: #707 Spar Kling

Note that ID takes no position on who the designer was.

This is one of the ID movement's primary deceptions. They "officially" take no position, but whenever the shills start talking it takes no more than a few sentences for it to become clear that the ID movement is a Christian movement.

The entire scheme reeks of dishonesty.

713 Naso Tang  Tue, Aug 5, 2008 8:15:56am

re: #705 Spar Kling

If you're at all interested in biology, please take the time to browse around in [Link: www.panspermia.org...] . You'll be happy to know that it's not religious and offers some challenging perspectives if you have an open and inquiring mind. This site promotes a "third way" that's different from both Darwinism and ID.

Panspermia is interesting and valid, but says nothing about evolution itself, any more than the common sparrow being transplanted from Europe to the Americas says anything about its evolution.

It's still turtles all the way down.

714 nathanbrazil  Tue, Aug 5, 2008 9:40:09am

re #710
"Ken Miller DID NOT misrepresent Behe's irreduceable complexity argument; what he did was to show that in every case where Behe has contended irreduceable complexity, the complexity was indeed reduceable."

From what I saw he did nothing of the kind. He argued that all the "parts" were used in other areas therefore Behe's argument against evolution is incorrect. That is not Behe's argument. ID says that all those parts - that both sides agree exist - won't step by step build up to make "X". The parts, until the function is created, are not doing anything. There is no reason to be considered "the fittest" no reason to be selected.
As in Miller's ex. 10 parts started the process of a flagellum. Why would the 10 parts survive and take over the population. If the fact that it does something positive gives you the out, please remember that it has to stop doing that (whatever) to give part 11 (and 12,13 etc.) the ability to work up to the new job. [Or alternatively, if #11 goes on top -so to speak - of the 10 parts, it certainly will interfere with the "proper" previous functioning of said part.] The complex part is not working all the time it is building up and the old function isn't working either.
Don't forget my second point: Evolution is about the building up information: new forms of radically changed old "parts". Not just old parts re-arranged. I didn't say that new info can't be gained... I said that you haven't shown that it did. Evolutionists have shown that stuff can be rearranged - everyone can agree to that - but they must show where new info has built up from 0 to X through Y amt. of steps.
Also, how stuff got here in the first place may not be "pure" evolutionary theory, but you can't apply your theory without stuff to work on. Living reproducing things still need to be accounted for.

715 Charles  Tue, Aug 5, 2008 11:02:12am