LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Creationism in Switzerland

Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:37:35 pm PDT

An LGF reader emailed a link to this article from last November at swissinfo.ch, showing that the deniers of evolution are hard at work in Europe as well: Scientists and education experts criticise textbook which put creationism on a par with evolution.

Thirty percent of the Swiss public rejects evolution? Who knew?

A heated debate over the inclusion of creationism in a school science book highlights the success Swiss evangelicals are having sowing seeds of doubt about evolution. The debate over the textbook raises questions about why increasing numbers of Swiss are willing to turn away from science and accept creationist views that God created the earth a few thousand years ago.

The school authorities in canton Bern quickly revised the brochure included in the textbook after it was harshly criticised by scientists and education experts.

The controversial passage presented creationism and evolution as two ways of “explaining” the origin of the universe and life on earth. Critics of teaching creationism in science classes say it suggests there is a controversy when there isn’t one since evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Even one of the authors admitted that the 12- to 14-year-olds who were to use the book could get the wrong impression that one theory was just as valid as the other.

The publication came just before the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe appealed for members – including Switzerland – to “oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline”. In its resolution the council warned that creationist ideas – once an almost exclusively American phenomenon – were spreading throughout Europe and could threaten not only human rights but democracy itself.

But the Swiss proponents of creationism are working on fertile ground. An international survey last year found that 30 per cent of the Swiss reject evolution, one of the highest rates in Europe.

The fringe Christian organisation Pro Genesis commissioned a survey earlier this year which found that 80 per cent of Swiss want creationism taught alongside evolution in biology class.

“Many people think science is devoid of any meaning of life and this of course makes them critical,” biologist Guido Masé told swissinfo. “That’s why they try to find common ground between science and belief and end up leaning towards a creationist view.”

Masé is curator of an exhibition called Adam, Eve and Darwin, currently running in the northwestern town of Liestal.

Advertisement

274 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 vxbush  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:39:10pm

"pute"? Try "put."

2 HelloDare  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:39:49pm

If you find a cuckoo clock on a beach, don't you assume that some intelligence was behind it...

3 Irene NYC  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:40:35pm

Probably all those Muslim Swiss make up most of the 30%.

Speaking of Islam, as I posted on the last thread, is it just me, or does the "O" with a star in the middle in "08" on the Obama/Bayh bumper sticker on Is%20it%20just%20me,%20or%20does%20the"...] with="with" a="a" star="star" in="in" the="the" middle="middle" obama="obama">Bayh bumper sticker on Drudge look a wee bit too reminiscent of the Islamic crescent and star?" target="_blank">Drudge look a wee bit too reminiscent of the Islamic crescent and star?

Inquiring minds want to know....

4 Irene NYC  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:41:43pm

PIMF

Is it just me, or does the "O" with a star in the middle in "08" on the Obama/Bayh bumper sticker on Drudge look a wee bit too reminiscent of the Islamic crescent and star?

Inquiring minds want to know....

5 ploome hineni[deleted]  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:42:05pm
6 Occasional Reader  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:43:26pm

re: #2 HelloDare

If you find a cuckoo clock on a beach, don't you assume that some intelligence was behind it...

... or would you think all the pieces fell off the Matterhorn in exactly that pattern?

/

7 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:45:01pm

I'm eating some smoked ancestor fish right now. Cedar Salmon... 20 mins at 225, 3 hours forty mins at 125 with lots of smoke.

8 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:45:18pm
In its resolution the council warned that creationist ideas – once an almost exclusively American phenomenon – were spreading throughout Europe and could threaten not only human rights but democracy itself.

The spreading of American culture. It's embarrassing that this revival of creationism is coming from America.

9 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:46:18pm

They'll work it out.

Somehow I get the feeling the people of Berne don't need our advice on science.

10 Slumbering Behemoth  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:46:42pm
The fringe Christian organisation Pro Genesis commissioned a survey earlier this year which found that 80 per cent of Swiss want creationism taught alongside evolution in biology class.

Is Pro Genesis the group pushing the agenda to get creationism taught as science there, or is there another group responsible?

11 ploome hineni[deleted]  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:46:52pm
12 Bobblehead  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:47:14pm

re: #7 Thanos

I'm eating some smoked ancestor fish right now. Cedar Salmon... 20 mins at 225, 3 hours forty mins at 125 with lots of smoke.

You barbarian! Eating your ancestors? Sounds good, though.

13 karmic_inquisitor  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:47:25pm

re: #7 Thanos

I'm eating some smoked ancestor fish right now. Cedar Salmon... 20 mins at 225, 3 hours forty mins at 125 with lots of smoke.

I am coming over.

Ooops - forgot I have tri tip to put on the rotisserie.

14 ploome hineni[deleted]  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:47:48pm
15 HelloDare  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:48:07pm

re: #5 ploome hineni

It's that old worn out argument that has been discarded by creationist. The watch on the beach.

Basically, he said that if he walked along a beach and found a stone, he could see that the stone was just part of the natural world. But if he walked a bit further along the beach and picked up a watch, he could see that it just hadn't 'happened'. It was a complex design of intricate bits and pieces that had been put together to make the watch, and if he could find other watches then perhaps he could invoke the concept of a watchmaker.
16 MandyManners  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:48:20pm

Left and Right meet at Jew-Hate Junction.

17 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:48:39pm

re: #8 Killgore Trout

The spreading of American culture. It's embarrassing that this revival of creationism is coming from America.

Almost as embarrassing as listening to Pat Buchanan on the O'Reilly radio show today. He had that patented, plaintive "if only" wRONg Paul whine/screech going full time as well...

18 Red Cloud  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:48:51pm

re: #4 Irene NYC

Remember, it's all meaningless until they send out the Text Message of Destiny (tm).

19 MandyManners  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:49:52pm

re: #16 MandyManners

Oops. Wrong thread.

20 HelloDare  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:50:21pm

re: #18 Red Cloud

Remember, it's all meaningless until they send out the Text Message of Destiny (tm).

Text message from On High. A satellite.

21 coquimbojoe  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:50:26pm

re: #5 ploome hineni

yes

what does a cuckoo clock have to do with evolution?

And who would be stupid enough to bring it to the beach?

22 perfectsense  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:50:40pm

#5 and adding to #15, an argument against against evolution goes something like: "If you walked along the beach and found a watch, you would think it wasn't a product of evolution, but the creation of an intelligent mind. Why do you think a jellyfish on the beach is a product of evolution and not the creation of an intelligent mind?" The cuckoo clock reference ties the comment to Switzerland.

23 coquimbojoe  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:50:55pm

re: #19 MandyManners

Oops. Wrong thread.

Its never the wrong thread for you!

24 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:51:28pm

re: #21 coquimbojoe

And who would be stupid enough to bring it to the beach?

Perhaps they forgot they had it, so it was by accident, not design that the watch ended up on the beach...

25 jcm  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:51:58pm

re: #21 coquimbojoe

And who would be stupid enough to bring it to the beach?

Has anyone seen my cuckoo clock?
I went the beach and haven't seen it since.

*scratches head*

;-)

26 ploome hineni[deleted]  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:53:16pm
27 ploome hineni[deleted]  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:54:29pm
28 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:54:54pm

re: #25 jcm

Has anyone seen my cuckoo clock?
I went the beach and haven't seen it since.

*scratches head*

;-)

"On Hearing The First Cuckoo In Spring" By Frederick Delius.

29 HelloDare  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:54:55pm

re: #26 ploome hineni

it's simply a fallacy

watch has not DNA, no genetic material subject to spontaneous mutation or degedation

or any sort of independant reproductive ability

it's a stupid argument

based on some verbal trickery

just childish and stupid

I agree. I keep forgetting the sarc tag. Love the spacing. It that a poem?/

30 Slumbering Behemoth  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:56:17pm

re: #26 ploome hineni


it's a stupid argument

based on some verbal trickery

just childish and stupid

Precisely.

31 Atweber  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:57:45pm

Creationism---is this a synonym for Religion?

32 ploome hineni[deleted]  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 3:57:54pm
33 Racer X  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:00:44pm

Does it seem like Obama and McCain are waiting for the other to announce VP first?

34 HelloDare  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:00:45pm

Rumor about Bayh? Because of a Kansas City company printing a bumper sticker?

The bumper sticker was BI's FOR OBAMA

35 HelloDare  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:01:03pm

/

36 Atweber  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:02:27pm

Evolution ---is this a theory or is it a law?---hypothesis?

37 Son of the Black Dog  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:06:05pm

re: #36 Atweber

Evolution ---is this a theory or is it a law?---hypothesis?

Evolution - It's not just a good idea. It's the law!

38 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:06:21pm

re: #31 Atweber

Creationism---is this a synonym for Religion?

No, not in most cases. There are defined flavors of creationism as the term is used in the US by various Abrahmic faiths. In the end it's become a meaniningless word to describe your faith in G-d, simply because so many fruitbat extremists have used it to mean so many different things.

You don't need to be a creationist to believe in G-D, you don't have to disbelieve evolution to believe in G-D. If however you are atheist, either evolution or a pseudo-scientific substitute must be part of your epistemology. (it could be argued that scientology is a nutball extension of atheism based on pseudo science for instance.)

39 so.cal.swede  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:08:30pm

No reindeer in Switzerland

40 So?  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:09:29pm

This is Secret Code:

Sittin' on the dock of the Bahy

41 so.cal.swede  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:09:54pm

re: #29 HelloDare

reminds me of taxfreekiller's unintentional (?) haikus.

42 Killian Bundy  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:10:15pm
The school authorities in canton Bern quickly revised the brochure included in the textbook after it was harshly criticised by scientists and education experts.

/didn't even have to file a lawsuit

43 Mike in Georgia  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:10:19pm

re: #40 So?
just biden his time

44 NoSubmission  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:10:48pm

Everyone knows that God created evolution.

45 quickjustice  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:11:08pm

There goes the Swiss lead in bio-pharmaceuticals! And with the advent of creationism, forget gene research, or discovery of new vaccines or antibiotics.

The creationists really are trying to condemn the rest of us to a return to the Middle Ages! If they want to live in caves and die young, together with their children, of curable diseases, it's O.K. with me, but they shouldn't try to impose such a fate on the rest of us!

46 So?  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:11:40pm

re: #43 Mike in Georgia

just biden his time

No reports have it promotional material printed with the names Obama-Bahy
all over it....breaking...SoFlash™

47 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:11:40pm
48 jcm  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:12:00pm

re: #36 Atweber

Evolution ---is this a theory or is it a law?---hypothesis?



In science a theory
is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

49 So?  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:12:19pm

re: #47 buzzsawmonkey

...And sent the platypus the bill.

Did he have to duck?

50 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:12:22pm

re: #38 Thanos

Interesting thoughts, Thanos.

I read last night where a great theological scholar said that "scientism is an aggressive form of atheism."

I thought, "Yeah. He's right."

51 HelloDare  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:12:57pm

Why would you introduce your VP candidate on a weekend? Dumb.
My pick Archbishop of Canterbury.

52 IslandLibertarian  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:13:27pm

re: #44 NoSubmission

Everyone knows that God created evolution.


That may be so.....and if we are created in God's image, is God evolving?

/angels, pin-head, calculator, infinity........

53 twincitiesgirl  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:14:41pm

Dr. Francis Schaeffer founded 'L Abri Fellowship in Switzerland--I read many of his books back in my college days.

In A Christian Manifesto, Schaeffer's argument is simple. The United States began as a nation rooted in Biblical principles. But as society became more pluralistic, with each new wave of immigrants, proponents of a new philosophy of secular humanism gradually came to dominate debate on policy issues. Since humanists place human progress, not God, at the center of their considerations, they pushed American culture in all manner of ungodly directions, the most visible results of which included legalized abortion and the secularization of the public schools. At the end of -- A Christian Manifesto, Schaeffer calls for Christians to use civil disobedience to restore Biblical morality, which explains Schaeffer's popularity with groups like Operation Rescue. Randall Terry has credited Schaeffer as a major influence in his life.

don't forget

54 Killian Bundy  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:15:00pm

re: #45 quickjustice

There goes the Swiss lead in bio-pharmaceuticals! And with the advent of creationism, forget gene research, or discovery of new vaccines or antibiotics.

The creationists really are trying to condemn the rest of us to a return to the Middle Ages! If they want to live in caves and die young, together with their children, of curable diseases, it's O.K. with me, but they shouldn't try to impose such a fate on the rest of us!

THE SKY IS FALLING, WE'RE DOOMED!

/probably just best to kill yourself before the evil Theocracy gets you

55 Pawn of the Oppressor  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:15:23pm

Any thoughts on this Bayh guy?

I've been reading what I could find and frankly, I'd rather have him as President than Obama, period...

56 jcm  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:15:35pm

*sigh*

I get so tired of this evolution / creationism threads. We need to change the subject to something more substantive and relevant. It's all just speculation any how.

But on the other hand if we discuss THE TURTLE STACK we might shed some light of matter so enduring importance.


*runs from the room while avoiding Stinky's stick*

57 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:15:37pm

re: #50 Cognito

Interesting thoughts, Thanos.

I read last night where a great theological scholar said that "scientism is an aggressive form of atheism."

I thought, "Yeah. He's right."

Don't think I would agree, and scientism is an obscure word used by ID proponents, have you not a better one?

Is scientism not naturalism which also equates to realism if we are talking synonyms?

58 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:16:15pm

re: #1 vxbush

"pute"? Try "put."

I think that is singular for Putin.

59 quickjustice  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:16:24pm

re: #54 Killian Bundy

Suicide? You go first, and tell me what it's like in the afterworld! ;-)

60 NoSubmission  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:16:45pm

re: #52 IslandLibertarian

That may be so.....and if we are created in God's image, is God evolving?

/angels, pin-head, calculator, infinity........


It's not for me to say if God is evolving. To me, God is indescribable.

61 IslandLibertarian  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:17:48pm

re: #56 jcm

So you want an "Ugly Lamp" thread?

62 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:17:50pm

re: #57 Thanos

Don't think I would agree, and scientism is an obscure word used by ID proponents, have you not a better one?

Is scientism not naturalism which also equates to realism if we are talking synonyms?

No, scientism is not a word used by ID proponents. It's not a new word; it's a word used by people who know what words mean.

63 pat  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:18:09pm

I see Saudi Arabia failed to get Camel Jumping made an Olympic sport again.

64 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:19:08pm

re: #63 pat

Yeah, but they're heavily favoured to take the gold in Synchronized Beheading...

65 Mike in Georgia  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:19:19pm

re: #61 IslandLibertarian

put it right next to the velvet elvis

66 jcm  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:19:33pm

re: #61 IslandLibertarian

So you want an "Ugly Lamp" thread?

BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT THE TURTLE STACK!

67 NoSubmission  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:20:07pm

re: #62 Cognito

No, scientism is not a word used by ID proponents. It's not a new word; it's a word used by people who know what words mean.

What?

68 jcm  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:20:10pm

re: #63 pat

I see Saudi Arabia failed to get Camel Jumping made an Olympic sport again.

First read I substitute an H for the J.

69 HelloDare  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:20:13pm

re: #63 pat

They want to rename the shot put. Call it stoning.

70 quickjustice  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:20:30pm

re: #66 jcm

Why did G-d create the Lava Lamp?

71 Jetpilot1101  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:21:10pm

As a Christian who believes in evolution, I am getting so sick of people promoting that the earth is 6000 ears old. We know it isn't, case closed! To all my "Christian" brothers and sisters out there, let's quit trying to prove Genesis. In the grand scheme of things IT DOES NOT MATTER! Start living upright and righteous lives and maybe in the process folks will see your Christlike example and be saved. Beating someone over the head with a Bible never solved anything, Jesus didn't do it. Beating someone over the head with junk science (i.e. creationsim) never solved anything, Al Gore is figuring that out in our lifetime.

72 IslandLibertarian  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:21:19pm

re: #70 quickjustice

To keep hippies indoors?

73 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:21:20pm

re: #62 Cognito

I agree that it's been around awhile, I choose to disagree entirely that it's used commonly by folks who aren't ID proponents in modern usage. You will find scholarly works that use it, but in common parlance it's used mostly by ID proponents.

I'm not into scientism, I'm into realism. Thanks.

74 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:21:26pm

re: #67 NoSubmission

I don't see your point...

75 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:22:02pm

re: #70 quickjustice

Why did G-d create the Lava Lamp?

It seemed like a good idea shortly after he created Opium.

76 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:22:03pm

re: #62 Cognito


The term scientism can be used as a neutral term to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social sciences. It also can imply a criticism of an actual or perceived misapplication or misuse of the authority of science in either of two directions:

1. The term is often used as a pejorative


It's a pretty much fictional belief system used by creationists to scare people away from science. I don't know of anyone who describes themselves as believing in scientism.

77 quickjustice  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:22:05pm

re: #62 Cognito

Yes, the gnosis, the secret knowledge of G-d's plans, revealed only to special believers. Tell me more!

78 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:22:31pm

re: #73 Thanos

I agree that it's been around awhile, I choose to disagree entirely that it's used commonly by folks who aren't ID proponents in modern usage. You will find scholarly works that use it, but in common parlance it's used mostly by ID proponents.

I'm not into scientism, I'm into realism. Thanks.

I haven't the faintest clue how it's used in common parlance. I specifically put it in the scholarly context.

79 sammysdad  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:22:36pm

How come cuckoo clocks use IIII instead of IV ?

80 jcm  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:23:03pm

re: #70 quickjustice

Why did G-d create the Lava Lamp?

Something to look at when he checked out his creation Cannabis sativa?

81 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:23:08pm

re: #76 Killgore Trout

It's a pretty much fictional belief system used by creationists to scare people away from science. I don't know of anyone who describes themselves as believing in scientism.

No, it's exactly not that. That's tripe.

82 quickjustice  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:23:14pm

re: #75 CyanSnowHawk

Heh!

83 HelloDare  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:23:16pm

re: #79 sammysdad

How come cuckoo clocks use IIII instead of IV ?

They're cuckoo.

84 jcm  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:23:42pm

re: #79 sammysdad

How come cuckoo clocks use IIII instead of IV ?

There's a question to kick off the FNDT!

85 CyanSnowHawk  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:23:49pm

re: #79 sammysdad

How come cuckoo clocks use IIII instead of IV ?

If they used IV, it would grow all over the place and take over the room.

86 Moe Katz  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:24:21pm

re: #38 Thanos


You don't need to be a creationist to believe in G-D, you don't have to disbelieve evolution to believe in G-D. If however you are atheist, either evolution or a pseudo-scientific substitute must be part of your epistemology.

That about nails it. For anyone other than a dogmatic atheist, and that includes forms of agnosticism that include homeopathic strengths of belief, the issue offers more possible positions than the Kama Sutra.

87 Canadian Guy  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:24:22pm

"Meet Evan" page on Obama.com

[Link: www.barackobama.com...]

88 Ojoe  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:24:36pm

This is Absurd:

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, recently restated his (and Pope John Paul's) argument. As MSNBC reported, Pope Benedict has referred to the debate between creationists and supporters of evolutionary theory as an "absurdity":

"They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other," the pope said. "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."
On the other hand, there are certain questions that evolutionary theory can never answer: "Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, 'Where does everything come from?'" Christians, thus, can learn truth from science, but scientists must learn to accept the limits of their own work. No scientific investigation can ever prove that God does not exist, or that He did not create the world, or even that man is only the sum of his physical parts.

Link

89 NoSubmission  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:24:39pm

re: #74 Cognito

I don't see your point...


What does 'people who know what words mean' mean?

90 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:24:48pm

re: #77 quickjustice

Yes, the gnosis, the secret knowledge of G-d's plans, revealed only to special believers. Tell me more!

Your sarcasm doesn't make you sound smart; it makes you sound sarcastic. I've not said anything about secret knowledge or God's plans, or revelations or believers.

Apparently words have free-floating meanings now, and only the most trendy apply.

91 quickjustice  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:24:48pm

re: #79 sammysdad

The "IIII" was used in older clocks. IIRC, "IV" wasn't in common use until the twentieth century.

92 Killian Bundy  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:24:53pm

re: #85 CyanSnowHawk

If they used IV, it would grow all over the place and take over the room.

/not if you have little lambs

93 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:25:14pm

re: #78 Cognito

I haven't the faintest clue how it's used in common parlance. I specifically put it in the scholarly context.

I prefer terms like "pseudo science" since the meaning is clear to all.

94 itellu3times  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:25:18pm

I'll be Swiss creationism has holes in it.

/did anybody say that yet?

95 Slumbering Behemoth  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:25:27pm

re: #79 sammysdad

How come cuckoo clocks use IIII instead of IV ?

A doctrinal schism within the Temporal dogma.

96 NoSubmission  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:25:36pm

re: #87 Canadian Guy

"Meet Evan" page on Obama.com

[Link: www.barackobama.com...]


linky is dead. 'we are all imperfect'? wth?

97 willowone  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:27:58pm

what's this?[Link: obamabayh.com...] is this standard?

98 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:28:18pm

re: #89 NoSubmission

What does 'people who know what words mean' mean?

My point is that a wacky usage of a word does not hijack its proper meaning.

99 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:28:57pm

re: #93 Thanos

I prefer terms like "pseudo science" since the meaning is clear to all.

The trouble is, pseudo science and scientism are not the same things.

100 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:29:45pm

re: #99 Cognito

The trouble is, pseudo science and scientism are not the same things.

Right, and I used the word "Pseudo Science", which you changed to scientism.

101 Canadian Guy  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:29:49pm

re: #97 willowone

what's this?[Link: obamabayh.com...] is this standard?

looks amateurish

102 Moe Katz  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:30:04pm

re: #79 sammysdad

How come cuckoo clocks use IIII instead of IV ?

Clock builders are afraid of needles?

103 NoSubmission  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:30:08pm

I don't see any American flags on Obama's website. The only red, white, and blue is in his lame Disney-like logo. He seems to be in a country all his own.

104 ibmkeyboard  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:30:21pm

re: #97 willowone

what's this?[Link: obamabayh.com...] is this standard?

I guess Hillary has been passed over again.

and again.

105 seekeroftruth  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:30:24pm

re: #96 NoSubmission

linky is dead. 'we are all imperfect'? wth?

Not the best way to introduce your VP LOL!
A few minutes ago Hugh Hewitt said " I'm not voting Obama, because I'm not bayh "

106 Jetpilot1101  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:30:56pm

OT: TX congressman Chet Edwards is a democrat. Folks, democrats in Texas are conservatives everywhere else. Looks like the big O may be trying to move to the center.

107 ibmkeyboard  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:31:14pm

re: #104 ibmkeyboard

I guess Hillary has been passed over again.

and again.

sorry,
thrown under that short bus.

108 So?  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:31:41pm

Bahyee Wolf

109 ibmkeyboard  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:32:23pm

Why would Obamessiah even need a vice president?

110 quickjustice  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:32:27pm

re: #90 Cognito

Your scorn reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in "Alice Through the Looking Glass":

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-- that's all."

111 So?  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:32:31pm

re: #107 ibmkeyboard

sorry,
thrown under that short bus.

Tell her wear a skirt next time.

112 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:32:36pm

re: #100 Thanos

Right, and I used the word "Pseudo Science", which you changed to scientism.

I didn't change it, I added it.

I think we're stuck on the definition of scientism; otherwise I don't think there's a conflict here.

113 Jetpilot1101  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:33:04pm

re: #109 ibmkeyboard

Why would Obamessiah even need a vice president?

He needs a vice-messiah or maybe a messiah of vice with his background.

114 coquimbojoe  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:33:08pm

re: #27 ploome hineni

get a room

I thought you and I had one reserved for later....

115 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:33:42pm

re: #110 quickjustice


"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-- neither more nor less."

Yes, when I use a word. Also when Webster uses it.

How silly, I suppose.

116 Kenneth  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:33:43pm

re: #96 NoSubmission

linky is dead. 'we are all imperfect'? wth?

what, is he under the bus already?

117 Killian Bundy  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:33:44pm

PETA Wants To Buy SeaWorld And Free Shamu

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants to buy a SeaWorld park, possibly the one in San Diego, free the animals inside and replace them with virtual reality exhibits, it was reported today.

Officials with the animal rights group say they have an anonymous donor willing to shell out big money to purchase at least one of SeaWorld's three parks, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

/you know, because zoo animal thrive in the wild, just like the animals PETA rescues from shelters

118 itellu3times  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:34:01pm

Rush was praying it was Biden,
I think Bayh will be even a better punching bag,
he looks like Orville Redenbacher's bastard son
and has the requisite popcorn for brains,
enthusiastically defending 0bama's,
"The surge was not a success
because we should never have been
there in the first place".

Yeah, his father was a big lib,
back when that was like a good thing.

119 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:34:43pm

re: #112 Cognito

I didn't change it, I added it.

I think we're stuck on the definition of scientism; otherwise I don't think there's a conflict here.

Since I was talking scientology, the term pseudo science fits best for me, so don't get your Orgones in a uproar.

120 So?  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:34:48pm

re: #113 Jetpilot1101

He needs a vice-messiah or maybe a messiah of vice with his background.

The Rebbe told me the Messiah isn't due barack until 2015

121 willowone  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:35:38pm

re: #101 Canadian Guy
ok, just wondering if i should start researching him

122 ibmkeyboard  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:37:26pm

re: #113 Jetpilot1101

He needs a vice-messiah or maybe a messiah of vice with his background.

someone to tell us peasants the maser's
decisions.

123 ibmkeyboard  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:38:01pm

re: #120 So?

The Rebbe told me the Messiah isn't due barack until 2015

lo

124 HelloDare  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:38:18pm

re: #109 ibmkeyboard

Why would Obamessiah even need a vice president?

I agree. God has The Trinity.
Obama can have The Duality.

125 jcm  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:38:23pm

Have any Lizards signed up for the Obama veepstakes text message?

126 itellu3times  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:38:25pm

re: #94 itellu3times

I'll bet

sheesh

127 NoSubmission  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:39:29pm

re: #125 jcm

Have any Lizards signed up for the Obama veepstakes text message?


I don't have a cell phone. I'll settle for smoke signals..

128 So?  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:39:41pm

re: #124 HelloDare

I agree. God has The Trinity.
Obama can have The Duality.

Or maybe the O stands for "Oneness"

129 spacejesus  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:40:16pm

what do you expect from a country which granted women the right to vote in the 1970s.

130 Racer X  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:41:26pm

Obama has chosen .

Jimmy is proud.

131 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:41:32pm

A search for "scientology pseudo science" returns 86,500 hits, "Scientology scientism" returns only 28,600. Not that it means anything, but ... The Zetetic, the original magazine of the Skeptics society and most Skeptical publications since have mostly referenced scientology as pseudo science, only rarely as "scientism"

132 pegcity  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:42:24pm

all i have to say about switzerland is nazi gold.

133 patrickafir  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:43:01pm

Well, at least they have near 100% awesome typography! (Thanks, Josef Müller-Brockmann, et al!)

134 patrickafir  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:43:55pm

Hey, Charles, I like this new rounded corner format you've instituted.

135 nyc redneck  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:46:10pm

re: #127 NoSubmission

hey no submission,
we finally read the material,
excellent.

136 NoSubmission  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:48:12pm

re: #135 nyc redneck

hey no submission,
we finally read the material,
excellent.


NYCREDNECK! How are you?

Really glad you liked it. There's still some final edits on that to go yet. I can send you more chapters if you like.

137 jorline  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:48:35pm

Fox is reporting that Marc Ambinder at Atlantic.com is tracking a private charter jet from Chicago to Delaware. Live tracking here.

A flight from Midway to New Castle, DE... to pick someone up? Who knows? No other flights from anywhere in and around Chicago to anywhere in and around Delaware... or vice versa. Just this charter.

138 nyc redneck  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:50:31pm

re: #136 NoSubmission

we were fighting over the chapters.
:)

139 NoSubmission  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:51:57pm

re: #137 jorline
That is so cool. Nice jet.

140 Racer X  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:52:47pm

Hey Bubba, does this beer taste funny to you?

141 NoSubmission  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:53:03pm

re: #138 nyc redneck

we were fighting over the chapters.
:)


Great! I think I gave you 1-5. I have 6-18 ready now. You ain't seen nothing yet!

142 nyc redneck  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:54:29pm

re: #141 NoSubmission

Great! I think I gave you 1-5. I have 6-18 ready now. You ain't seen nothing yet!

now i'm getting scared.
seriously.
(can't wait tho)

143 freetoken  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:54:39pm

re: #134 patrickafir

Speaking of evolution.... the rounded corner thing... I'm not so sure about it in some places. The curve in this box... the comment box, is fine, but the form entries ("Email", "Web site") are too rounded IMO.

I guess that is what happens in evolution... you gets what you gets in the roll of the dice, then wait and see what makes it...

144 Racer X  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:54:43pm

You know you're driving way too fast when...

145 Killian Bundy  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:55:20pm

At a Senate hearing within the last couple years, can't remember what for, Biden had ten minutes.

/ten minutes later, he was still "propounding the question", he never finished and his time was over so the witness didn't have to answer, funny as hell

146 NoSubmission  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:55:38pm

re: #142 nyc redneck

now i'm getting scared.
seriously.
(can't wait tho)


You're scared now? Just you wait. Its like Silence of the Lambs meets Rosemary's Baby.

147 NoSubmission  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:56:15pm

re: #140 Racer X

Hey Bubba, does this beer taste funny to you?


Tasty and repulsive all at once.

148 ploome hineni[deleted]  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:57:26pm
149 jorline  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:58:06pm

re: #139 NoSubmission

That is so cool. Nice jet.

Only the best for the elitist.

150 patrickafir  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 4:59:10pm

re: #143 freetoken

I love it! Very clean, yet also organic. Looks nice on my Mac too! heh

151 freetoken  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:00:44pm

re: #150 patrickafir

The rounded off boxes look... iPhone-ish to me... wonder if Charles' new toy has had influence on him.

152 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:01:03pm

re: #131 Thanos

A search for "scientology pseudo science" returns 86,500 hits, "Scientology scientism" returns only 28,600. Not that it means anything, but ... The Zetetic, the original magazine of the Skeptics society and most Skeptical publications since have mostly referenced scientology as pseudo science, only rarely as "scientism"

Again, Thanos, I wasn't changing what you wrote about atheism, I was adding my own thought to it.

Scientism has nothing to do with Scientology.

153 Crimsonfisted  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:01:31pm

what rounded boxes? What am I not seeing?

154 rightymouse  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:01:40pm

re: #143 freetoken

Speaking of evolution.... the rounded corner thing... I'm not so sure about it in some places. The curve in this box... the comment box, is fine, but the form entries ("Email", "Web site") are too rounded IMO.

I guess that is what happens in evolution... you gets what you gets in the roll of the dice, then wait and see what makes it...

I'm not seeing any rounded corners so have no clue what posters have been talking about.

155 rightymouse  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:01:53pm

re: #153 Crimsonfisted

what rounded boxes? What am I not seeing?


Not seeing them either.

156 Killgore Trout  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:02:05pm

re: #153 Crimsonfisted

Switch to firefox.

157 jcm  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:02:41pm

re: #153 Crimsonfisted

what rounded boxes? What am I not seeing?

You have IE7? IE& don't do round coolness.

Get Firefox.

158 willowone  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:04:07pm

[Link: www.thewashingtonnote.com...] ? and now they announce they will not announce until 2 hours before event saturday giggling

159 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:05:49pm

re: #152 Cognito

Again, Thanos, I wasn't changing what you wrote about atheism, I was adding my own thought to it.

Scientism has nothing to do with Scientology.

Agreed, so let's toast since it's Friday night and move on. :)

160 IslandLibertarian  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:06:17pm

You have IE7? IE& don't do round coolness.

Death to 90deg. R=.0625 Rules!

161 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:06:56pm

re: #151 freetoken

The rounded off boxes look... iPhone-ish to me... wonder if Charles' new toy has had influence on him.

I noted earlier that I feel sure ol' Steve Jobs has had an effect...

162 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:07:10pm

re: #159 Thanos

Agreed, so let's toast since it's Friday night and move on. :)

Cheers!

163 Summer  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:08:16pm

You all scoff at this news, but are implored to remember that while 30% of the Swiss may accept Creationism...it is a far more nuanced form of Creationism than the mere brutish American kind.

164 jorline  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:09:44pm

re: #157 jcm

You have IE7? IE& don't do round coolness.

Get Firefox.

I agree jcm. I switched three weeks ago and should have done it sooner. Firefox is a lot faster and cooler than IE7.

165 freetoken  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:10:09pm

re: #155 rightymouse

I'm using Safari (on a Mac), if that makes any difference. Rounded boxes everywhere!

166 christheprofessor  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:10:23pm

Good evening, all...

Has Obama dropped the bomb?

167 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:10:44pm

re: #166 christheprofessor

Good evening, all...

Has Obama dropped the bomb?

I thought he swore he'd never do that.

168 Ojoe  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:10:52pm

re: #162 Cognito

Yeah Toast !

169 jorline  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:11:49pm

re: #166 christheprofessor

Good evening, all...

Has Obama dropped the bomb?

The world is sitting on pins and needles waiting.

//

170 christheprofessor  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:12:13pm

re: #167 Cognito

I thought he swore he'd never do that.

Heh. One can't drop oneself, I suppose... ;)

171 Cognito  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:13:13pm

re: #169 jorline

The world is sitting on pins and needles waiting.

//

I'd be surprised if he doesn't wait until Monday, to maximize coverage.

Although the advantage to doing it now, as I think of it, is that he could make the Sunday papers and talking-head shows in Washington.

Hmmm.

172 jorline  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:14:12pm

Does this mean we're all dateless on a Friday night.

/wife just popped me upside the head.

173 jcm  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:14:21pm

re: #166 christheprofessor

Good evening, all...

Has Obama dropped the bomb?

Rumors of veeps....

Obama / Bayh bumper stickers in Kansas.
Private jets from Chicago to Delaware.

No.

174 willowone  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:14:41pm

re: #171 Cognito
possible he wanted to wait until right before convention so that no-one would miss a drop or lack of bounce in polls

175 rightymouse  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:15:14pm

re: #165 freetoken

I'm using Safari (on a Mac), if that makes any difference. Rounded boxes everywhere!

Eh...my IE is pretty stable, so I'll stay with that. If things change, I'll go with Firefox. Don't have a Mac.

176 jorline  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:16:05pm

re: #171 Cognito

I'd be surprised if he doesn't wait until Monday, to maximize coverage.

Although the advantage to doing it now, as I think of it, is that he could make the Sunday papers and talking-head shows in Washington.

Hmmm.

I have to hand it to his marketing handlers...cell phones...text messages.

177 galloping granny  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:16:48pm

re: #171 Cognito

I'd be surprised if he doesn't wait until Monday, to maximize coverage.

Although the advantage to doing it now, as I think of it, is that he could make the Sunday papers and talking-head shows in Washington.

Hmmm.

Frankly, I think it is at this point being carried to the point of ridiculous. It is no longer enticing at all. Frankly, if I ever did give a rat's behind, I don't now. At this point, it is childish.

178 Killian Bundy  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:17:46pm

re: #169 jorline

The world is sitting on pins and needles waiting.

//

At this point, unless it's Hillary, it's going to be so anticlimactic.

/I hope/pray it's Biden, Ol' Plugs is guaranteed to derail the campaign at least once a week by spouting something incredibly stupid, he just can't help himself

179 Killian Bundy  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:18:49pm

re: #171 Cognito

I'd be surprised if he doesn't wait until Monday, to maximize coverage.

/kinda tough when they're scheduled to appear together tomorrow

180 Summer  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:19:32pm

re: #175 rightymouse

Eh...my IE is pretty stable, so I'll stay with that. If things change, I'll go with Firefox. Don't have a Mac.

My Ford Pinto seems like a good, solid, car.

Should anything feel different after a few traffic stops, I'll think about switching.

181 Theologian[deleted]  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:24:05pm
182 semper gumbi  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:24:49pm

re: #79 sammysdad

How come cuckoo clocks use IIII instead of IV ?

Wow! I have two cuckoo clocks in the house and never noticed that before! As to why? Haven't a clue.

183 jorline  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:27:16pm

re: #178 Killian Bundy

At this point, unless it's Hillary, it's going to be so anticlimactic.

/I hope/pray it's Biden, Ol' Plugs is guaranteed to derail the campaign at least once a week by spouting something incredibly stupid, he just can't help himself

LOL...I'm looking forward to a Hillary fireworks show in Denver.

Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.

184 Slumbering Behemoth  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:29:11pm

re: #181 Theologian

Criticism is not the same thing as animosity. Try again.

P.S. It is considered very poor manners, in just about every social circle there is, to presume to tell your host how to run his household.

185 Josephine  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:29:23pm

re: #4 Irene NYC

Is it just me, or does the "O" with a star in the middle in "08" on the Obama/Bayh bumper sticker on Drudge look a wee bit too reminiscent of the Islamic crescent and star?

I see it, too. They wouldn't do that on purpose, would they?

186 freetoken  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:30:43pm

re: #181 Theologian

Do you know how many times Charles has posted that posts that request him not to do entries (as you just did).... get deleted?

187 Josephine  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:33:48pm

From the article (emphasis mine):

"In its resolution the council warned that creationist ideas – once an almost exclusively American phenomenon – were spreading throughout Europe and could threaten not only human rights but democracy itself."

Charles, don't you wish you could tape that article to the fridge (or forehead) of every person who has complained when you've posted about this issue?

188 Crimsonfisted  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:36:55pm

re: #157 jcm

You have IE7? IE& don't do round coolness.

Get Firefox.

Thanks. Will do.

189 NY Nana  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:43:40pm

Laura Ingraham, sitting in for O'Reilly: Nothing tonight re the VP. Tomorrow at the earliest...

/Cute. Hussein playing games, but he has lost the instructions.

190 NY Nana  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 5:46:08pm

re: #178 Killian Bundy

/I hope/pray it's Biden, Ol' Plugs is guaranteed to derail the campaign at least once a week by spouting something incredibly stupid, he just can't help himself

I agree. That is who I want to see. I need a good laugh.

191 Basho  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 6:21:22pm

re: #181 Theologian

I don't know where this animosity against traditional faith and theology has come from, but please, stick to politics.

Heh, I see you're one of those new conservatives who want to keep faith out of politics ;)

192 zoomie  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 6:21:26pm
Thirty percent of the Swiss public rejects evolution? Who knew?

The usurpers of philosophy (evolutionist) would be surprised by this.

Of course many don't realize they have usurped. You can study energy,matter, geological record, space/time continuum, etc. and find proof or negation of your hypothesis. But the patterns in the record do not scream out "Exclude non-material affect", or "Thou shalt not consider external designer.", or "Assume all patterns are random". That is a philosophical presupposition that does not flow from empirical science. It flows from...the mind, the heart, the soul, the spirit...

193 Abu Al-Poopypants  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 6:24:19pm

I like a lot of the features that FireFox has, but it leaks memory like a SOB, especially 2.x, which I have to use at work because some of our add-ons aren't 3.0 ready yet. Every few hours I find that I have to kill it and restart.

194 Basho  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 6:27:25pm

re: #192 zoomie


You can study energy,matter, geological record, space/time continuum, etc. and find proof or negation of your hypothesis. But the patterns in the record do not scream out "Exclude non-material affect", or "Thou shalt not consider external designer.", or "Assume all patterns are random". That is a philosophical presupposition that does not flow from empirical science. It flows from...the mind, the heart, the soul, the spirit...

Yes! That's what I told my psychiatrist when she said the leprechaun that tells me to burn things isn't real.

195 Colonel Panik  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 6:51:48pm

Der Obamessiah fragt:
“Den Schweisserisches Volk:
Typicalische WeissVolk machen clingen zu das Religion und der SchussWaffen.”

196 gunjam  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 7:04:43pm

re: #193 Abu Al-Poopypants

I like a lot of the features that FireFox has, but it leaks memory like a SOB, especially 2.x, which I have to use at work because some of our add-ons aren't 3.0 ready yet. Every few hours I find that I have to kill it and restart

Thank you for helping me realize that I am not (completely) insane.

197 gunjam  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 7:07:47pm

re: #192 zoomie


Of course many don't realize they have usurped. You can study energy,matter, geological record, space/time continuum, etc. and find proof or negation of your hypothesis. But the patterns in the record do not scream out "Exclude non-material affect", or "Thou shalt not consider external designer.", or "Assume all patterns are random". That is a philosophical presupposition that does not flow from empirical science. It flows from...the mind, the heart, the soul, the spirit...

Too true.

198 swamprat  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 7:08:57pm

I am so glad Charles posted this. Now when scientists post learned videos showing the fallacies of creationism, instead of Mississippi Delta blues, or Appalachian banjo music, we can listen to this. A refreshing change of pace.

199 gunjam  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 7:11:32pm

re: #8 Killgore Trout

The spreading of American culture. It's embarrassing that this revival of creationism is coming from America.

I couldn't disagree more, Sir!

200 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 7:34:57pm

re: #192 zoomie

The usurpers of philosophy (evolutionist) would be surprised by this.

Of course many don't realize they have usurped. You can study energy,matter, geological record, space/time continuum, etc. and find proof or negation of your hypothesis. But the patterns in the record do not scream out "Exclude non-material affect", or "Thou shalt not consider external designer.", or "Assume all patterns are random". That is a philosophical presupposition that does not flow from empirical science. It flows from...the mind, the heart, the soul, the spirit...

It flows from Occam's Razor: Thou shalt not multiply entities beyond necessity. And supraphysical elements have not as of yet proven necessary for the scientific explanation of empirical phenomena.

201 mad doc  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 7:36:58pm

"Critics of teaching creationism in science classes say it suggests there is a controversy when there isn’t one since evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt."

In that case:

Why do jellyfish have genes that code for eyes?

Which came first, dna/rna or proteins, as they are co-dependant for their production?

Why are all proteins in life L handed and all dna R handed?

How does one explain the Cambrian explosion?

If life assembled by itself and became more complex by itself, how did this happen? No one has been able to demonstrate this happening. It seems not only illogical but absurd to believe this could happen by itself.

How can one say "evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt" as it can't explain those few examples above from the top of my head?

202 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 7:40:57pm

re: #36 Atweber

Evolution ---is this a theory or is it a law?---hypothesis?

It's a scientific theory. And scientific theories are much stronger than what is meant by the word 'theory' in common parlance:

[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.

Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.

203 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 7:48:00pm

re: #201 mad doc

Got any evidence for ID? There's plenty for evolution.

204 freetoken  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 7:48:14pm

re: #201 mad doc

Well, I sure Sal will give you the full explanation, but first things first...

You seem to think that any given theory (say "A") is somehow erroneous when it doesn't explain everything in the universe! Evolution is about speciation, not about origins of things in the universe (or even on Earth.)

205 Thanos  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 7:51:46pm

re: #204 freetoken

Well, I sure Sal will give you the full explanation, but first things first...

You seem to think that any given theory (say "A") is somehow erroneous when it doesn't explain everything in the universe! Evolution is about speciation, not about origins of things in the universe (or even on Earth.)

Indeed.

So the opposite would be to ask ID proponents if ID can explain where G-D came from, if they can't and also demonstrate the proof, then ID must be false. Not a good platform to argue from.

206 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 7:54:15pm

re: #201 mad doc

"Critics of teaching creationism in science classes say it suggests there is a controversy when there isn’t one since evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt."

In that case:

Why do jellyfish have genes that code for eyes?

Which came first, dna/rna or proteins, as they are co-dependant for their production?

Why are all proteins in life L handed and all dna R handed?

How does one explain the Cambrian explosion?

If life assembled by itself and became more complex by itself, how did this happen? No one has been able to demonstrate this happening. It seems not only illogical but absurd to believe this could happen by itself.

How can one say "evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt" as it can't explain those few examples above from the top of my head?

If jellyfish have genes that code for eyes - something that I haven't heard (please provide a substantiating link), it would indicate that an evolutionary ancestor of theirs possessed them, but that they became useless and the gene altered into a nonexpressive form.

Actually, DNA, RNA and proteins all depend upon amino acids (DNA and RNA are themselves complex proteins), and amino acids have been found to spontaneously form when chemicals are subjected to heat - but this has to do with origins of life theory, and not evolution.

All are handed one way or the other most likely because the first ones were, but that also has to do with origins of life theory and not evolution.

I explain the Cambrian explosion (which actually lasted longer than the span between the extinction of the dinosaurs and now) by noting that it was when mobile and directionally propelled organisms first appeared. With all that static food around and no moving predators (until later), practically every mutation that arose could survive and reproduce.

Once again, you return to origins of life theory. Evolution is not about the origins of life, but what happens to populations of already-present high-but-not-perfect-fidelity-copying organisms when confronted by an environment that favors some of their mutations over others in survival and reproduction.

And I just explained the examples that you profferred that had to do with evolution; most of yours didn't.

207 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 8:02:27pm

re: #78 Cognito

I haven't the faintest clue how it's used in common parlance. I specifically put it in the scholarly context.

If creationists believe in creationism, do scientists believe in scientism? No. They practice science. Creationists do not practice creation.

208 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 8:11:04pm

re: #115 Cognito

Yes, when I use a word. Also when Webster uses it.

How silly, I suppose.

This is how Merriam-Webster uses it:

Main Entry: sci·en·tism
Pronunciation: ˈsī-ən-ˌti-zəm
Function: noun
Date: 1870
1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)
— sci·en·tis·tic ˌsī-ən-ˈtis-tik adjective

When practitioners of natural science attempt to apply it beyond its proper empirical arena, 'scientism' is the word used to criticize such an error. In my opinion, there should be a word, 'religionism', to define the same kind of mistake when it is made by Genesis literalist creationists.

209 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 8:17:06pm

re: #201 mad doc

I have a hard time believing these questions are "off the top of your head". I also find it difficult to believe there is any answer anyone could provide you that would convince you of evolution's veracity.

210 jaunte  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 8:24:43pm

Just so no one gets the idea it was sudden, The "Cambrian Explosion" refers not to a single event, but to the evidence for a series of organisms that showed a greater diversity of body plan than those known to have come before them.
Despite some writers mischaracterizations, there were precursors to these animals some 10 million years before the Cambrian. The Cambrian Explosion refers to a group, or series of 'fauna:' organisms which appeared over a 15 to 20 Million year period.

211 Zoomie  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 8:35:52pm

re: #200 Salamantis

It flows from Occam's Razor: Thou shalt not multiply entities beyond necessity. And supraphysical elements have not as of yet proven necessary for the scientific explanation of empirical phenomena.

And so you agree we use philosophy to guide empirical science. Occam's razor was not discovered in a test tube or in the strata. Where did these logical constructs in our mind's come from? I'm comfortable that it came from the image of God, stamped on the soul.

212 mad doc  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 8:44:43pm

Salamantis. Your explanations are all factually in error. I wonder if you know much about biology at all.


1. Jelly fish have genes for eyes
[Link: www.landesbioscience.com...]

2. DNA/RNA are not proteins. They are nucleic acids

3. Dextro and levo amino acids are found in equal percentages apart from in living organisms. In other words they are produced equally in chemical reactions and both left and right would have been available.

4. Is this your own theory for the Cambrian explosion? I have not heard this explanation before.
Bacteria and amoeabae are self propelled. Remember the flagellum?
Best estimates are 10 million years for the Cambrian explosion and it could have been less.

213 mad doc  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 8:47:36pm

re: #209 Sharmuta

Sure there is. Show me an example of it occurring.

214 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 8:58:07pm

re: #213 mad doc

No- evolution has 150 of evidence supporting it. You prove your theory.

215 jaunte  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 8:59:06pm

Re: Cambian:
"Small shelly" metazoan faunas appeared at the beginning of the Cambrian (545 million years ago). The diversity of these animals' body plans gradually increased. The Sirius Passet fauna (Greenland) appeared around 535 million years ago. Those organisms became more diverse around 530 millin years ago (Chenjiang fauna, China). Diversification continued through 520 million years ago (Burgess shale faunas).

216 jaunte  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 8:59:27pm

(Cambrian) pimf...

217 basho  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:01:27pm

re: #213 mad doc

Search on youtube for ''Dawkins, flatfish''.

218 swamprat  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:06:58pm

re: #213 mad doc

Sure there is. Show me an example of it occurring.


Well, This would seem to be an existing transitional species on the way from one thing to another, and human beings have this bone called the coccyx which is a vestigial tail, with no purpose that I can see, other than being a literal pain in the ass. Lest you think I am some sort of anti-creationist, atheistic activist with a pro-evolution agenda driven by some sort of judeo-christian backlash; you should be aware that I more frequently am found defending creationists from what I view as unfair criticism. But I have also argued against pro-creationists using fake resumes to give themselves credence.

219 mad doc  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:12:18pm

"While it does not truly walk as most bipeds or quadrupeds do, it has the ability to use its pectoral fins to keep it upright as it makes a sort of wriggling motion with snakelike movements.[1] It can survive using this form of locomotion as long as it stays moist."

Sounds and looks like a fish to me.

If you didn't have a coccyx you would be faecally incontinent.
I like my coccyx.

220 basho  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:13:06pm

re: #211 Zoomie

And you want that taught in science classrooms?

221 swamprat  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:14:37pm

re: #219 mad doc..So if that is true, most things without coccyxs would be incontinent. Please explain.

222 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:17:12pm

re: #212 mad doc

Salamantis. Your explanations are all factually in error. I wonder if you know much about biology at all.

1. Jelly fish have genes for eyes
[Link: www.landesbioscience.com...]

Then my saying they could have, and have inherited, such genes was not in error. Thanx for the link.

2. DNA/RNA are not proteins. They are nucleic acids

They are, like proteins, comprised of amino acids; adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine.

3. Dextro and levo amino acids are found in equal percentages apart from in living organisms. In other words they are produced equally in chemical reactions and both left and right would have been available.

I never said that they were not found in equal percentages outside of living organisms. I said that whichever handedness found itself in primordial life would be the one that would logically continue to be reproduced in its descendents, including its handedness.

4. Is this your own theory for the Cambrian explosion? I have not heard this explanation before.
Bacteria and amoeabae are self propelled. Remember the flagellum?
Best estimates are 10 million years for the Cambrian explosion and it could have been less.

I truly do not hate to inform you of this, but the first fossil records we have of self-propelled multicellular organisms date from the Pre-Cambrian. It is when animals first appeared.

It is an idea of mine. Of course, the Ordovician radiation would also have prompted an increase in available mutations.

And as far as the length of the period:

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

The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record. This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organised into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude.

The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.

There is little doubt that disparity – that is, the range of different organism "designs" or "ways of life" – rose sharply in the early Cambrian. However recent research has overthrown the once-popular idea that disparity was exceptionally high throughout the Cambrian, before subsequently decreasing. In fact, disparity remains relatively low throughout the Cambrian, with modern levels of disparity only attained after the early Ordovician radiation.

The diversity of many Cambrian assemblages is similar to today's

223 mad doc  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:18:05pm

re: #214 Sharmuta

No- I'm busy destroying yours.

224 swamprat  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:18:31pm

re: #219 mad doc
..The fish I linked to, breathes air, (many fish do;Betas and most bubble-nest builders) and walks. Regardless of how it looks to you, it is different from your average trout.

225 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:18:36pm

re: #213 mad doc

Sure there is. Show me an example of it occurring.

Lenski's e. coli:

[Link: myxo.css.msu.edu...]

226 mad doc  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:19:26pm

re: #221 swamprat

If you didn't have a coccyx you would be faecally incontinent

227 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:19:39pm

re: #217 basho

Search on youtube for ''Dawkins, flatfish''.

He's not interested in evidence supporting evolution. He's only interested in promoting propaganda to support the claims of creationists. I refuse to play his game by jumping through his hoops.

"mad doc"- if you want to support ID as a theory over evolution, then prove your theory. 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? We'll wait.

228 swamprat  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:20:18pm

no rush, Mad Dog. I know you have salamantis on the other line. I need a cup of tea.

229 basho  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:21:21pm

re: #223 mad doc

No- I'm busy destroying yours.

Thanks for showing you're a bitter troll.

230 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:22:08pm

re: #223 mad doc

No- I'm busy destroying yours.

Good luck with that. If you can manage it, there's a Nobel in it for you...but that was the case with the other umpteen thousand who failed and many of them were bona fide scientists in relevant fields.

231 mad doc  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:22:52pm

re: #225 Salamantis

That's not evolution. That is a pathetic attempt to show that given 20 years of an extremely unnatural environment a bacteria can adapt to it. It is still E Coli.

232 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:23:55pm

re: #226 mad doc

If you didn't have a coccyx you would be faecally incontinent

A coccyx is a vestigal tail. Which means that for our distant ancestors, it wasn't vestigal.

And we can trace our common ancestors back via artifactual retroviral DNA sequences.

233 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:25:59pm

re: #230 Salamantis

What's funny, Sala, is that because these ID proponents have pushed their luck, I've gone on to look into evolutionary evidence myself, and I'm more convinced than I was before. And I don't think I'm alone. The more they push, the more people with open minds will look at the facts and side with said facts. They slit their own throats with their tactics.

234 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:26:44pm

re: #231 mad doc

That's not evolution. That is a pathetic attempt to show that given 20 years of an extremely unnatural environment a bacteria can adapt to it. It is still E Coli.

The entire surface configuration of it changed. And it now metabolized what used to kill its fellows; the inability to metabolize citric acid is a marker for e. coli. It's as if a human being developed lizard skin through which it could absorb and metabolize strychnine. Definitely a macromutation. And it can't interbreed with e. coli that lack its citric acid metabolizing capacity. The inability to interbreed has long been a defining characteristic of speciation.

235 mad doc  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:27:08pm

Sorry, got to go now (wife). It's been fun arguing with you and I think it is important to do that. I am not 100% convinced ID is right but I am 100% convinced evolution is wrong. There's something else going on here.

236 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:30:36pm

re: #235 mad doc

Sorry, got to go now (wife). It's been fun arguing with you and I think it is important to do that. I am not 100% convinced ID is right but I am 100% convinced evolution is wrong. There's something else going on here.

I find it immensely noninteresting that you would find a dogma lacking any empirical evidence whatsoever to be more credible than a theory with a century and a half's worth of empirical evidence supporting it, and none whatsoever contradicting it. I find it noninteresting because the dogmatic mindset capable of such a rationality inversion is all too familiar to me.

237 swamprat  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:30:47pm

re: #226 mad doc
Many people have had to have them removed. The only place where diapers or incontinence is mentioned are anti-evolution and pro creationist sites. No personal testamonials mention these problems. It seems I have stumbled on a creationist talking point. Do you have any statistics?

238 basho  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:31:03pm

re: #231 mad doc

That's not evolution. That is a pathetic attempt to show that given 20 years of an extremely unnatural environment a bacteria can adapt to it. It is still E Coli.

Yeah, yeah. It's ''micro-evolution.'' You have your creationist talking points memorized, WE GET IT.

239 jaunte  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:33:24pm

re: #238 basho

I'm still not clear on what wall or mechanism is proposed by creationists that prevents micro-evolution from sliding into macro-evolution. If one can happen, what logic prevents the other?

240 basho  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:33:25pm

re: #237 swamprat

See, doc? We heard it all before. Find some new sites to tell you what to say.

241 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:33:58pm

re: #238 basho

Yeah, yeah. It's ''micro-evolution.'' You have your creationist talking points memorized, WE GET IT.

A creationist without their talking points is like obama without a teleprompter.

242 Sharmuta  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:35:30pm

re: #239 jaunte

I'm still not clear on what wall or mechanism is proposed by creationists that prevents micro-evolution from sliding into macro-evolution. If one can happen, what logic prevents the other?

Enough microevolutionary changes occur in a species, you have macro. But don't tell the IDers that- it disrupts their talking points.

243 basho  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:36:00pm

re: #239 jaunte

Nothing. It's just jargon hoping to fool the ignorant.

244 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:37:13pm

re: #239 jaunte

I'm still not clear on what wall or mechanism is proposed by creationists that prevents micro-evolution from sliding into macro-evolution. If one can happen, what logic prevents the other?

And what's to keep multiple microevolutions from accumulating over time into macroevolution and speciation? That's how it generally works...

245 swamprat  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:37:59pm

Sigh. And here I thought it was all going so well.

246 Salamantis  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:43:41pm

re: #211 Zoomie

And so you agree we use philosophy to guide empirical science. Occam's razor was not discovered in a test tube or in the strata. Where did these logical constructs in our mind's come from? I'm comfortable that it came from the image of God, stamped on the soul.

Not that one. It came from trying things out, a whole bunch of different times, on a whole bunch of different problems, and discovering that, as a rule, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation that was able to account for all the observed phenomena was most likely to be the correct one.

247 mixa  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:49:19pm

A Switzerland thread? And wouldn't you know it - someone makes reference to a cuckoo clock.

For those who still believe the Orson Welles version of history - please see the link:

[Link: www.cuckooclockworld.com...]

Cuckoo clocks are from the Black Forest region of Germany.

248 swamprat  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 9:52:42pm

re: #226 mad doc

If you didn't have a coccyx you would be faecally incontinent


.....Doesn't appear to be true. Look here. (click on the blue word) Lots of horror stories, but I could find no mention of diapers or incontinence. And yes, if you look, removals are in there.

249 basho  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 10:02:40pm

re: #244 Salamantis

Do biologists actually use the terms micro/macro-evolution? I've only seen them used in creationist sites and such. I figured they invented it.

250 Sacred Plants  Fri, Aug 22, 2008 11:07:16pm

re: #132 pegcity

Yeah it´s easy to swallow the creationist agenda hook, line and sinker if you grew up with the belief that God created your currency. Poor Swiss.

251 Orson Buggy  Sat, Aug 23, 2008 12:17:46am

Why do jeans look better with zip off chaps? The American biker is a species of it's own and damn do we look sexy! Woo hoo. 72 cu in of 92 octane sipping fury and a nice fat tire make for the American dream, 50+ MPG don't hurt either. LOL.

Long live the banned of brothers.

Aerospace engineerig is not just fun, hell, it's rocket science.

252 Orson Buggy  Sat, Aug 23, 2008 12:26:11am

There is as much data to support ID as there is to support evolution. It is basically a wash and IMO faith is the only support for either theory. You may deride either side, but in doing so you are a fool and an uninformed scoffer.

Oh, and bikers rule!

253 mad doc  Sat, Aug 23, 2008 1:36:18am

re: #222 Salamantis

Sorry, but I can't let this pass and if you believe this you may derive the wrong conclusions because it is fundamental.
.
"They are, like proteins, comprised of amino acids; adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine."

Sorry, you are wrong. They are notamino acids. Amino acids have a completely different structure. Just look it up.

254 mad doc  Sat, Aug 23, 2008 1:38:01am

re: #248 swamprat

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

255 mad doc  Sat, Aug 23, 2008 1:40:07am

And it also apparently has sexual benefits; I didn't know that.

256 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 23, 2008 3:59:55am

re: #252 Orson Buggy

There is as much data to support ID as there is to support evolution. It is basically a wash and IMO faith is the only support for either theory. You may deride either side, but in doing so you are a fool and an uninformed scoffer.

Oh, and bikers rule!

In that case, maybe you'd be willing to furnish us with some of that data.

257 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 23, 2008 4:02:05am

re: #253 mad doc

Sorry, but I can't let this pass and if you believe this you may derive the wrong conclusions because it is fundamental.
.
"They are, like proteins, comprised of amino acids; adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine."

Sorry, you are wrong. They are notamino acids. Amino acids have a completely different structure. Just look it up.

I agree that they have a different structure, but the are built out of the same components. The double helix structure is, as far as I know, unique to genetic material.

258 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 23, 2008 4:04:49am

re: #254 mad doc

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

I see nothing in that link to support the contention that removing one's coccyx would resort in feal incontinence.

259 Salamantis  Sat, Aug 23, 2008 4:07:18am

re: #257 Salamantis

I agree that they have a different structure, but the are built out of the same components. The double helix structure is, as far as I know, unique to genetic material.

I might add that I never claimed that DNA was an amino acid; I truthfully claimed that it was comprised of four of them, though, and I named the four: adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine.

260 annar  Sat, Aug 23, 2008 6:24:28am

The Swiss are indeed on the enlightened path. The will soon realize that they can satisfy all their needs for educational needs by adopting the Qur'an, ahadith and the complete Harun Yahya series as the unique sources of knowledge for all academic disciplines.

/sarc

261 Deaddog  Sat, Aug 23, 2008 10:09:27am

re: #257 Salamantis

I agree that they have a different structure, but the are built out of the same components. The double helix structure is, as far as I know, unique to genetic material.

You are incorrect. Helices are a fairly common feature of biological materials, and proteins and oligosaccharides will form double helices with alacrity. What you are trying to say is that a double helix with information carrying capacity is unique in biology. This is also incorrect. A leucine zipper (a double helical peptide) can carry limited information, and can even replicate. The amusing thing is that leucine zipper replication is a great example of why the DNA (or RNA or PNA or HNA) double helices are so very unique: complementarity of the bases (not double helicity) allow the transfer of information in quantized, heritable units. The leucine zipper helices do not allow this, at least not yet. They replicate as consortia, forming interlocking hypercycles. Not that you care.

262 Deaddog  Sat, Aug 23, 2008 10:21:45am

re: #201 mad doc

"Critics of teaching creationism in science classes say it suggests there is a controversy when there isn’t one since evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt."

In that case:

Which came first, dna/rna or proteins, as they are co-dependant for their production?

That's an easy one: RNA. The RNA world hypothesis has been around since, oh, the mid-1980s. It is pretty much the accepted theory for the origin of life and of translation at this point. Yet Creationists / ID fellow travelers seem not to know this. Shrug.

Why are all proteins in life L handed and all dna R handed?

Because homochirality assists with folding of biopolymers. There is no a priori reason that a different chirality could not be chosen. Indeed, there are *natural* peptides from D amino acids , and biotechnology has made some very amusing drugs by changing the handedness of RNA.

What you are trying to say is "How did homochirality evolve?" And the answer, again sadly unrecognized by Creationists and ID fellow travelers, is that when you have the ability to replicate coupled with selection for function (that is, evolution) then you can adopt a trait (like homochirality) that is advantageous relative to a trait that is not (like heterochirality). Laboratory experiments bear this out, incidentally.

If life assembled by itself and became more complex by itself, how did this happen? No one has been able to demonstrate this happening. It seems not only illogical but absurd to believe this could happen by itself.?

Again and alas for you, there are any number of scientists who have now shown that functional nucleic acids can be selected from random sequence pools. As I have suggested elsewhere, you *can* create 747s from random parts in a hurricane ... as long as the hurricane can replicate and as long as you have a selection for function.

Replication + selection for function = evolution boys and girls. It works for geneitc algorithms. It works for biotechnology. And it worked at the origin and all subsequent stages of evolution. The fact that the Discovery Institute and almost any Creationist organization have their heads firmly ensconced in their nether regions so as not to keep up with modern science is really only the problem of ... the folks that listen to them. You might want to consider the decidedly smelly source of your previous information.

263 Moe Katz  Sat, Aug 23, 2008 5:12:39pm

re: #259 Salamantis

I might add that I never claimed that DNA was an amino acid; I truthfully claimed that it was comprised of four of them, though, and I named the four: adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine.


Eek, those are nucleotides, not AA's.

264 mad doc  Sun, Aug 24, 2008 12:25:24am

re: #262 Deaddog

That's an easy one: RNA. The RNA world hypothesis has been around since, oh, the mid-1980s. It is pretty much the accepted theory for the origin of life and of translation at this point. Yet Creationists / ID fellow travelers seem not to know this. Shrug.

So how did RNA get made then?

265 Moe Katz  Sun, Aug 24, 2008 12:51:47am

re: #264 mad doc

That's an easy one: RNA. The RNA world hypothesis has been around since, oh, the mid-1980s. It is pretty much the accepted theory for the origin of life and of translation at this point. Yet Creationists / ID fellow travelers seem not to know this. Shrug.

So how did RNA get made then?

According to this Wikipedia entry on the RNA world hypothesis, this model is not free from difficulties. I wonder, too, whether a solution to this problem is necessary to resolving the chicken and egg conundrum.

266 Deaddog  Sun, Aug 24, 2008 6:26:46am

re: #264 mad doc

So how did RNA get made then?

(chuckle) You're alot like my 4 year old, thinking that "Why?" is the be-all, end-all of inquiry and human knowledge. Do we know everything? No. Do we know so freakin' much that we can rule out Creationism / Intelligent Design as a mechanism for origins. Absolutely. Here, I'll give you a lemons-to-lemonade example, building off of:

re: #265 Moe Katz

According to this Wikipedia entry on the RNA world hypothesis, this model is not free from difficulties. I wonder, too, whether a solution to this problem is necessary to resolving the chicken and egg conundrum.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say in its 'Difficulties' section:

Since there are no known chemical pathways for the abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides from pyrimidine nucleobases cytosine and uracil under prebiotic conditions, it may be the case that nucleic acids did not contain the nucleobases seen in life's nucleic acids.[14] Tellingly, the nucleoside cytosine has a half-life in isolation of 19 days at 100°C and 17,000 years in freezing water, which is still very short on the geologic time scale.[15] Others have questioned whether ribose and other backbone sugars could be stable enough to be found in the original genetic material.[16] For example, the ester linkage of ribose and phosphoric acid in RNA is known to be prone to hydrolysis.[17] Additionally, ribose must all be the same enantiomer, because any nucleotides of the wrong chirality act as chain terminators.[18]

Now, what Wikipedia fails to appreciate in both talking about the timeframe for the degradation of pyrimidines and RNA is that it is the steady-state rate of production that is critical, not the longevity of any given molecule. And we have no idea what the steady-state rates of production were. That's one of those things that may never be known (see, like any good scientist I don't claim to know everything, just enough to debunk insipid Creationist / ID claims).

But these 'difficulties' are exactly what has been lobbed at the RNA world hypothesis for the past 20 years or so. And obviously that means that these are unsolvable problems, right, since science never, ever advances? In particular, the enantiomeric poisoning problem alluded to above was a bear: prebiotic mechanisms did not seem to favor the production of ribose, and thus any replicating chain would have been stopped dead in its tracks by the accumulation of the wrong monomer (not unlike how we kill HIV-1 today with anti-reverse transcriptase drugs). So, what are our choices? Give up and worship the Divine Invisible Pink Unicorn (long may its horn bedazzle thee) ... or look for a prebiotic mechanism that gives a better yield?

Those silly scientists, you know they can't bear to admit to the Divine Invisible Pink Unicorn, so they stupidly kept going in their research and ....

[Link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]

If you can't access that, it's an article saying that the addition of borate, that good ol' white mineral, stabilizes the prebiotic production of ribose. Wow, something we never tried before. And it gave a new result.

See, this is the problem with your "know nothing" (= infinite 'why') position. Knowledge advances. Wikipedia does not necessarily keep up, incidentally. And if you want to make the Bible (or the Divine Invisible Pink Unicorn Coda of All Power) your science text, go right ahead. If you want to make your belief system falsifiable, let's rock and roll. But really, truly, the simpler option is to keep your religion out of science, and to keep science out of religion.

267 tumbler  Sun, Aug 24, 2008 9:36:47am

Having discussed evolution vs creationism thousands of times with many in the scientific community, I have NEVER been shown the missing link that scientifically verifies their assertion that differing forms of life somehow "evolve". The "missing link" in their argument that there is a verifiable and scientifically provable genetic code sequence that shows irrefutable proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that one species is in fact a descendant or ascendant of the other.

This mythology can be traced from the new age and scientific community of the fifties and sixties, looking for a new "belief system" to replace their disillusionment with traditional Judeo-Christian religion.

The only scientifically proven equation in this mix is the size of their multi-trillion dollar publicly funded bank accounts. Which is, in reality, what this argument is invariably always about with a species like man.

The pursuit of power and money, of course.

Most of this evolution theology movement, with your tax dollars, have "evolved" quietly through the decades of public academic funding to become a global unchallenged socialist "green" movement.

Anyone standing in their way is immediately branded a modern day apostate and heretic.

As you watch each and every episode related to religion or evolution on such publicly funded channels as the History Channel or the Discovery Channel or Nova, etc, the program ALWAYS includes a segment and provably "devolves" into a debunking of traditional Judeo-Christian religious beliefs or theology.

The purpose in this is to infuse a new uneducated young generation with no historical perspective, and many older folks without the will to resist, with ABSOLUTE truth... the "science" of evolution and their publicly funded prophets are not to be questioned.

268 Deaddog  Sun, Aug 24, 2008 10:43:01am

re: #267 tumbler

Having discussed evolution vs creationism thousands of times with many in the scientific community, I have NEVER been shown the missing link that scientifically verifies their assertion that differing forms of life somehow "evolve". The "missing link" in their argument that there is a verifiable and scientifically provable genetic code sequence that shows irrefutable proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that one species is in fact a descendant or ascendant of the other.

Wow, you're fun. I guess the only argument we have is ... everything.

[Link: upload.wikimedia.org...]

That's what is called a phylogenetic tree. It indicates based on sequence information the evolutionary relatedness of organisms.

Here's a map at finer resolution, that includes us:

[Link: www.whozoo.org...]

Note that we're adjacent to the chimps and gorillas, which makes complete sense morphologically, as well.

At any even finer grained view, we can look at how we're related to other humanoids (not humans), such as the Neandertals.

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

Now, nowhere on here is God's DNA (nor His fingerprints, for that matter). He could have zarked us into existence, or maybe Vishnu got up one day and decided that non-blue folks would be a kick. I don't know. It's not my department. But you're really barking up the wrong tree to suggest that no intermediate forms are known via sequence. We're all intermediate forms, at this moment in time. We're traveling to new sequences, traveling from previous sequences ... and the relationships like locks and keys, at almost any level of detail you care to examine. This is why we know with a certainty that is likely greater than that attendant to, say, gravity, that evolution has occurred and is occurring. With gravity, we have little record of the past (and you just don't want to get into an argument with a Velikovskian, it is like the proverbial argument with a donkey, it makes you look stupid and annoys the donkey). But for evolution the record lives on day-to-day in the wealth of life that surrounds us, and at this point that record has gone beyond the power of any Creationist or ID fellow traveler to refute.

269 Salamantis  Sun, Aug 24, 2008 11:32:05am

re: #267 tumbler

Having discussed evolution vs creationism thousands of times with many in the scientific community, I have NEVER been shown the missing link that scientifically verifies their assertion that differing forms of life somehow "evolve". The "missing link" in their argument that there is a verifiable and scientifically provable genetic code sequence that shows irrefutable proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that one species is in fact a descendant or ascendant of the other.

Artifactual retroviral DNA sequences conclusively demonstrate the no longer disputable fact that humans and great apes diverged from common ancestors:

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

Excerpt:

“If Charles Darwin reappeared today, he might be surprised to learn that humans are descended from viruses as well as from apes,” Weiss wrote.

Darwin’s surprise almost certainly would be mixed with delight: when he suggested, in “The Descent of Man” (1871), that humans and apes shared a common ancestor, it was a revolutionary idea, and it remains one today. Yet nothing provides more convincing evidence for the “theory” of evolution than the viruses contained within our DNA. Until recently, the earliest available information about the history and the course of human diseases, like smallpox and typhus, came from mummies no more than four thousand years old. Evolution cannot be measured in a time span that short. Endogenous retroviruses provide a trail of molecular bread crumbs leading millions of years into the past.

Darwin’s theory makes sense, though, only if humans share most of those viral fragments with relatives like chimpanzees and monkeys. And we do, in thousands of places throughout our genome. If that were a coincidence, humans and chimpanzees would have had to endure an incalculable number of identical viral infections in the course of millions of years, and then, somehow, those infections would have had to end up in exactly the same place within each genome. The rungs of the ladder of human DNA consist of three billion pairs of nucleotides spread across forty-six chromosomes. The sequences of those nucleotides determine how each person differs from another, and from all other living things. The only way that humans, in thousands of seemingly random locations, could possess the exact retroviral DNA found in another species is by inheriting it from a common ancestor.

Molecular biology has made precise knowledge about the nature of that inheritance possible. With extensive databases of genetic sequences, reconstructing ancestral genomes has become common, and retroviruses have been found in the genome of every vertebrate species that has been studied. Anthropologists and biologists have used them to investigate not only the lineage of primates but the relationships among animals—dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes, for example—and also to test whether similar organisms may in fact be unrelated.

270 Moe Katz  Sun, Aug 24, 2008 11:34:40am

re: #266 Deaddog

"Those silly scientists, you know they can't bear to admit to the Divine Invisible Pink Unicorn, so they stupidly kept going in their research and ....

[Link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]


See, this is the problem with your "know nothing" (= infinite 'why') position. Knowledge advances. Wikipedia does not necessarily keep up, incidentally. And if you want to make the Bible (or the Divine Invisible Pink Unicorn Coda of All Power) your science text, go right ahead. If you want to make your belief system falsifiable, let's rock and roll. But really, truly, the simpler option is to keep your religion out of science, and to keep science out of religion.

"


You've hit the nail on the head here, but only from the point of view of an atheist. It goes back to what I was saying a few days ago about paradigms as Kuhn defines them: if you make the a priori value choice of adhering to the religion paradigm, then everything you discover scientifically must be explained in such a way that it does not refute that framework. Now, since all the gaps in scientific knowledge will likely never be filled in and there will always be mysteries, there will always be wiggle room for the religious paradigm.

I don't think we differ thus far. However, I find it a bit unreasonable that you demand a strict separation of science and religion; most, I believe, will want to reconcile the two. On days when I feel more agnostic than atheist, I can cling to the thought that God may be behind this apparent world of natural phenomena, loading the dice. This is irrefutable and a matter of personal choice. Of course theistic views have problems too (who made God, then?) but they needn't contradict the known science and, in their more sophisticated forms, are held by many scientists. My only axe to grind is that these views should be treated respectfully and we should not try to make dogmatic atheism into the official state religion of our respective countries.

271 Deaddog  Sun, Aug 24, 2008 1:19:06pm

re: #270 Moe Katz

I find it a bit unreasonable that you demand a strict separation of science and religion; most, I believe, will want to reconcile the two.

They are welcome to. Folks who want to reconcile things aren't the problem. Folks who want to intrude on domains that should be left alone are the problem, and that problem goes both directions.

My only axe to grind is that these views should be treated respectfully and we should not try to make dogmatic atheism into the official state religion of our respective countries.

No, see, here's where you miss the point. Again, is this a 'nice' thing to do? Sure. But in what way do you enforce it? You legislate respect? You demand social compliance? You make scientists carry around the Bible / Torah / Koran? Not in any society I want to live in.

And on the flip side, I have no interest in 'forcing' you to believe or disbelieve anything you want. I just tell you in no uncertain terms that as a scientist I can prove things about the physical world, including the biological world, including evolution. And if any religion, mine, yours, whatever, decides to make grand prognostications about those proofs that contradict scientific fact and reality ... then there's going to be a problem (see Galileo and the Catholic church for details).

You want very, very separate spheres of influence for the reason I suggested above: if your religion (or my religion or anyone's religion) ventures into a sphere of scientific competence, then it is asking to be judged by the same rules. That is, it is asking for the opportunity to be falsified. That all sounds fine if you believe your religion can stand up to any factual test you care to lob at it. But, again, see Galileo and the Catholic church for details. Or Communism (a belief system of sorts) and Lysenko. Or even just Pat Robertson and hurricane prediction.

But I'm not here to bang on religion. I'm here to try to convince folks that might straddle fences of the utility of science and of evolutionary science in particular. Because we hurt ourselves, badly, when we try to insert religion into science, whether we do it politely, impolitely, or by any mechanism. There was a time when the US could rely on massive scientific and technical superiority. Those days are over. We are in a foot race ... and we are not winning. And by having to fart around with Creationist and ID blather in the schools we potentially lose a generation of talented scientists and engineers and citizens who could be continuing to promote the type of society that I do like to live in.

Asking scientific reality and religion to politely co-exist in the same intellectual sphere (naturalism somehow breaking bread with supernaturalism) is like asking Hamas and Israel to politely co-exist in a coincident space. Ain't gonna happen. And being polite about it just makes you look foolish for trying. Thus, if you choose not to respect the boundary, you are left with the unenviable position of trying to decide which warring faction to back. Paradoxically, it is precisely because I want to live in a society that has the option of freedom of worship that I strongly back science in any such conflicts.

272 Basho  Sun, Aug 24, 2008 1:39:12pm

YAY! This thread is still active.

273 Basho  Sun, Aug 24, 2008 1:58:43pm

re: #267 tumbler

Having discussed evolution vs creationism thousands of times with many in the scientific community, I have NEVER been shown the missing link that scientifically verifies their assertion that differing forms of life somehow "evolve". The "missing link" in their argument that there is a verifiable and scientifically provable genetic code sequence that shows irrefutable proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that one species is in fact a descendant or ascendant of the other.

BASHO: The "missing link" (not exactly a scientific term, mind you. Just stupid creationist jargon) exists. And if you can't find it or accept, that is YOUR problem.

This mythology can be traced from the new age and scientific community of the fifties and sixties, looking for a new "belief system" to replace their disillusionment with traditional Judeo-Christian religion.

BASHO: This is just idiotic conspiracy nonsense. The sequencing of DNA didn't even exist back then. That could have weakened everything scientists knew about evolution. Instead it reinforced it.

The only scientifically proven equation in this mix is the size of their multi-trillion dollar publicly funded bank accounts. Which is, in reality, what this argument is invariably always about with a species like man.

The pursuit of power and money, of course.

BASHO: I personally like this argument because I know exactly where it comes from. People for centuries have criticized religious institutions for making fortunes off the ignorant and gullible. It is one of the criticisms against the Discovery Institute. You've just taken this argument and threw it back at scientists hoping it will be just as successful. An incredible dishonest tactic. The problem: Biology Grad students aren't exactly ranking in the dough.


Most of this evolution theology movement, with your tax dollars, have "evolved" quietly through the decades of public academic funding to become a global unchallenged socialist "green" movement.

BASHO: Makes no sense because you're being purposely vague.

Anyone standing in their way is immediately branded a modern day apostate and heretic.

BASHO: Challenges and criticisms are welcomed. Ridiculing people who deny physical reality is fair game.

As you watch each and every episode related to religion or evolution on such publicly funded channels as the History Channel or the Discovery Channel or Nova, etc, the program ALWAYS includes a segment and provably "devolves" into a debunking of traditional Judeo-Christian religious beliefs or theology.

BASHO: God forbid anybody questions someone's belief or theology. Maybe they should be beheaded?

The purpose in this is to infuse a new uneducated young generation with no historical perspective, and many older folks without the will to resist, with ABSOLUTE truth... the "science" of evolution and their publicly funded prophets are not to be questioned.

BASHO: Again... this is a stolen argument against religious institutions. It's not as effective and it just makes you look dishonest.

274 Basho  Sun, Aug 24, 2008 2:13:05pm

I'm really curious to know:

What's the point of believing in something that can't stand up to scrutiny? If one sincerely thinks something to be true, then why get offended everytime someone questions it or tries to discredit them? Why hold on to an idea that has no defense?


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Holiday Gift Guide - Save up to 45% on the seasons best!
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Unbanned by the BBC!


PC & Video Games