Florida Stealth Creationism Bill Filed

Science • Views: 1,989

As we noted in early February, Florida State Sen. Stephen Wise (R) intends to require the teaching of “intelligent design”, even though he knows it will cost Florida a lot of money when it’s legally challenged.

State Sen. Stephen Wise, a Jacksonville Republican, said he plans to introduce a bill to require teachers who teach evolution to also discuss the idea of intelligent design. …

Wise, the chief sponsor of the bill, expects the Senate to take it up when it meets in March. He said its intent is simple: “If you’re going to teach evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking.”

Wise acknowledges it’s a controversial subject. “I got a lot of hate mail last year,” he said. “You’d think I’d never gone to school, that I was Cro-Magnon man, that I just got out of a cave or something.”

This week State Sen. Wise filed his Antievolution legislation in Florida.

Senate Bill 2396 (PDF), filed on February 27, 2009, would, if enacted, amend a section of Florida law to require “[a] thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.” The bill is sponsored by Stephen R. Wise (R-District 5), who was in the news earlier in February when he announced his intention to introduce a bill requiring “intelligent design” to be taught in Florida’s public schools. “If you’re going to teach evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking,” he told the Jacksonville Times-Union (February 8, 2009). Wise acknowledged that his bill was likely to invite a legal challenge, but contended, “Someplace along the line you’ve got to be able to make a value judgment of what it is you think is the appropriate thing.” Evidently he changed his mind about how to accomplish his goal, since “intelligent design” is not mentioned in the bill.

But the phrase “[a] thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution” is familiar from the previous legislative session in Florida. House Bill 1483, which originally purported to protect the right of teachers to “objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution,” was eventually amended — due to concerns about its constitutionality — to require the public schools to provide “[a] thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.” Challenged to justify the measure, its sponsor Alan Hays (R-District 25) claimed that it was necessary to protect teachers seeking to “provide a critical analysis” of evolution, although the St. Petersburg Times (March 6, 2008) reported that it was unable to substantiate any claims of persecution.

Jump to bottom

233 comments
1 [deleted]  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:19:07pm
2 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:19:45pm

Maybe if we all say we agree the earth is 6013 years old they'll just go away.

////

3 zombie  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:20:07pm

C'mon: Could God have created something as goofy as a manatee on purpose? You'd think they understand this point, in Florida of all places...

4 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:20:10pm

I've got a fiver on comment #390.

5 Bloodnok  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:20:17pm

Roughly translated: "If you're going to teach that 1+1=2 you've also got to teach the theory that it doesn't".

6 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:21:02pm

re: #4 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I've got a fiver on comment #390.

#345!

7 [deleted]  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:21:03pm
8 Bloodnok  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:21:17pm

re: #3 zombie

C'mon: Could God have created something as goofy as a manatee on purpose? You'd think they understand this point, in Florida of all places...

It wasn't on porpoise.

9 HelloDare  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:21:46pm

I'm sure Florida is a popular venue for science conventions. Well, at least it was.

10 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:21:50pm

re: #5 Bloodnok

Roughly translated: "If you're going to teach that 1+1=2 you've also got to teach the theory that it doesn't".

I can prove my theory. 1 little boy + 1 little boy = 4x the entropy.

11 zombie  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:21:50pm

re: #2 jcm

Maybe if we all say we agree the earth is 6013 years old they'll just go away.

////

6013?

6013?!?!?!?

Curse you to hell, you schimsmatic! Anyone who varies from the 6017-year orthdoxy is no friend of mine!

12 zombie  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:22:05pm

orthdoxy = orthodoxy

13 Bloodnok  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:22:21pm

Come on comment 181!

14 NelsFree  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:22:28pm

re: #1 buzzsawmonkey

So many things on whichto better expend political capital. on.

There, fixed that for ya. One should not end a sentence with a preposition.
/Miss Manners off

15 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:22:38pm

re: #3 zombie

OT, thanks again for the heads-up email. It made my day!

16 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:22:43pm

re: #5 Bloodnok

Roughly translated: "If you're going to teach that 1+1=2 you've also got to teach the theory that it doesn't".

One chocolate bar + one me = one me.

There's my math for 'ya.

17 [deleted]  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:23:16pm
18 Bloodnok  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:23:29pm

re: #16 EmmmieG

One chocolate bar + one me = one me.

There's my math for 'ya.

But one me is larger than it was before.

/sorry!

19 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:23:31pm

comment 176 is called.

20 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:23:36pm

re: #10 jcm

I can prove my theory. 1 little boy + 1 little boy = 4x the entropy.

The expert speaketh.
/and he's got the house to PROVE it!

21 [deleted]  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:23:52pm
22 HelloDare  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:24:00pm
23 NelsFree  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:24:07pm

re: #8 Bloodnok

It wasn't on porpoise.


No, no, "Somebody sssssstop me!"
Okay, we are fishing for puns, now.
/The Mask off

24 zombie  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:24:07pm

re: #15 pre-Boomer Marine brat

OT, thanks again for the heads-up email. It made my day!

Glad to be of service. Sorry I couldn't dig up the link to show you -- but trust me, that's how it all turned out -- for the best!

25 Nevergiveup  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:24:15pm

re: #17 buzzsawmonkey

The manatee was created as a test to see if mankind would have the will to reign in powerboaters. G-d works in mysterious ways.

We lost that one I guess. how pissed is G-D?

26 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:24:45pm

re: #11 zombie

6013?

6013?!?!?!?

Curse you to hell, you schimsmatic! Anyone who varies from the 6017-year orthdoxy is no friend of mine!

Bishop Ussher said 4004BC + 2009 = 6013!

BURN THE HERETIC!

;-P

27 notutopia  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:25:54pm

So how many states now are going or have already gone for this anti-pure science
curricula?
Louisiana ...

28 zombie  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:25:57pm

re: #26 jcm

Bishop Ussher said 4004BC + 2009 = 6013!

BURN THE HERETIC!

;-P

But everyone knows that the Julian calendar was 4 years off - - Jesus was born in 4 BC!

29 HelloDare  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:26:05pm

re: #3 zombie

C'mon: Could God have created something as goofy as a manatee on purpose? You'd think they understand this point, in Florida of all places...

Allah invented the manatee. That's why it looks like it's wearing a burka.

30 NelsFree  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:26:35pm

re: #17 buzzsawmonkey

The manatee was created as a test to see if mankind would have the will to reign in powerboaters. G-d works in mysterious ways.

It was also said that the first Sailor to sight a manatee confused it with a mermaid. Obviously, he had been at sea too long...

31 Opilio  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:26:39pm

re: #14 NelsFree

One should not end a sentence with a preposition.
/Miss Manners off

That's the sort of pedantry up with which I shall not put.

/

32 monkeytime  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:26:53pm

re: #28 zombie

But everyone knows that the Julian calendar was 4 years off - - Jesus was born in 4 BC!

Where is SpaceJesus when we need him to settle this dispute?

:>)

33 A Kiwi Infidel  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:27:41pm

Here's a question.

If, or should I say "when", the UN passes this binding resolution outlawing blasphemy, would the moosies be able to bring a charge of blasphemy against schools for teaching evolution and not creationism?

Just askin?

34 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:28:38pm

re: #28 zombie

But everyone knows that the Julian calendar was 4 years off - - Jesus was born in 4 BC!

ROFL!

An auto de fa for everyone!

35 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:28:56pm

re: #28 zombie

But everyone knows that the Julian calendar was 4 years off - - Jesus was born in 4 BC!

If my heads gonna hurt any way I may as well drink more than 1 beer. ;)

36 HelloDare  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:29:31pm
37 Nevergiveup  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:29:39pm

re: #28 zombie

But everyone knows that the Julian calendar was 4 years off - - Jesus was born in 4 BC!

Did Herod know that?

38 zombie  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:29:46pm

re: #29 HelloDare

Allah invented the manatee. That's why it looks like it's wearing a burka.

Personally, I think that manatees are those humans who have evolved to the next stage -- we backwards proto-manatees just don't understand that yet. Little by little, advanced cliques of super-humans realized that life would be more comfortable if we all just lolled around underwater in the Everglades. Aquatic Luddites, as it were. Once us land-humans all exterminate each other, the manatees will take over.

39 NelsFree  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:29:47pm

re: #31 Opilio

That's the sort of pedantry up with of which I shall not put tolerate.

/

1. There, fixed that for ya, too.
2. Pedantry? My feet were not involved.
/

40 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:29:51pm

re: #24 zombie

Glad to be of service. Sorry I couldn't dig up the link to show you -- but trust me, that's how it all turned out -- for the best!

No problemo re the link.

41 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:29:52pm

re: #28 zombie

But everyone knows that the Julian calendar was 4 years off - - Jesus was born in 4 BC!

How could Christ be born Before Christ?

HAH! Answer that one!

42 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:30:35pm

Reading the bill, I find the interest in the history surrounding the Founding as well as the protections around the Holocaust to be telling. They very much want to work on their own revisionist history, but they realize that without protecting the Holocaust, "academic freedom" would let in other nasty consequences. History teachers need to be on guard.

43 snowcrash  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:31:14pm

What is the governors role in the process? Charlie Crist seems to smart to want to spend money on law challenges for this.

44 zombie  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:31:28pm

re: #36 HelloDare

Side by side comparison of a Dugong to a Manatee.

Down with Dugong schismatics! I hate those freaks!

45 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:32:02pm

re: #41 jcm

How could Christ be born Before Christ?

HAH! Answer that one!

In the beginning was the offset.
/every op amp has them

*Duck*

46 A Kiwi Infidel  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:32:03pm
47 monkeytime  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:32:56pm

re: #44 zombie

Down with Dugong schismatics! I hate those freaks!

Put a picture of the Dugong next to Joy Behar and you can see evolution is more than theory.

48 KingKenrod  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:33:02pm

I just realized how incredibly similar the dugong tail is to the tail of a whale. So I did a google search for whale tail and got an entirely different kind of anatomy lesson.

49 Bloodnok  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:33:37pm

re: #36 HelloDare

Side by side comparison of a Dugong to a Manatee.

It looks like the Dugong just gained the "Phanerozoic Fifteen".

50 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:33:52pm

Then in section (u) they call for character building in the elementary schools. It's like it's not much different than what the liberals are doing- taking the responsibility of the parents away. But how are you supposed to be against "character building"? That sounds like a good thing, right?

Feh- it's just as nanny state as anything I've seen of the left. How about having parents teach some of this stuff?

51 monkeytime  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:33:53pm

re: #48 KingKenrod

I just realized how incredibly similar the dugong tail is to the tail of a whale. So I did a google search for whale tail and got an entirely different kind of anatomy lesson.


LOL!

52 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:34:22pm

re: #48 KingKenrod

I just realized how incredibly similar the dugong tail is to the tail of a whale. So I did a google search for whale tail and got an entirely different kind of anatomy lesson.


Next time you might keep safe search turned on. ;)

53 Nevergiveup  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:34:34pm

Last update - 03:20 02/03/2009

Olmert orders Barak to act swiftly against rocket attacks

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

U.S.: One-third of our $900m pledge is earmarked for Gaza

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

Why not just drop the 300 million earmarked for Gaza in the Mediterranean and save time?

54 HelloDare  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:34:48pm

re: #44 zombie

Down with Dugong schismatics! I hate those freaks!

Manatees are pigs. Dugongs have some class.

55 A Kiwi Infidel  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:36:14pm

re: #48 KingKenrod

I just realized how incredibly similar the dugong tail is to the tail of a whale. So I did a google search for whale tail and got an entirely different kind of anatomy lesson.


Whew, now I am a believer in evolution, from this to this

56 HelloDare  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:36:15pm

re: #49 Bloodnok

I don't know what that means.

57 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:36:22pm

re: #45 pre-Boomer Marine brat

In the beginning was the offset.
/every op amp has them

*Duck*

The Faux Op-Amp, you been taken in by the Faux Omp Amp story!

*real article, author is a co-worker*

58 monkeytime  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:36:56pm

re: #53 Nevergiveup

Last update - 03:20 02/03/2009

Olmert orders Barak to act swiftly against rocket attacks

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

U.S.: One-third of our $900m pledge is earmarked for Gaza

Yea, why are we beating around the bush here? Why don't we just send Hamas the rockets?
*spit*
[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

Why not just drop the 300 million earmarked for Gaza in the Mediterranean and save time?

59 zombie  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:37:53pm

re: #28 zombie

But everyone knows that the Julian calendar was 4 years off - - Jesus was born in 4 BC!

re: #37 Nevergiveup

Did Herod know that?

Actually, I'm not joking. Dionysius Exiguus, the guy who came up with "A.D." -- Anno Domini, year of Jesus' birth -- got the date wrong:

According to Doggett, "Although scholars generally believe that Christ was born some years before A.D. 1, the historical evidence is too sketchy to allow a definitive dating".[10] According to the Gospel of St. Matthew (2:1,16) King Herod the Great was alive when Jesus was born, and ordered the Massacre of the Innocents in response to his birth. Blackburn & Holford-Strevens fix King Herod's death shortly before Passover in 4 BC,[11] and say that those who accept the story of the Massacre of the Innocents sometimes associate the star that led the Biblical Magi with the planetary conjunction of 15 September 7 BC or Halley's comet of 12 BC; even historians who do not accept the Massacre accept the birth under Herod as a tradition older than the written gospels.[12]

The Gospel of St. Luke states that Jesus was born during the reign of the Emperor Augustus and while Cyrenius (or Quirinius) was the governor of Syria (2:1–2). Blackburn and Holford-Strevens[11] indicate Cyrenius/Quirinius' governorship of Syria began in AD 6, which is incompatible with conception in 4 BC, and say that "St. Luke raises greater difficulty....Most critics therefore discard Luke".[12] Some scholars rely on St. John's Gospel to place Christ's birth in c. 18 BC.[12]

Basically, it could be anywhere between 18BC and 6AD!

60 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:37:59pm

re: #48 KingKenrod

I just realized how incredibly similar the dugong tail is to the tail of a whale. So I did a google search for whale tail and got an entirely different kind of anatomy lesson.

My wife went on line to shop for glass storage jars.... she typed in.... jugs.......

61 zombie  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:38:35pm

re: #41 jcm

How could Christ be born Before Christ?

HAH! Answer that one!

See comment #59 above.

62 monkeytime  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:38:39pm

PIMF


Yea, why are we beating around the bush here? Why don't we just send Hamas the

63 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:39:19pm

re: #60 jcm

ROTFLMAO!

64 monkeytime  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:39:27pm

re: #62 monkeytime

PIMF


Yea, why are we beating around the bush here? Why don't we just send Hamas the

I give up.
:>(

65 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:39:44pm

re: #61 zombie

See comment #59 above.

Sure throw facts and history at me!

;-)

66 NelsFree  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:40:05pm

re: #50 Sharmuta

Then in section (u) they call for character building in the elementary schools. It's like it's not much different than what the liberals are doing- taking the responsibility of the parents away. But how are you supposed to be against "character building"? That sounds like a good thing, right?

Feh- it's just as nanny state as anything I've seen of the left. How about having parents teach some of this stuff?

The term 'Vospitanya' (sic) was used in the Soviet Union's ten-year school system (ages 7 to 17). It translated roughly as: "moral education".

67 Randall Gross  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:40:14pm

re: #54 HelloDare

Manatees are pigs. Dugongs have some class.

Manatees are Haram then... maybe we can inform Harun Yahya so he can get it into his educational supplements for US public schools. :)

68 ratherdashing  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:41:02pm

re: #60 jcm

My wife went on line to shop for glass storage jars.... she typed in.... jugs.......

I was looking to rebuild an antique shallow well pump. Its leather cups were dried out. I searched "pump leather" and didn't find what I was looking for.

69 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:41:16pm

re: #57 jcm

The Faux Op-Amp, you been taken in by the Faux Omp Amp story!

*real article, author is a co-worker*

Hmmm *grin*, I'll save that and study it.

70 [deleted]  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:42:01pm
71 HelloDare  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:43:20pm

re: #70 buzzsawmonkey

Took me awhile to get that.

72 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:43:35pm
(b)(a) The history and content of the Declaration of Independence, including national sovereignty, natural law, self evident truth, equality of all persons, limited government, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property, and how they form the philosophical foundation of our government.

This stands out at me. What specifically do they mean by "natural law"?

There is already false quotes running around concerning the Founders, and they very much want to revise American History to go along with their "Christian Nation" meme that goes hand in hand with their creationism. I'm just as concerned about their revisionism as I am their anti-science position. It's been said by a few, but it can't be repeated enough:

They want to turn back the Enlightenment.

73 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:43:50pm

re: #68 ratherdashing

I was looking to rebuild an antique shallow well pump. Its leather cups were dried out. I searched "pump leather" and didn't find what I was looking for.

My wife's a Physical Therapist, she works with post surgery patients on incontinence issues, strengthening the muscles and control. You get a lot of ahhh, extraneous, material searching for articles on that one.

74 Nevergiveup  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:44:18pm

The leaders of the European Union gathered Sunday in Brussels for an emergency summit meeting designed to tamp down the centrifugal forces unleashed by the global economic crisis that threaten to spin the bloc - and its single currency - apart.

[Link: www.iht.com...]

Hum?

75 cronus  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:45:06pm
“You’d think I’d never gone to school, that I was Cro-Magnon man, that I just got out of a cave or something.”

/Statement from pro-science side in Florida. "We read how Sen. Wise characterized himself. We see no need for further comment"

76 [deleted]  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:45:45pm
77 Salamantis  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:46:22pm

Here, lemmings, lemming, lemmings; Charles has posted your cliff...

78 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:47:41pm

Hi. Upstairs, big global warming debate going on. TFK vs. Avante and LudwigVanQuixote. Interesting.

(Feel like I'm in High School, screaming, "There's a fight! There's a fight!")

79 UncleRancher  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:47:55pm

re: #57 jcm

The Faux Op-Amp, you been taken in by the Faux Omp Amp story!

*real article, author is a co-worker*

I will need samples, price & delivery. Seriously. Unless is another write-only memory device.

80 iLikeCandy  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:48:03pm

I'd like to think that this will be met with rigorous Republican opposition in the Florida state legislature.

Instead, I'll just lose a little more sleep.

81 Mich-again  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:48:11pm

re: #59 zombie

Herod was not just one person. There is the Herod early in the Gospels who ordered the Massacre of the Innocents, and then there is the Herod later in the Gospels (Luke 23:) Not the same guy. Just the same title.

82 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:48:21pm

The National Center for Science Education's Taking Action Page

In the right side bar is a link to a Florida group, as well as other states currently or potentially facing challenges to evolutionary teachings.

83 Nevergiveup  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:48:35pm

re: #78 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Hi. Upstairs, big global warming debate going on. TFK vs. Avante and LudwigVanQuixote. Interesting.

(Feel like I'm in High School, screaming, "There's a fight! There's a fight!")

you mean the last thread?

84 HelloDare  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:48:38pm

re: #77 Salamantis

Here, lemmings, lemming, lemmings; Charles has posted your cliff...

Hey, you're right. It's been civil around here. Except for a little manatee bashing.

85 albusteve  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:48:59pm

seems to me that these proposed bills should go through some referendum process or public petition...I don't know how it works...if it's defeated then will another come in it's heels?....

86 monkeytime  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:50:24pm

re: #74 Nevergiveup

The leaders of the European Union gathered Sunday in Brussels for an emergency summit meeting designed to tamp down the centrifugal forces unleashed by the global economic crisis that threaten to spin the bloc - and its single currency - apart.

[Link: www.iht.com...]

Hum?

Good article. You had to know that all the "togetherness" wouldn't last the second someone perceived that someone else was getting a bigger piece of the pastry.

87 ronsfi  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:51:02pm

Yes by all means and let us teach the other side to germ theory (just a theory) that illness is caused by demonic possession that way we can have critical thinking. We are well on our way to a nation of morbidly obese ignorant wanabe American Idols. Oh brave, brave new world.

88 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:51:29pm

re: #83 Nevergiveup

Yep.

89 Salamantis  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:51:36pm

re: #85 albusteve

seems to me that these proposed bills should go through some referendum process or public petition...I don't know how it works...if it's defeated then will another come in it's heels?....

This is the second time in a few years for Florida; the first attempt was beaten back by a determined effort on the part of the local pro-science community.

90 NelsFree  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:51:51pm

re: #74 Nevergiveup

The article puts an interesting 'spin' on the issue of unanimity. In Physics, the period of a pendulum is determined by the length of the shaft or cord connecting the weight to the fulcrum. A larger distance results in a longer interval, and vice versa. Ummm...economic balance...
Darn! I have suffered what older Engineers call a Senior Moment of Inertia!

91 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:53:04pm

re: #79 UncleRancher

I will need samples, price & delivery. Seriously. Unless is another write-only memory device.

Hell, I work in Product Engineering, I can't get samples of the device we make, well not easily.

If your interested.... PSoC

92 Ziggy Standard  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:55:23pm

re: #78 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I'm just back from a global warming debate downstairs. I'll go and have a look.

93 albusteve  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:56:11pm

re: #89 Salamantis

This is the second time in a few years for Florida; the first attempt was beaten back by a determined effort on the part of the local pro-science community.

so let's say this bill passes and is signed into law...on what grounds is it challenged in court?...

94 freedombilly  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:56:17pm

This clown wouldn't know critical thinking if it hit him in the crown jewels.

95 UncleRancher  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:56:31pm

re: #91 jcm

Hell, I work in Product Engineering, I can't get samples of the device we make, well not easily.

If your interested.... PSoC

Thanks for the link. I'm almost entirely an analog guy, but I work with FPGA whippersnappers who seem to go around muttering incomprehensible things. If this thing works as advertised I want some.

96 Randall Gross  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 5:57:11pm

From Stranger Fruit:

It’s a bit of a strange bill. The preamble calls for the "thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution and certain governmental, legal and civic-related principles" while the body calls for teachers to “teach efficiently and faithfully … the following: (a) A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.” Following that item there are a number of others: the history and content of the Declaration on Independence, the Constitution, flag education, history of the United States, the Holocaust, kindness to animals, “the benefits of sexual abstinence as the expected standard”, the sacrifices of veterans, and “the nature and importance of free enterprise to the United States economy.” Quite the grab-bag and it seems as though students don’t have to critically analyse any of the other topics beyond evolution. I wonder why?

This brings the tally for 2009 to eight:

Mississippi - dead in committee
Oklahoma - dead in committee
New Mexico - in committee
Iowa - in committee
Alabama - in committee.
Missouri - in committee
Texas - at state board
Florida - introduced

97 Ziggy Standard  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:00:17pm

re: #78 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Hah. That was a bum steer.

98 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:01:25pm

re: #95 UncleRancher

Thanks for the link. I'm almost entirely an analog guy, but I work with FPGA whippersnappers who seem to go around muttering incomprehensible things. If this thing works as advertised I want some.

Nic is email blue.... email me I'll get you some.

99 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:02:23pm

re: #95 UncleRancher

Thanks for the link. I'm almost entirely an analog guy, but I work with FPGA whippersnappers who seem to go around muttering incomprehensible things. If this thing works as advertised I want some.

Analog where, and what?
Circuit or chip level? (Sounds like circuit.)

100 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:03:50pm

re: #98 jcm

Skimming through that pdf, I seem (... SEEM ...) to remember something like that from my Burr-Brown days.

101 Ziggy Standard  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:04:15pm

re: #77 Salamantis

Here, lemmings, lemming, lemmings; Charles has posted your cliff...

Heh. These threads remind me also of fly paper, they way they sometimes stay stuck there struggling feebly for days.

102 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:05:53pm

“If you’re going to teach evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking.”

Fools confuse faith with critical thinking, faith is just that, faith, no further thought is required.
By Sen. Stephen Wise's reasoning, we must also teach islam, Buddhism and Greek mythology just to name a few other things needed for critical thought.
None of these things belong in a science class, it opens Pandora's box.
Intelligent design has done nothing to further research in any field, its a preconceived notion that no amount of facts will ever diswade its proponents from embracing, and that's to hell and gone from science.
Science and faith are not completely incompatible, but bad science is a poor excuse to turn a class room into a church.

103 lostlakehiker  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:09:53pm

Can I just discuss it as one example of scientifically unfounded speculation, thrown in with Turtles All the Way and Pueblo myths?

Gosh, if you think about it, humans, when they use intelligence, try to accomplish more with less. We call it efficiency. Give a man a fish, we say, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish...

So how does evolution not count as the very most intelligent of the means by which life might have been designed?

104 UncleRancher  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:12:24pm

re: #99 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Analog where, and what?
Circuit or chip level? (Sounds like circuit.)

Analog circuits. Been designing, testing & manufacturing for about 35 years now.

105 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:12:43pm

re: #102 DEZes

DING!

Critically exaiming evolution all you want... using scientific methods.

106 UncleRancher  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:14:17pm

re: #98 jcm

Nic is email blue.... email me I'll get you some.

It's on the way.

107 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:14:49pm

re: #105 jcm Thanks. ;)

108 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:15:08pm

re: #103 lostlakehiker

Can I just discuss it as one example of scientifically unfounded speculation, thrown in with Turtles All the Way and Pueblo myths?

Gosh, if you think about it, humans, when they use intelligence, try to accomplish more with less. We call it efficiency. Give a man a fish, we say, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish...

So how does evolution not count as the very most intelligent of the means by which life might have been designed?

Turtles all the Way Down a Myth?

I have suppressed Hubble pictures showing the Turtle Stack!

109 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:15:28pm

re: #104 UncleRancher

Analog circuits. Been designing, testing & manufacturing for about 35 years now.

Did you email jcm? (via his blued nic above)
Tell him to forward my email address to you.
Engineering tech, mostly analog, same length of time.
Liberal arts degree, assoc. mbr. of the IEEE.

110 Salamantis  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:16:33pm

I do not want my beloved home state to be nationally known as a haven for sun, sand, surf and stupidity.

This one's gotta go down, too...just like the last try did.

111 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:16:50pm

re: #105 jcm

If UncleRancher establishes contact, send my email address to him if he asks for it.

112 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:17:06pm

re: #107 DEZes

Thanks. ;)

The flip side for those who do have faith, me included. A quick Gedanken experiment.

Suppose we prove the existence of a creator.
What happens to faith?

113 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:17:36pm

re: #111 pre-Boomer Marine brat

If UncleRancher establishes contact, send my email address to him if he asks for it.

Okay!

114 Ziggy Standard  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:21:06pm

re: #112 jcm

You would be robbed of the chance of getting a special present for making the correct uninformed guess.

115 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:21:27pm

re: #106 UncleRancher

It's on the way.

Reply heading back...

116 UncleRancher  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:21:54pm

re: #113 jcm

Okay!

That's on the way too. New comments update button seems to have quit working here.

117 Brit in Japan  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:24:33pm

Guys, I'm thoroughly opposed to the evil machinations of the Deception Institute (check my comment history if you don't believe me!), but I'm looking at this wording:

[a] thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.

... and I see they had to change it that way to have any hope of getting it passed, and I sort of think it might be, you know, ok.

I know what he intends to do with this bill - "teach both sides" - but that wording, to me, says; "teach evolution thoroughly and show all the evidence (which points cagetorically to it being an observed fact)."

Critical analysis does not mean "argue that it is wrong without giving any evidence" - it means look at the evidence. Right?

I think he would have to go one further, get yet another bill signed into law, to have "intelligent design" - or whatever new doublethink name they want to give it - into the classroom, because, well, ID or creationism is simply not an aspect of evolution science, or part of a scientific criticism of it.

Or am I wrong?

BiJ

118 [deleted]  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:29:06pm
119 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:29:35pm

re: #117 Brit in Japan

You have a very good point, but I think he's counting on merely getting a camel nose under the tent flap. If passed, the bill's language could be, and would be ... (*cough*) ... "nuanced" by teachers in the classroom.

120 Salamantis  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:30:02pm

re: #117 Brit in Japan

Guys, I'm thoroughly opposed to the evil machinations of the Deception Institute (check my comment history if you don't believe me!), but I'm looking at this wording:


... and I see they had to change it that way to have any hope of getting it passed, and I sort of think it might be, you know, ok.

I know what he intends to do with this bill - "teach both sides" - but that wording, to me, says; "teach evolution thoroughly and show all the evidence (which points cagetorically to it being an observed fact)."

Critical analysis does not mean "argue that it is wrong without giving any evidence" - it means look at the evidence. Right?

I think he would have to go one further, get yet another bill signed into law, to have "intelligent design" - or whatever new doublethink name they want to give it - into the classroom, because, well, ID or creationism is simply not an aspect of evolution science, or part of a scientific criticism of it.

Or am I wrong?

BiJ

You're wrong. Nowhere in the bill does it say that the critical analysis has to be scientific or empirical. It could legally consist of the same discredited rhetorical sophistries to which we have been interminably subjected onlist.

121 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:30:43pm

re: #112 jcm

The flip side for those who do have faith, me included. A quick Gedanken experiment.

Suppose we prove the existence of a creator.
What happens to faith?


I believe in a creator as well.
But to answer your question, when you have proof, its no longer up for debate, its no longer faith.
I know not to step in front of a buss doing 70 miles an hour on the interstate, my faith believes the buss will kill me and physics and my survival instints point me that way.
What will happen to faith, some will no longer need it.

122 Macker  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:34:45pm

re: #14 NelsFree

But what about propositions?

/snicker

123 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:35:01pm

re: #117 Brit in Japan

From the bill itself:

(q)(o) Such additional materials, subjects, courses, or fields in such grades as are prescribed by law or by rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board in fulfilling the requirements of law.

"Additional materials" is code for DI propaganda. This is another reason why they had to specifically protect against Holocaust revisionism, so that vile propaganda doesn't make it's way into the classrooms. Which is interesting since the DI does it's own variety of Holocaust revisionism when it comes to Darwin.

124 gatorbait  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:35:42pm

The best argument against intelligent design is Nancy Pelosi.

125 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:36:04pm

re: #121 DEZes

I believe in a creator as well.
But to answer your question, when you have proof, its no longer up for debate, its no longer faith.
I know not to step in front of a buss doing 70 miles an hour on the interstate, my faith believes the buss will kill me and physics and my survival instints point me that way.
What will happen to faith, some will no longer need it.

'zactly.

Methinks those who need to "prove" their faith in this manner have very little.

126 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:36:41pm

re: #124 gatorbait

The best argument against intelligent design is Nancy Pelosi.

But that face was certainly created in plastic surgeons office.

127 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:37:47pm

re: #125 jcm

'zactly.

Methinks those who need to "prove" their faith in this manner have very little.

Ah, very clever!

128 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:39:14pm

re: #126 jcm

More than once, I might add.

129 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:42:43pm

re: #124 gatorbait

The best argument against intelligent design is Nancy Pelosi.

One more face lift and the bags under her eyes will have nipples.

130 Brit in Japan  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:43:14pm

re: #123 Sharmuta

From the bill itself:


"Additional materials" is code for DI propaganda. This is another reason why they had to specifically protect against Holocaust revisionism, so that vile propaganda doesn't make it's way into the classrooms. Which is interesting since the DI does it's own variety of Holocaust revisionism when it comes to Darwin.

Ah, right, got it. Then the State BOE just needs to approve the "additional materials".

Thanks Sharmuta and Sal. I stand corrected.

BiJ.

131 hazzyday  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:43:24pm

If I remember correctly this is all Central Flordia Baptist church inspired and led.

132 sleepyone  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:44:21pm

When are these people going to stop?

I understand that this Senator may feel very strongly about this but I have never understood how one can put evolution and creationism in the same classroom discussion. Maybe if someone brings it up it can be discussed or dismissed but to mandate it is just wrong.

133 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:46:18pm

re: #130 Brit in Japan

Ah, right, got it. Then the State BOE just needs to approve the "additional materials".

Thanks Sharmuta and Sal. I stand corrected.

BiJ.

The "additional materials"
Of Panda's and People. Or what's been used in the past, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

134 sleepyone  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:46:43pm

re: #131 hazzyday

If I remember correctly this is all Central Flordia Baptist church inspired and led.

Really? Good grief. My in-laws are die-hard, end-times, Florida Baptists. I wonder what they think about this.

135 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:49:49pm

re: #132 sleepyone
Sometimes I think its the equivalent of the fairness doctrine for the church.

136 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:54:40pm

re: #133 jcm

The "additional materials"
Of Panda's and People. Or what's been used in the past, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

They have a new book, Explore Evolution. After Kitzmiller, Pandas was toast.

137 Lynn B.  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:58:16pm

I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned here before, but especially in light of a certain earlier thread I thought I'd point out that one of the two most prominent adverts on Pam's site right now is for a rabid YEC site that obviously has nothing to do with her "agenda" and therefore might most accurately be characterized as "nyah nyah Charles!"

The second is a link to Geert Wilders' defense fund.

138 jcm  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:08:33pm

re: #136 Sharmuta

They have a new book, Explore Evolution. After Kitzmiller, Pandas was toast.

Hmmm, toasted Panda on rye!

139 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:09:29pm

re: #138 jcm

Hmmm, toasted Panda on rye!

Kentucky Fried Panda: Finger Ling-Ling Good.

/Borrowed from The Simpsons

140 Salamantis  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:11:47pm

re: #136 Sharmuta

They have a new book, Explore Evolution. After Kitzmiller, Pandas was toast.

The title says Explore Evolution, but what they were thinking was Excoriate Evolution. Not that they can.

141 Ziggy Standard  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:15:31pm

re: #138 jcm

Hmmm, toasted Panda on rye!

I like Kraft Panda triangles - the panda you can spread.

142 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:16:54pm

re: #140 Salamantis

The title says Explore Evolution, but what they were thinking was Excoriate Evolution. Not that they can.

Well- Lying for Jesus , while a bit more accurate, would have posed a few problems for them, so Exploring Evolution it was.

143 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:18:09pm

re: #141 Jimmah

I like Kraft Panda triangles - the panda you can spread.

Fantastic on Rosemary-Olive Oil Triscuits.

144 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:20:54pm

re: #143 Sharmuta
Also, a Panda tastes great when it sits on a Ritz.

145 Salamantis  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:23:13pm

Panda Cakes, Panda Cakes; bake 'em, man!
Just batter 'em up and throw 'em in the pan!

146 Ziggy Standard  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:24:35pm

re: #143 Sharmuta

Triscuits

That's a new word to me!

147 Ziggy Standard  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:27:19pm

re: #145 Salamantis

Four and twenty pandas, baked in a pie!

148 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:29:49pm

re: #146 Jimmah

That's a new word to me!


Triscuts are very good snack crackers.

149 jaunte  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:30:19pm

re: #146 Jimmah

That's a new word to me!

Just don't accidentally inhale the crumbs...
[Link: www.flickr.com...]

150 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:30:23pm

re: #147 Jimmah

Four and twenty pandas, baked in a pie!

When the pie was opened the trolls began to sing,

Then Charles banned 'em. :D

151 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:30:50pm

Panda burger with white cheddar, bacon and apples....

152 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:31:16pm

re: #150 Dark_Falcon

When the pie was opened the trolls began to sing,

Then Charles banned 'em. :D


before we got to down ding. ;)

153 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:32:06pm

re: #151 Sharmuta
you lost me with the apples.

154 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:43:07pm

re: #153 DEZes

Awww. White cheddar and apples is good stuff though.

155 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:44:58pm

re: #154 Sharmuta

Awww. White cheddar and apples is good stuff though.


I have never heard of an apple on a sandwich, educate me please?

156 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:46:57pm

re: #155 DEZes

I have never heard of an apple on a sandwich, educate me please?

[Link: www.recipezaar.com...]

157 Achilles Tang  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:47:37pm

On the OP, I'm glad that my kids are out of school here in Florida before all this crap starts and I have to call, potentially, their teachers to task.

But it is sad anyway. I'll write my congressman and senator, and won't get a reply.

158 Sharmuta  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:47:58pm

re: #155 DEZes

I have never heard of an apple on a sandwich, educate me please?

[Link: www.nyapplecountry.com...]

That sounds good.

159 DEZes  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:54:34pm

re: #158 Sharmuta
I see alot of pineapple on ham, so I should not be surprised, and I do like apples better, so what the hey.
Thanks for replying.

160 jvic  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 8:04:49pm

At the St. Petersburg Times link, commenter Peter Dunkelberg sent me on to one Greg Laden's blogpost, 'Teachers Under Fire.' It opened:

It is very common, across the U.S., for science teachers to dread the "evolution" unit that they teach during life science class.

I read supportively until halfway down, where I learned that the fanatic kooks who attack Darwin are even beginning to turn their attention to...brace yourself...Al Gore!

If people on each side of the evolution "debate" believe the credibility of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is comparable to that of 'The Origin of Species', we're in worse shape than I thought.

161 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 8:10:50pm

re: #160 jvic

At the St. Petersburg Times link, commenter Peter Dunkelberg sent me on to one Greg Laden's blogpost, 'Teachers Under Fire.' It opened:

I read supportively until halfway down, where I learned that the fanatic kooks who attack Darwin are even beginning to turn their attention to...brace yourself...Al Gore!

If people on each side of the evolution "debate" believe the credibility of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is comparable to that of 'The Origin of Species', we're in worse shape than I thought.

Yes, indeed we are. One is good science, written by a decent man (Origin, Darwin), the other is a piece of agitprop written by a hack Demonrat politician (The Goracle, Troof).

162 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 8:16:21pm

The money line from jvic's story:

If fighting evolutionary biology in schools was ever determined by the courts to be a political act (which it is) there are probably a lot of churches that would have their IRS tax status yanked!

163 meeshlr  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 8:33:22pm

re: #48 KingKenrod

Aaagh!

I had to switch my setting to "strict safe search" after seeing the second page of that. Wouldn't want the young ones exposed to that!

164 Salamantis  Sun, Mar 1, 2009 11:42:46pm

re: #48 KingKenrod

I just realized how incredibly similar the dugong tail is to the tail of a whale. So I did a google search for whale tail and got an entirely different kind of anatomy lesson.

Yep. Camel toes and whale tails kinda go together. Not according to zoological taxonomy, but according to string bikini physiology.

165 Morganfrost  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:34:45am

You have to admit-- it takes a certain amount of courage for a guy named "Wise" to make that much of a fool of himself-- it really leaves him open.

166 FrogMarch  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 6:21:11am

contact him.

167 jdog29  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 9:19:50am

I've got a fiver on #167

If you don't believe Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God you will be condemned to an eternity of hell fire or Gilligan Island reruns. Sad, tragic? yes! but also true.

I never did understand why religious people look to Caesar to endorse their particular faith, which to be faith, has to be unprovable, and as such will never intersect with science. kudos to JCM for the earlier post.

If any other faith tried to insert its tenets into the school system, especially science classes, these same people would flip right on out.

I personally would like to see the disclaimer at the front of every origin of life discussion, "Unless a second earthlike planet exists inside the core of Jupiter but because of all the atmospheric storms our ancestors, fearing annihilation, colonized earth, but their spaceship crashed in some of the deepest water of the ocean. So deep, but not the deepest to attract undue exploration. This would explain the loss of all their superior technology as their ship sank something akin to "The Planet of the Apes" Oh yeah, here's the best part, due to planet positioning at the time of their journey they had to destroy one planet, which explains the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. The fallout from the explosion destroyed the living conditions of the closer Mars which the Jupiteronians had prevously named Metamorpho for obvious reasons."

Now I ask you, who is asking you for more faith based on what percentage of knowledge we have go by and the percentage of knowledge yet to be discovered? We probably have at least half of all the existing knowledge on which to base my conclusions.

168 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 9:30:57am

re: #167 jdog29

If you don't believe Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God you will be condemned to an eternity of hell fire or Gilligan Island reruns. Sad, tragic? yes! but also true.

If being "condemned to an eternity of hell fire" means I wouldn't have to hang around with fanatics like you for eternity, it doesn't sound so bad.

169 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 12:43:15pm

Once again, an appeal to ignorance (known, since the Greeks 2500 years ago, as an ad ignorantium logical fallacy).

Just because there are things we DON'T know doesn't mean that there aren't things we DO know. And one of the things we DO know, by looking at the fossil record, is that evolution - change in terrestrial species over time - has indeed happened. Another thing we DO know is that random genetic mutation acted upon by nonrandom environmental selection, is the statistically prohibitively likely process, based upon 150 years worth of supporting evidence, without a single shred of evidence found that contradicts it. And that evidence includes DNA, the very physical substrate mechanism by means of which the process of evolution via mutation and selection proceeds.

170 jdog29  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 2:47:23pm

I believe the things we don't know have an impact on the things we know. Actually the things we don't know can change the reality of the things we do know into things we only thought we knew, but now we know better.

Eliminating the possibility of new knowledge coming along, not to alter reality, but actually bring reality into a better focus, seems very close to the tunnel vision some assign to religious people. What if we're still in the black and white television stage of science, which I believe we are, and when our knowledge is increased to say the 3rd power of what it is today we'd be making the jump to color television. The jump to color television, while not very impressive looking back, was quite an improvement when it happened, but not nearly as impressive as the jump to High Definition.

When citing the knowledge of the Greeks 2500 years ago or the 150 year history of knowledge gathered about any particular subject, not just evolution, it is implied to be a tremendous body of work and a very long span of time to have already had such knowledge. This is true if the earth is only 6 or 7k years old. However, if the earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old this learning and knowledge would be the equivalent of gaining new knowledge about 10 minutes ago using our average lifetime as a parallel scale. It is interesting to see someone of your caliber use the scale of the young earth to make findings proving an old earth sound more impressive.

I mean how statistically prohibitively likely can something be when no matter how statistically prohibitively likely something is, by its very definition, there is the stated 100% chance of a completely different reality existing. What if... that reality is God? What if that sliver or line pointing to an asterisk on the pie graph of possibility is actually the truth? Would it be the first time a statistically prohibitively likely improbability became known as the reality? No.

I apologize for suggesting the eternal Gilligan's Island reruns or the eternal hell fire is the emphasis of the message of Jesus Christ. I believe the manner in which some are turned off by the emphasis on condemantion rather than the true emphasis of Christ, that being salvation, produces more "fed-up-with-religion-as-a-whole" people than any set of facts in any books ever could.

Can I use hyphenation AND quotation marks on the same words like that?

171 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:31:22pm

re: #170 jdog29

I believe the things we don't know have an impact on the things we know. Actually the things we don't know can change the reality of the things we do know into things we only thought we knew, but now we know better.

Eliminating the possibility of new knowledge coming along, not to alter reality, but actually bring reality into a better focus, seems very close to the tunnel vision some assign to religious people. What if we're still in the black and white television stage of science, which I believe we are, and when our knowledge is increased to say the 3rd power of what it is today we'd be making the jump to color television. The jump to color television, while not very impressive looking back, was quite an improvement when it happened, but not nearly as impressive as the jump to High Definition.

When citing the knowledge of the Greeks 2500 years ago or the 150 year history of knowledge gathered about any particular subject, not just evolution, it is implied to be a tremendous body of work and a very long span of time to have already had such knowledge. This is true if the earth is only 6 or 7k years old. However, if the earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old this learning and knowledge would be the equivalent of gaining new knowledge about 10 minutes ago using our average lifetime as a parallel scale. It is interesting to see someone of your caliber use the scale of the young earth to make findings proving an old earth sound more impressive.

I mean how statistically prohibitively likely can something be when no matter how statistically prohibitively likely something is, by its very definition, there is the stated 100% chance of a completely different reality existing. What if... that reality is God? What if that sliver or line pointing to an asterisk on the pie graph of possibility is actually the truth? Would it be the first time a statistically prohibitively likely improbability became known as the reality? No.

I apologize for suggesting the eternal Gilligan's Island reruns or the eternal hell fire is the emphasis of the message of Jesus Christ. I believe the manner in which some are turned off by the emphasis on condemantion rather than the true emphasis of Christ, that being salvation, produces more "fed-up-with-religion-as-a-whole" people than any set of facts in any books ever could.

Can I use hyphenation AND quotation marks on the same words like that?

Once again, all you are doing is restating the tired old Greek ad ignorantium logical fallacy, and adding the onfounded supposition that what we DON'T know can, once it is known, completely change or negate what we DO know, is only a roundabout way of claiming, without any empirical evidence whatsoever, that we don't know what we think we do know in the first place. It is a naked faith in the perdurance of human ignorance trying to claim that all the vast masses of empirical evidence with which scientific contentions are clothed matters not one whit.

Now, pointing to the fact that it was once believed that all swans were white, until black swans were discovered in Australia, only goes to show that the proposition had been illegitimately extended beyond what had been observationally verified. Nothing of the sort is happening with the evolution of terrestrial lifeforms via random genetic mutation and nonrandom environmental selection.

Now let me ask you a few blunt questions.

Do you accept the Book of Genesis as literally true?

Do you believe that the universe, the earth, and all life on it were created a few thousand years ago, and that all terrestrial life was created independently and as is in the space of a few days?

Even in the face of absolutely conclusive empirical evidence to the contrary?

to be continued...

I want you to show me how the proposition that 1+1=2 can be falsified by ANYTHING we should subsequently find.

172 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:38:00pm

continued...

Even in the face of the Big Bang echo radiation red shift coefficients, the light from stars billions of light years away, the dating of rocks and fossils by dozens of independent radiometric meaurement types, all converging on the selfsame ancient dates, thousands of identical shared artifactual retroviral DNA sequences in isomorphic slots in the 3 billion base pair genomes of human and great apes showing that we evolutionarily diverged from ancient common ancestors, and Richard Lenski's repeatable laboratory observation of evolution in action?

You sound like the kind of fundamentalist fanatical zealot who says that his mind is made up, that he refuses to be confused with facts, and that in his superglued opinion, God said it, he believes it, and that settle it.

173 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:43:49pm

And here is how statistically prohibitively UNlikely that humans and great apes were created independently and as is, rather than evolutionarily diverging from ancient common ancestors...

It is vanishingly less likely than the chances of winning every lottery in the world by buying a single ticket in each, while winning the grand prize on every one armed bandit in Vegas with the use of a single coins.

174 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 4:44:19pm

of one single coin per machine...PIMF

175 jdog29  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 5:53:30pm

You sound like the kind of fundamentalist fanatical zealot who says that his mind is made up. Were you talking about me or you? I know you were talking about me, but I believe you could just as easily have been talking about yourself.

Yes, I believe the earth was created in 6 days as Genesis says. I don't believe God is limited by time, but that time exists within God. Which is harder to believe, water was turned into wine miraculously, Jesus walked on water, any number of the miracles listed in the Bible or that the universe was created in 6 days. Do you not think I don't see the absurdity of those events.

I thought I made it clear what my beliefs are, but if your wondering if I believe the great fish swallowed up Jonah and spit him out on dry land 3 days later, the answer is yes.

I've seen the evidence trying to link the ancestors of humans to other primates and it is so full of holes it is hard to believe it is presented by intelligent people. This doesn't even mention how a blade of grass and a giraffe are supposedly related through common ancestors as are flies and rhinoceroses and every living creature having common ancestors. Even the most advanced minds say it would take more than 5 billion years and then start talking about millions of universes existing for the lottery numbers to hit the "creation-of-life" jackpot. Your lottery analogy applies directly to your beloved theory of life evolving out of nonlife. Even then we're talking about jumping strata, kingdom, species the works and as absurd as it is for me to believe in God, science asks me for even MORE faith. Only this time I am to believe in men with their best guess estimates until a more dominant mind comes along and sets things straight in ONE area.

I think MICRO evolution has all the hallmarks of the empirical evidence you believe and state MACRO evolution has, yet it DOES NOT HAVE. Someone saying it does is not good enough for me to embrace the best theory of least ignorance.

Be careful you are coming quite close to violating Proverbs 26.4 which reads.

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself."

To which I reply, "Welcome to the party!"

176 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 6:55:43pm

re: #175 jdog29

I've seen the evidence trying to link the ancestors of humans to other primates and it is so full of holes it is hard to believe it is presented by intelligent people.

Name one hole.

177 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 8:08:07pm

re: #175 jdog29

You sound like the kind of fundamentalist fanatical zealot who says that his mind is made up. Were you talking about me or you? I know you were talking about me, but I believe you could just as easily have been talking about yourself.

I am convinced by the massive presence of empirical evidence; you believe what you believe in the absence of supporting empirical evidence, and in the face of vast reams of contradicting empirical evidence. One helluva difference there.

Yes, I believe the earth was created in 6 days as Genesis says. I don't believe God is limited by time, but that time exists within God. Which is harder to believe, water was turned into wine miraculously, Jesus walked on water, any number of the miracles listed in the Bible or that the universe was created in 6 days. Do you not think I don't see the absurdity of those events.

I thought I made it clear what my beliefs are, but if your wondering if I believe the great fish swallowed up Jonah and spit him out on dry land 3 days later, the answer is yes.

In other words, your emotional attachment to your pet ancient myths utterly overwhelms your intellect.

I've seen the evidence trying to link the ancestors of humans to other primates and it is so full of holes it is hard to believe it is presented by intelligent people. This doesn't even mention how a blade of grass and a giraffe are supposedly related through common ancestors as are flies and rhinoceroses and every living creature having common ancestors.

Not only do they all have DNA, but the translation language from genetic sequence to amino acid and protein production is the same in it all. Plus, all life forms share genetic sequences. The case for the interrelatedness of all live is overwhelming and utterly conclusive.

Even the most advanced minds say it would take more than 5 billion years and then start talking about millions of universes existing for the lottery numbers to hit the "creation-of-life" jackpot.

No, the 'most advanced minds' do NOT say that; they say no such thing. Isn't lying against one of your commandments, even if it's for Jesus? Or maybe you can prove you're not lying by NAMING those supposedly 'most advanced minds.' I'm not holding my breath.

Your lottery analogy applies directly to your beloved theory of life evolving out of nonlife.

Evolution and origins of life theory are separate disciplines, and your vain attempt to conflate them won't fly here.

Even then we're talking about jumping strata, kingdom, species the works and as absurd as it is for me to believe in God, science asks me for even MORE faith. Only this time I am to believe in men with their best guess estimates until a more dominant mind comes along and sets things straight in ONE area.

Science does not require faith; it only requires one's mind to be open to being convinced by overwhelming empirical evidence. You berlieve in the abject absence of same, and you possess the temerity and utter gall to talk about accepting science taking MORE faith?

I think MICRO evolution has all the hallmarks of the empirical evidence you believe and state MACRO evolution has, yet it DOES NOT HAVE. Someone saying it does is not good enough for me to embrace the best theory of least ignorance.

There is no blatant macro-micro divide; it's a continuum. All that is required for speciation is for two populations to divelop enough genetic difference to prefent successful interbreeding.

Be careful you are coming quite close to violating Proverbs 26.4 which reads.

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself."

To which I reply, "Welcome to the party!"

You sound like Iraneus, who said that he believed BECAUSE it was absurd.

178 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 8:13:52pm

Here is irrefutable empirical evidence for the contention that humans and great apes diverged from ancient 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.

Sal: Note that these artifactual retroviral DNA sequences can be checked and rechecked at will. Also note that the genomes of both humans and chimpanzees have been sequences, and they share alnost 99% of their sequences.

And against all that, what do you have? The emotional attachment to an ancient myth written by people who were utterly ignorant of such things, and an emotional revulsion that you could be genetically related to apes, rather than baked from scratch out of God-breathed dirt.

No intellection whatsoever.

179 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 8:36:22pm

One other thing; the theories that have been over thrown have almost exclusively been the ones that were based in religious myth and superstition - theories like flat earth geocentrism, astrology, alchemy, the herbological doctrine of signatures, the phlogiston theory of fire, the air-earth-fire-water theory of the elements, the independent and as-is creation of all life, and the spontaneious generation theory of worms from horsehairs, rats from rotten grain, and crocodiles from sunken river logs.

It is a vain hope to suppose that science will prove in the future that such religious myths and superstitions were indeed correct; reality is the court of ultimate appeal, and its evidential judgement has long been in on such matters. Facts do not bend to the dictates of desires, regardless of how popular or fervent those desires might be. We were not once living on the surface of a flat and sun-circled disc that only morphed into a sphere circled by the sun when popular opinions changed. And if the depth and extent of pious fervency were the measure of all things empirical, the jihadis who are willing to sacrifice their own lives just so they can murder unbelievers for Allah would be the go-to guys for all things scientific.

But still you blather on about faith trumping the entire scientific edifice, as if you could will your wish into reality.

Nietszche once said that faith is not wanting to know. It is much worse than that now; Zombic Biblical Literalist memebots are now actively wanting NOT to know, and wanting no one else to know, either, wherever knowledge exposes the believed-in as empirically false. Which is why they are endeavoring to unconstitutionally brainwash the young in public high school science classes with their religious dogmas. Faith matters far more to them than truth; for them, it isn't even a contest. And they don't want it to be an issue for anyone else, either. So they view the scientific knowledge of empirically observable and measurable facts, and the principles and truths that can be logically derived from them, as their enemies, to be righteously wiped from the minds of humanity by faith's fanatical and fascist Belief-Uber-Alles soldiers.

180 jdog29  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 8:55:49pm

So what you are asking me to believe is you believe there are zero holes in the empirical evidence linking all lifeforms to a single one celled common ancestor and if I can point out one legitimate hole you will concede the point?

I find when I have done this in the past it is statistically prohibitively unlikely any minds will change and most everything I bring up is brushed away with group think logic claiming enlightenment rivaling any religious group I've ever encountered.

I don't believe you believe there are no holes because I believe you spend a considerable amount of brainpower defending the inconsistencies in your mind surrounding those holes. It would be easier to ask you what the top ten holes in your faith are than for me to bring up one which may or may not be in your own top ten creating the doubt in your religion and causing to consider, if only for a moment how shaky the house of cards is you base your life upon.

Also, when I answer the inconsistencies in my mind about my faith the answer I come up with concerning children dying of cancer, evil in the world, abuse and child molestation within religous hierarchy, schools and families, the support of slavery or any other mind breaking problems; I know those answers would not be good enough for you and I would not expect them to be accepted by you.

Why would you think your answers concerning the transfer of the empirical evidence concerning micro-evolution over to supporting macro-evolution would be good enough for me? Here's your hole: The fossil record shows many species remaining static for what would be millions of years, topping out if you will, while others are supposedly literally jumping kingdoms, orders, and species during the same timeframe.

Do you really expect me to believe an amoeba, or similar one celled organism showed up in;

Kingdom: Protista; Phylum Plasmodoma; Class Sarcodina; Order Amoebida: Family Amoebidae; Genus Amoeba; Species Amoeba Proteus

and given enough time it is logical in your mind that it could jump to, no evolve into, let's say a Snowy Owl;

Kingdom Animalia; Phylum Chordata; Class Aves; Order Strigiformes; Family Strigidae; Genus Bubo; Species Bubo Scadiacus

and you want me to believe you believe there are no holes in the empirical evidence supporting this. I repeat, I don't believe you believe that? And I really don't believe someone as intelligent as I know you are expects me to believe someone as intelligent as I know you are believes that. C'mon man, really.

Please don't point out the lack of Domain or sub-kingdom in the classification of the amoeba as some kind of justification to sweep away what I believe are very strong points. Maybe I'm wrong and you really do believe there are no holes in the road from an amoeba to a snowy owl or from an amoeba to a human, and in the road backwards where ants and bees are "just distant relatives."

Not addressed is how close Salamantis is in his lottery analogy to the amoeba or similar one celled organism showing up in all its glory of life having come from or evolved from non-life. Despite those mindnumbing numbers so eloquently communicated by Salamantis and how unlikely that event was to have occured, this is the foundation of the rest. Yes, the least likely of all the statistically prohibitively unlikely events is chosen to be the foundation. It is impossible and my mind breaks at the thought of the amount of faith asked of me to believe such a myth.

181 jdog29  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 9:06:45pm

Who is Iraneus?

182 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 9:15:54pm

re: #180 jdog29

Here's your hole: The fossil record shows many species remaining static for what would be millions of years, topping out if you will, while others are supposedly literally jumping kingdoms, orders, and species during the same timeframe.

That's not a hole. Just because an organism can evolve doesn't mean it will. That some organisms have remained static only shows they faced no evolutionary pressures.

Meanwhile other organisms did face pressures and adapted or died. The fossil record is not the only proof. Try refuting the genetic evidence like pseudo-genes and retro-viruses. I really can't understand how one can accept micro-evolution but then deny how after enough micro changes the organism might be a macro change from it's ancestor. And you want to chide others about a "considerable amount of brainpower defending the inconsistencies". I believe it's called "projection".

183 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 9:21:13pm

re: #180 jdog29

So what you are asking me to believe is you believe there are zero holes in the empirical evidence linking all lifeforms to a single one celled common ancestor and if I can point out one legitimate hole you will concede the point?

I find when I have done this in the past it is statistically prohibitively unlikely any minds will change and most everything I bring up is brushed away with group think logic claiming enlightenment rivaling any religious group I've ever encountered.

I don't believe you believe there are no holes because I believe you spend a considerable amount of brainpower defending the inconsistencies in your mind surrounding those holes. It would be easier to ask you what the top ten holes in your faith are than for me to bring up one which may or may not be in your own top ten creating the doubt in your religion and causing to consider, if only for a moment how shaky the house of cards is you base your life upon.

You are attempting to morph the question again. No one is stupid enough to claim that everything that is is already known, so knowledge gaps still exist. And since each answer obtained enables the asking of previously unanticipated questions, there will ALWAYS be unanswered-as-of-yet questions. But what you need to show is that there is a simgle facet of the basic tenets of evolution - random genetic mutation acted upon by nonrandom environmental selection - that is contradicted by credible empirical evidence. You cannot do so.

Also, when I answer the inconsistencies in my mind about my faith the answer I come up with concerning children dying of cancer, evil in the world, abuse and child molestation within religous hierarchy, schools and families, the support of slavery or any other mind breaking problems; I know those answers would not be good enough for you and I would not expect them to be accepted by you.

Why would you think your answers concerning the transfer of the empirical evidence concerning micro-evolution over to supporting macro-evolution would be good enough for me? Here's your hole: The fossil record shows many species remaining static for what would be millions of years, topping out if you will, while others are supposedly literally jumping kingdoms, orders, and species during the same timeframe.

The evolution of different organisms takes place at different rates, influenced by the differential rates of change in the various selecting environments. There is no need for palmetto bug cockroaches or coelacanths to significantly evolve (even though cockroaches have indeed speciated into many different forms that cannot interbreed) like there have been for some other species, because they are well suited to exploitation of stable environmental niches (differential niches is why there are different kinds of cockroaches to occupy them). There has, on the other hand, been ecological pressure on fishes to exploit a predator-safe niche on land, so when some fish that bottom-crawled on their fins mutated a way for the air sacs by means of which they maintained their submersion level to absorb oxygen, some of them crawled out onto the land - and we had primitive amphibians.

Do not think that gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are exclusive either/ors; they are instead poles on a continuum. Even humans have had both happen, and even aid each other. It took millions of years of evolution for precise and elaborated hominid hand-eye coordination to develop, but only a single metamutation occurring about a quarter million years ago for the highly refined cortical module that controls it to be placed at the service of the mouth-ear nexus, allowing the production and parsing of speech.

to be continued...

184 jdog29  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 9:23:53pm

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

13 billion years or so to go from nothing to what we have now. That makes the progress in the last 1000 years look less impressive than if it were all accomplished in less than 10k.

Kindof like Seinfeld episode when George tried to act like he had found a job, an apartment... Seems like he said, "If you condense all my life's accomplishments into a two week window its pretty decent."

185 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 9:45:56pm

re: #180 jdog29

Do you really expect me to believe an amoeba, or similar one celled organism showed up in;

Kingdom: Protista; Phylum Plasmodoma; Class Sarcodina; Order Amoebida: Family Amoebidae; Genus Amoeba; Species Amoeba Proteus

and given enough time it is logical in your mind that it could jump to, no evolve into, let's say a Snowy Owl;

Kingdom Animalia; Phylum Chordata; Class Aves; Order Strigiformes; Family Strigidae; Genus Bubo; Species Bubo Scadiacus

and you want me to believe you believe there are no holes in the empirical evidence supporting this. I repeat, I don't believe you believe that? And I really don't believe someone as intelligent as I know you are expects me to believe someone as intelligent as I know you are believes that. C'mon man, really.

3 i/2 billion years is a lot of time for mutations to accrete and aggregate; each successfully mutated lifeform becomes a new baseline template from which successful mutations occur. And they can occur in any offspring of any member of a population, and if successful, will rapidly dominate that population, as success is measured in differential reproduction rates.

And yes, there has been plenty of time for such a process to result in the plethora of different yet genetically interrelated terrestrial species we see today. Go here:

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

And scroll down to:

1.2.3 Statistical impossibility of proteins?

to see how the mechanism works. And it works not just with protein production,but with speciation generally. But I have to wonder whether you can comprehend it.

Please don't point out the lack of Domain or sub-kingdom in the classification of the amoeba as some kind of justification to sweep away what I believe are very strong points. Maybe I'm wrong and you really do believe there are no holes in the road from an amoeba to a snowy owl or from an amoeba to a human, and in the road backwards where ants and bees are "just distant relatives."

It could also be that amoeba and snowy owls share very ancient common ancestors, but whether one is the parent of the other or whether they are siblings, you cannot point to a single gap between them that cannot be filled by evolution.

Not addressed is how close Salamantis is in his lottery analogy to the amoeba or similar one celled organism showing up in all its glory of life having come from or evolved from non-life. Despite those mindnumbing numbers so eloquently communicated by Salamantis and how unlikely that event was to have occured, this is the foundation of the rest. Yes, the least likely of all the statistically prohibitively unlikely events is chosen to be the foundation. It is impossible and my mind breaks at the thought of the amount of faith asked of me to believe such a myth.

You arw quite wrong about the possibility of spontaneous abiogenesis haveing happened; it had a billion years to happen, and could have happened at any one of countless terrestrial sites on the earth during that time - and only had to happen once. Even the lotto can be won if you buy billions of tickets. It has already been experimentally demonstrated that amino acids (more than half of the ones the human body uses) and other building blocks of life can be produced by the conditions that terrestrially obtained at that time.

And this isn't even to mention that evolution isn't about life springing from nonlife (that's origins of life theory), but about what happens when populations possessing high but imperfect copying fidelity are presented with environments containing specific challenges and opportunities. And what happens is evolution via random genetic mutation and nonrandom environmental selection.

But against all this, you believe, because it feels so good, that some cosmic creature with a magic mouth respirated you outta dirt a few thousand years ago, even though we have discovered temples twice as old as that.

186 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 9:50:52pm

re: #184 jdog29

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

13 billion years or so to go from nothing to what we have now. That makes the progress in the last 1000 years look less impressive than if it were all accomplished in less than 10k.

Kindof like Seinfeld episode when George tried to act like he had found a job, an apartment... Seems like he said, "If you condense all my life's accomplishments into a two week window its pretty decent."

Umm...homo sapiens has only been around for about two hundred thousand years of that. And future knowledge builds upon what has been learned in the past, so it's an exponential spiral of standing-on-shoulders understanding, which only truly began when we didn't have to depend upon demonstration and observation to learn skills, or recitation and memorization for the transmission and preservation of knowledge, that is, when we developed text. And knowledge expansion really shot through the roof when the Gutenberg printing press allowed text to be mass produced.

187 jdog29  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 9:52:37pm

Salamantis,
I appreciate your acknowledging the gaps in the knowledge. I think you would also realize where you minimize the importance of those gaps, I maximize them. I realize where I minimize the importance of the gaps in my understanding of God, the hows and whys, I know you would tend to maximize those gaps of knowledge.

Do you really believe a one celled organism came to life and evolved to the point that you and me are having this conversation? I feel like this is similar to the question you asked me about Genesis and the age of the earth.

If you do, and I hope you can feel true repect as I ask this, can you not see how someone could never logically believe as you do?

I am so thankful to be able to worship in a country where there aren't suicide bombers. I have studied the political/religious makeup of countries around the world and have found those dominated politically and religiously by Christianity have the most freedoms, freedom to believe or not believe, women's rights are the best, not to say women's rights are perfect in any way in the U.S., or anywhere else, but where Christianity dominates women have it better. While in countries where any other philosophy or religion dominates freedom of even scientific theory is oppressed, not to mention women's rights and human rights.

Sometimes when Christianity is compared to Islam's oppression I shudder. Do you think the creationist are trying to take over the science class in Iran?

I don't post these thinking I will really change anyone's mind and I think someone with your IQ would have you knowing the same would be true about your posts changing my mind. I do appreciate being able to disagree on the most fundalmental of ideas and beliefs without it escalating into death threats, etc.

Because of my research, I believe the tenets of Christianity provides that umbrella of civility. Now I hope you are not hearing me say there are not plenty of people who call themselves Christians that the world wouldn't be better off with 10 atheists suing to have "In God We Trust" taken off our currency than the perversion of Christianity they are practicing.

188 jdog29  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 10:08:35pm

I believe in God with every molecule of my being. When religion is referred to as a lie like heroin or cocaine, even though I don't like or agree with the comparison, I understand the perception. I also know if Christianity is true a huge majority, if not all, other religions have to be false.

People think of religious people thinking, "I don't need any answers because God is the answer." I have never had that experience with religion. I have seen people say similar things about other people, leaders, etc.

I think when someone hears someone else say they are depending on God, it might be perceived that the person stating it is implying there is some sort of relief from the responsibility to put their shoulder to the academic wheel. The peace gained, I believe, allows me to focus more and work harder and more efficiently with an unstoppable optimism toward anything good and knowing everything evil will eventually receive justice.

Trying to repay evil with good is extremely challenging teaching. It doesn't come natural to me and I don't believe it even came naturally to Jesus. I believe Jesus had to fight the temptations just as we do today, but instead of giving in, he succeeded in defeating them.

189 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 10:08:49pm

re: #187 jdog29

And what of pseudo-genes, retro-viral DNA, embryology, genomes, fossils, hernias, hiccups, infant reflexes, and vestigial organs? How do you explain ear wiggling? Or the laryngeal nerve?

190 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 10:10:03pm

re: #188 jdog29

I believe in God and accept evolution too. It is a false dichotomy to say I can't have them both.

191 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 10:10:59pm

re: #181 jdog29

Who is Iraneus?

I misattributed the quote; it was Tertullian:

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

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

Sal: The fatal logical fallacy of the fideist rejection of facts, reason and logic in favor of groundless faith is the fact that once they discard facts, reason and logic, they are reduced to incoherency, and cannot even logically argue their own position or reason with others concerning it.

They are reduced to whining I beLEEEEEVE so HARRRRD because it feels so GOOOOOD...

All heart, no mind. Kinda like kiddie liberals.

And in fact the Biblical Literallist conception of an anthropomorphic God that looks like some big human bears about as much resemblance to any logically possible deity as Santa Claus bears to one's parents (the actual source of kiddie Christmas gifts).

The problem that the ancients had is that they absolutized what were considered to be good things in people, and made them into deific attributes, without considering the logical consequences of such characterizations. Bigger, stronger, smarter, more just people were considered to be better, so God had to be the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect, not even relizing that omnicience and omnipotence, like the irresistable force and the immoveable object, cannot coexist in a single universe, that the necessity of being perfect would prevent a deity from perceiving, because the perfect could not think imperfect thoughts, aand yet perfection is singular, so there can be no movement of mind from one perfect thought to another, and that omnipresence would prevent a deity from perceiving, because perception is always perception of other-than-itself, but an omnipresent God would have no other-than-itself. It's not their fault, really; they were typically ignorant goatherders working with superstitions and myths, not philosophers, logicians, or metaphysicians. They did the best that they could given the times and their circumstances. It just isn't very good at all from our present informed perspectives.

It was Feuerback who claimed that humans made God in their own image, rather than vice-versa. He said that if humans had wings, God would be a garganutan bird.

192 jdog29  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 10:12:26pm

The Gutenberg Bible, yes of course.

193 jdog29  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 10:22:43pm

Sharmuta,
Ah, the what if God decided to create life and then used evolution to diversify it question.

And with God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. Who's to say God didn't suspend time during creation or if the speed of light has always been a constant. I can't remember if the universe's expansion is speeding up or slowing down. If the speed of light were deteriorating, which law of thermodynamics says everything is winding down, would it cause the universe to look like it was expanding slower or faster?

194 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 10:23:49pm

re: #193 jdog29

And the laryngeal nerve?

195 jdog29  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 10:26:12pm

Hey, I gotta run, but I'll see you around.

Shouldn't I get a least some positive rating on at least some of my posts? You know like, he's full of crap, but he talks a pretty good game positive rating?

196 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 10:28:11pm

re: #187 jdog29

Salamantis,
I appreciate your acknowledging the gaps in the knowledge. I think you would also realize where you minimize the importance of those gaps, I maximize them. I realize where I minimize the importance of the gaps in my understanding of God, the hows and whys, I know you would tend to maximize those gaps of knowledge.

Gaps aren't contradictions; there is no rational reason why they cannot be filled without contradicting evolutionary theory. And in fact the history of empirical science has been a history of progressively fewer and smaller gaps, and there is no rreason to suppose that this trend will not continue and fill in the rest. The Genesis account of creation, on the other hand, is empirically contradicted and falsified by several different unimpeachable means. And it is all one big fucking gap; it's single answer to every single question is "God did it."

Do you really believe a one celled organism came to life and evolved to the point that you and me are having this conversation? I feel like this is similar to the question you asked me about Genesis and the age of the earth.

It's not a matter of feeling; it's a matter of objectively and dispassionately perusing the empirical evidence that resides within every cell of every living thing.

If you do, and I hope you can feel true repect as I ask this, can you not see how someone could never logically believe as you do?

It's not a matter of believing, either; it's a matter of knowing to a stellar degree of statistical probability given the recheckable-at-will empirical evidence.

I am so thankful to be able to worship in a country where there aren't suicide bombers. I have studied the political/religious makeup of countries around the world and have found those dominated politically and religiously by Christianity have the most freedoms, freedom to believe or not believe, women's rights are the best, not to say women's rights are perfect in any way in the U.S., or anywhere else, but where Christianity dominates women have it better. While in countries where any other philosophy or religion dominates freedom of even scientific theory is oppressed, not to mention women's rights and human rights.

You might check Iceland and Sweden; they are largely irreligious, and do even better than the US does in such areas. Besides which, the social efficicy of one myth when compared with another does not lend either of them a single whit of empirical veracity.

Sometimes when Christianity is compared to Islam's oppression I shudder. Do you think the creationist are trying to take over the science class in Iran?

Yep, the Islamocreationists are.

I don't post these thinking I will really change anyone's mind and I think someone with your IQ would have you knowing the same would be true about your posts changing my mind. I do appreciate being able to disagree on the most fundalmental of ideas and beliefs without it escalating into death threats, etc.

If we were conversing in the Middle Ages, the instruments of torture would have been well honed and oiled and the Inquisition would already be beating down my door. Thank goodness Enlightenment rationalism forced the medieval Church to rein in such excesses.

Because of my research, I believe the tenets of Christianity provides that umbrella of civility. Now I hope you are not hearing me say there are not plenty of people who call themselves Christians that the world wouldn't be better off with 10 atheists suing to have "In God We Trust" taken off our currency than the perversion of Christianity they are practicing.

Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church is still Christian, just as surely as Bin Ladin's and Zawahiri's Al Qaeda is Muslim. Tolerance has never been offered by any religion, only demanded from them.

197 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 10:30:26pm

re: #195 jdog29

OK- well next time I'll be asking about the laryngeal nerve again- possibly some other evolutionary wonders that you will have no answer to nor likely have ever even heard about. Have a nice night.

198 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 10:45:03pm

re: #192 jdog29

The Gutenberg Bible, yes of course.

If you think that the quickening of civilizational advance during the Renaissance and enlightenment was solely due to the mass production printing of the Bible and not to the mass production printing of Plato and Aristotle and Euclid and Pythagoras and Galen and so many other hitherto rare founts of Greek and Roman knowledge that were previously only available to the very favored few, you haven't thought the matter through. Such dissemination led to a profusive flowering of science and philosophy. The one thing that the mass printing of the Bible DID do was to free the populace to read and interpret it on their own, rather than blindly accept what clerics, who only recited chanted passages from it in a Latin language unknown by most, told them it meant. In fact, the mass-production of Bibles in commonly readable languages led, as much as anything else if not more, to the Protestant Reformation.

199 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 10:57:25pm

re: #188 jdog29

I believe in God with every molecule of my being. When religion is referred to as a lie like heroin or cocaine, even though I don't like or agree with the comparison, I understand the perception. I also know if Christianity is true a huge majority, if not all, other religions have to be false.

Maybe they're just rival emotional addictions. Truth is not necessary, since the simpler lie is more easily remembered and embraced by most than the more complex truth; memetic stickiness and the presence within the memeplex of an exigency to infect others with the belief system with which oneself has become infected is all that's necessary for it to virally propagate.

People think of religious people thinking, "I don't need any answers because God is the answer." I have never had that experience with religion. I have seen people say similar things about other people, leaders, etc.

And yet when the answers with which you are presented do not require God's existence, you reject them, no matter how massive, solid, valid and sound the empirical evidence supporting them is, even if they do not rule out God's existence either.

I think when someone hears someone else say they are depending on God, it might be perceived that the person stating it is implying there is some sort of relief from the responsibility to put their shoulder to the academic wheel. The peace gained, I believe, allows me to focus more and work harder and more efficiently with an unstoppable optimism toward anything good and knowing everything evil will eventually receive justice.

Yeah; you don't have to stop and examine the universe and your place in it; you just plug that hole with religion and henceforth ignore it.

Trying to repay evil with good is extremely challenging teaching. It doesn't come natural to me and I don't believe it even came naturally to Jesus. I believe Jesus had to fight the temptations just as we do today, but instead of giving in, he succeeded in defeating them.

Well, he didn't repay the moneychangers in the temple very nicely; as I recall, he beat them. So apparently, even he could succumb to the temptation of self-righteous anger.

200 Salamantis  Mon, Mar 2, 2009 11:00:56pm

re: #193 jdog29

Sharmuta,
Ah, the what if God decided to create life and then used evolution to diversify it question.

And with God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. Who's to say God didn't suspend time during creation or if the speed of light has always been a constant. I can't remember if the universe's expansion is speeding up or slowing down. If the speed of light were deteriorating, which law of thermodynamics says everything is winding down, would it cause the universe to look like it was expanding slower or faster?

Who's to say a cosmic ogre didn't fart in a primal mud puddle, and that the first humans weren't found inside the bubbles when they popped?

I call this theory Shrekism, and it makes about as much sense as that babble you're blathering.

201 jdog29  Tue, Mar 3, 2009 7:16:40am

I just meant the Gutenberg Bible was the first book printed by Gutenberg, you know, the deluded fool.

[Link: www.einsteinandreligion.com...]

Perhaps Einstein is a deluded fool as well?

Along with George Washington, Louis Pasteur, Beethoven, Thomas Jefferson.

Do you believe all these men were deluded fools so far as it involves their belief in God or do you give them a partial pass because they didn't have access to the overwhelming evidence stating "There is No God" ?

202 Salamantis  Tue, Mar 3, 2009 12:40:48pm

re: #201 jdog29

I just meant the Gutenberg Bible was the first book printed by Gutenberg, you know, the deluded fool.

[Link: www.einsteinandreligion.com...]

Perhaps Einstein is a deluded fool as well?

Along with George Washington, Louis Pasteur, Beethoven, Thomas Jefferson.

Do you believe all these men were deluded fools so far as it involves their belief in God or do you give them a partial pass because they didn't have access to the overwhelming evidence stating "There is No God" ?

No, Einstein wasn't, although other deluded fools often falsely try to claim him as one of their own:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not Christians, and not even Theists, but Deists. They believed that some deity created the universe and set it in motion - and hasn't bothered with it since. Benjamin Franklin believed the same.

According to his grandson, Louis Pasteur remained spiritual but not religious; he stopped going to church and ceased practicing Catholicism.

And Beethoven's religious beliefs were, shall we say, unique...
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

But all this matters not, as far as Washington, Jefferson or Beethoven are concerned, as they were neither bioscientists nor still alive when Darwin's Origin Of Species was published.

And as has been said here umpteen times before, one can accept evolution and still embrace Christianity - just not Genesis Literalism. 1.6 billion Roman Catholics do it. Not to mention all the other nonfundamentalists.

203 Sharmuta  Tue, Mar 3, 2009 7:07:26pm

re: #201 jdog29

Jefferson and Washington were Deists. Jefferson even wrote his own Bible.

204 jdog29  Wed, Mar 4, 2009 9:37:33am

Let me get this straight. Believing in a supreme being, Deism, is o.k., but people must believe in their chosen Deity through the prism of macro-evolution, amoebas evolving into snowy owls given enough time and the right circumstances, and macro evolution has no connection to the origin of life, which has as its best guess being some random building blocks of life, that is nonliving material, got the living daylights zapped out of it or zapped into it by some unknown super source.

You're right. Who wouldn't gladly strap on a bomb and commit suicide while believing that, if not only to gain relief from the cognitive dissonance in their brain.

"Go sell crazy some place else, we're all stocked up here!" Jack N. in "As Good As It Gets"

205 Salamantis  Wed, Mar 4, 2009 12:07:21pm

re: #204 jdog29

Let me get this straight. Believing in a supreme being, Deism, is o.k., but people must believe in their chosen Deity through the prism of macro-evolution, amoebas evolving into snowy owls given enough time and the right circumstances, and macro evolution has no connection to the origin of life, which has as its best guess being some random building blocks of life, that is nonliving material, got the living daylights zapped out of it or zapped into it by some unknown super source.

You're right. Who wouldn't gladly strap on a bomb and commit suicide while believing that, if not only to gain relief from the cognitive dissonance in their brain.

"Go sell crazy some place else, we're all stocked up here!" Jack N. in "As Good As It Gets"

No, get THIS straight, nimrod: whatEVER the fuck you believe should not contradict what is empirically checkable, unless you wanna come off as a total doofus, which is precisely what you DO come off as when you insist that the earth is only a few thousand years old and alla the different existent and extinct species were created independently and as is (or was, for the extinct ones), and your perfectly honest and friendly deity just put those bones in the ground and those genes in our cells and screwed up the basic physics of the speed of light, the red shift coefficient of the Big Bang background echo radiation, and the decay rate of isotopes - in other words faked all that evidence and lied His cosmic ass off writing page after page of utter bullshit in the Book of Nature - in order to fuck with the creation he loved so much that he killed his own son so he could justify not frying them forever for listening to a talking snake.

206 jdog29  Wed, Mar 4, 2009 12:48:13pm

I already owned up to my inconsistencies. I find it incredible how blind you are to yours.

207 jdog29  Wed, Mar 4, 2009 12:50:13pm

name calling and cursing make you look weakminded and do nothing for the strength of your argument, but if they make you BELIEVE and FEEL you are superior in some way, please continue.

208 Salamantis  Wed, Mar 4, 2009 1:07:43pm

re: #206 jdog29

I already owned up to my inconsistencies. I find it incredible how blind you are to yours.

name calling and cursing make you look weakminded and do nothing for the strength of your argument, but if they make you BELIEVE and FEEL you are superior in some way, please continue.

You have yet to point to any of my supposed inconsistencies, while yours are too numerous to count; I have only pointed out a few of the most utterly blatant ones.

And it may be impolite to call someone what they have, by their own posts, amply and abundantly proven themselves to be, but the unvarnished truth, by defuinition, can never be an insult.

And you do not consider yourself to be a nimrod? The Biblical Nimrod was, after all, 'a mighty hunter before the Lord." (Genesis 10:9). And you've been fruitlessly hunting a way of making some kind of empirically rational sense out of the Book of Genesis for some time now on this list.

Btw: your relentless attempts to drag empirical science down to the level of dogmatic religion by using such illegitimate buzzwords as 'believe' and 'feel' is forever doomed to utter and abject failure, becaise no amount of devout pious fervent faith can erase the bright line distinction between the presence and the absence of supporting empirical evidence. Empirical science in general and evolutionary theory in particular have it, in spades, while dogmatic religion in general and creationism/ID in particular lack a single whit, iota or shred of it - and Genesis Literalism has mountains and tsunamis of impeccable and irrefutable empirical evidence arrayed against it.

If I seem a bit short it is because, although many people do not suffer willful fools gladly, I have great difficulty suffering them at all.

209 jdog29  Wed, Mar 4, 2009 1:40:34pm

Would it be fairminded of me to think you consider anyone who believes in God/Creator a fool?

So you were complimenting me with your name calling? No, you weren't, and you know it is a lie for you to imply you were in any way and then you lie again trying to use a biblical reference to cover your lie.

210 Salamantis  Wed, Mar 4, 2009 2:00:08pm

re: #209 jdog29

Would it be fairminded of me to think you consider anyone who believes in God/Creator a fool?

No, but it would be accurate and precise for you to think that I consider anyone who believes, in the face of vast swaths of counterfactual empirical evidence, that the creation myth in the Book of Genesis is literally true as written, to be a blatant, abject, utter and stubbornly willful fool. And the facts would back me up on that, if we define a fool is someone who persists in believing the empirically untrue in the face of vast swaths of easily accessible falsifying evidence.

So you were complimenting me with your name calling? No, you weren't, and you know it is a lie for you to imply you were in any way and then you lie again trying to use a biblical reference to cover your lie.

I wasn't complimenting you; I was exactly describing what you have vainly endeavored to do on this list for some time now; to hopelessly hunt some way that you could possibly claim that the Book of Genesis was literally true, and to dance the Great Commission boogie Genesis Literalist style (the ultimate old skool; waay ancient, dewde!) by hunting for some naive, ignorant, credulous and gullible souls completely divorced from contemporary empirically verified knowledge who could somehow bring themselves to believe such absolute tripe. You DO consider yourself to be on a perpetual scavenger soul hunt for Jesus, don't you? Amd apparently somehow that quite religiously understandable mission has gotten irretrieveably entangled in your mind with a complete, total, and utterly ridiculous rejection of the entirety of the scientific enterprise and centuries of painstakingly and meticulously amassed and empirical evidence grounded understanding.

211 jdog29  Wed, Mar 4, 2009 3:54:40pm

How can someone believe in a supreme being, creator, if you will, and not be a fool, since it cannot be proven by anything factual?

212 Salamantis  Wed, Mar 4, 2009 4:28:11pm

re: #211 jdog29

How can someone believe in a supreme being, creator, if you will, and not be a fool, since it cannot be proven by anything factual?

Faith is neither foolish nor irrational when it is faith in the unproven. In fact, if there is empirical evidence FOR a belief, it no longer needs to be believed in, because it can be known. However, if there is empirical evidence AGAINST a belief, then belief in it is irrational, because it is belief in the provably false. An empirically supported contention can no longer be considered faith; supporting empirical evidence consigns it to the realm of knowledge, while contradicting empirical evidence relegates it to the realm of untruth. Faith can only rationally be invested in those convictions for which there is no empirical evidence whtsoever - either for or against them.

However, what IS absurdly, nonsensically and irrationally foolish is to believe in an assertion that is empirically FALSIFIED by counterfactual empirical evidence AGAINST it. There is a vast difference between an absence of empirical evidence FOR something, and the presence of empirical evidence AGAINST it, and the discernment of this critical distinction seems to have utterly escaped you.

There IS NO empirical evidence against the existence of a Universe-generating deity; there IS, however, MUCH empirical evidence that absolutely and unequivocably falsifies a literal reading of the Book of Genesis. These two contentions - belief in a God and belief in the literal truth of the Book of Genesis - are not umbilically linked; most Christians - 1.6 billion Roman Catholics, for example - see no problem with separating the two, and believing in both God and Jesus without considering it necessary to dismiss, deny or ignore the entirety of empirical science, simply by accepting certain parts of the Bible as metaphorical rather than literal. Only certain conceptually narrow reality-denying fundamentalist sects cannot seem to wrap their minds around the idea that there can both be a God AND that the Book of Genesis can be metaphorical rather than literally true in all particulars.

You may consider calling yourself a 'fool for Jesus' to be some sort of badge of honor, but Christion faith does not have to be foolish. You simply are embracing a quite foolish Genesis Literalist version of it, that is foolish precisely because it is empirically demonstrable as false, when you could choose to be a quite rational Christian instead.

213 jdog29  Wed, Mar 4, 2009 7:36:25pm

It may surprise you to know I agree creation or intelligent design or stealth versions of the same have no place in the science classroom or in the public school system. What private institutions wish to teach is their business as it is a free or at least semi-free country for now.

Maybe my disconnect is my ability to communicate what believing in God means to me when it comes to science.

Science is a set of laws, facts, truths. I know. Not I believe as you say.

Would you think someone would believe a supreme being would necessarily have to be bound by those laws, facts and truths?

214 Salamantis  Wed, Mar 4, 2009 9:02:27pm

re: #213 jdog29

It may surprise you to know I agree creation or intelligent design or stealth versions of the same have no place in the science classroom or in the public school system. What private institutions wish to teach is their business as it is a free or at least semi-free country for now.

Maybe my disconnect is my ability to communicate what believing in God means to me when it comes to science.

Science is a set of laws, facts, truths. I know. Not I believe as you say.

Would you think someone would believe a supreme being would necessarily have to be bound by those laws, facts and truths?

In fact that is exactly the point that Pope Benedict was making at Regensburg - for which radical Muslims went on murderous nun-killing riots. He was quoting a medieval Christian who, during a debate with a Muslim cleric, maintained that even God was constrained by the laws of nature, logic and decency that he had himself set, because he set them universally, and because a perfect being must necessarily be perfectly rational. The Muslim cleric responded that Allah was constrained by no physical or logical laws whatsoever, nor was he even constrained by the very categories of honesty, integrity, rationality and decency that he had endeavored to inculcate in his children - and that whatever he did, even if it was to slaughter millions of innocent infants, was a good and righteous thing to do, simply because he did it, and for no other reason. The Muslim God is thus the absurd emperor of the universe, personally unconstrained by anything that he demands of humanity, even though what he demands of humanity is supposedly in the name of goodness and righteousness, and Allah is supposed to be perfectly righteous and good. And the logical contradiction inherent in such a position does not matter, either, because logical incoherence is a deific virtue.

It appears to me that you are actually worshipping the Muslim conception of Allah while calling him by the Christian name of Jehovah.

215 Salamantis  Wed, Mar 4, 2009 9:37:45pm

Let me be even more clear: A deity that would inculcate logical, rational, reasoning, evidence-respecting minds in its human children, then turn around and systematically abuse the world in order to lie to them by faking such empirical evidence, would be utterly unworthy of the respect, adoration or worship of anyone who possessed a modicum of human honesty, human decency, human integrity, and human self-respect, no matter how powerful or wise it might be. The difference between divinity and diaboly is supposed to be more than relative knowledge or power; there is supposed to also be an absolute ethical distinction - the divine is supposed to be GOOD, and the diabolocal is supposed to be EVIL - but you are insisting upon the supremacy of what would logically have to be a dishonest, corrupt, incoherent and ultimately evil deity, no less than if it suddenly decided that 1 + 1 + 1 = 2, and 1 + 1 = 3. If God were truly such a moral monster, I would unhesistatingly opt for Hell as a blessed sanctuary, because the real Hell would be the eternal presence of such an execrable and despise-worthy being.

216 jdog29  Thu, Mar 5, 2009 3:44:55am

Then using that logic wouldn't anyone who believed in a supreme being/deity be considered a fool at best or even a sadist or ally to a reprehensible monster at worst?

217 jdog29  Thu, Mar 5, 2009 3:56:05am

Does evolution completely depend upon the failure of a nonpressuring niche occuring.

218 Salamantis  Thu, Mar 5, 2009 11:49:22am

re: #216 jdog29

Then using that logic wouldn't anyone who believed in a supreme being/deity be considered a fool at best or even a sadist or ally to a reprehensible monster at worst?

Jeez...fuck, no! Have you not a brain in your frigging head, or are you intentionally misreading everything I fucking write out of sheer twisted malice?

By that logic, anyone who believed that the book of Genesis was literally true despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary would have to believe that God was intentionally lying to them by faking the evidence, but people who accept Genesis as metaphorical rather than literal are presented with NO SUCH PROBLEMS!

Let me repeat myself so my point can bury itself in your forebrain with crystalline clarity:

Christians who accept the Book of Genesis as metaphorical rather than literal can accept empirical science generally and evolution particularly, without abandoning or betraying their religious faith; for them there is no conflict between empirical evidence and their faith. They don't need to assume that God has forced the world to lie to them; they can accept both God AND the world.

219 Salamantis  Thu, Mar 5, 2009 12:08:38pm

re: #217 jdog29

Does evolution completely depend upon the failure of a nonpressuring niche occuring.

Evolution only depends upon the existence of populations of organisms possessing high but imperfect copying fidelity, surrounded by environments that posses specific challenges and opportunities. The organisms randomly mutate, and the environments nonrandomly select the mutations that best exploit their particular ecological niches.

It sounds like you are trying to fixate on some mythical Eden being a niche lacking all selecting pressures. Do you also think that dinosaurs walked around there and only munched on palm fronds, and that all other species were vegetarian? Because predation is, after all, a selecting pressure. Do you also believe that there were no virulent microbes until the Fall, even though they spliced their genetic sequences into our genomes and those of the common ancestors we share with great apes? Disease, and differential resistance to it, is a selection pressure. Did they drink milk? Because not all human adults can. And on and on and on...

In other words, EVERY ecological niche presents its own peculiar challenges and opportunities, to which the species that exploit them have evolveed to deal and take advantage. THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a 'nonpressuring' niche, where every terrestrial life form - including those who would instantly die were they exposed to each other's environments - could happily coexist.

Try to comprehend this, dewde - seriously: The Creation Myth is a METAPHOR. It's NOT LITERALLY TRUE. Mitochondrial Eve lived at least 50 thousand years before Y-Chromosomal Adam.

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

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

Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Modern humans have only been around for a quarter million years or so. But the universe, the earth, terrestrial life, and human beings have been around a lot longer than a few thouand years, and some forms of life have been here and gone for hundrds of millions, even billions, of years before humans first appeared on the scence. And yes, we are all genetically related to each other through VERY ancient tiny common ancestors that lived more than 3 billion years ago.

220 jdog29  Thu, Mar 5, 2009 2:58:20pm

I was actually trying to explain to myself why some species remain static for millions of years while others jump kingdom, class and species to adapt to different challenges in their enviroment over time.

Isn't the presence of a nonpressuring niche the explanation? Wouldn't the presence of a nonpressuring niche necessarily bring evolution to a halt?

221 jdog29  Thu, Mar 5, 2009 3:13:33pm

For the sake of brevity and maybe sanity let's say I've accepted evolution. How does the presence of a supreme being/deity still not fit all the negative descriptions you've assigned earlier?

I don't mean the faking evolution to trick you part. I'm refering to the human suffering, evil in the world, children getting cancer, condemning most to hell part. Can that be reconciled with a loving, sacrificing, God of salvation or do the negatives listed turn the Deist/Christian/Muslim/etc. into at best a fool or even a sadist or at worst an ally of a reprehensible monster

222 Salamantis  Thu, Mar 5, 2009 5:02:15pm

re: #220 jdog29

I was actually trying to explain to myself why some species remain static for millions of years while others jump kingdom, class and species to adapt to different challenges in their enviroment over time.

Isn't the presence of a nonpressuring niche the explanation? Wouldn't the presence of a nonpressuring niche necessarily bring evolution to a halt?

There is no such thing as an absolutely static species. Even when evolution is not configurationally or instinctual-behaviorally obvious, it is nevertheless occurring on the genomic level. No organism ever becomes absolutely optimized to fully exploit every opportunity present within its ambient environment; perfect adaptation is an ideal limit that is never in reality ever reached. And as long as that ideal limit is not in reality achieved - which it can never be - selectable mutations can occur.

223 Salamantis  Thu, Mar 5, 2009 5:26:35pm

re: #221 jdog29

For the sake of brevity and maybe sanity let's say I've accepted evolution. How does the presence of a supreme being/deity still not fit all the negative descriptions you've assigned earlier?

Well, those who accept the empirical evidence cannot claim that such a deity had lied to us by faking that empirical evidence, because they accept that evidence as genuine.

I don't mean the faking evolution to trick you part. I'm refering to the human suffering, evil in the world, children getting cancer, condemning most to hell part. Can that be reconciled with a loving, sacrificing, God of salvation or do the negatives listed turn the Deist/Christian/Muslim/etc. into at best a fool or even a sadist or at worst an ally of a reprehensible monster

Theodicy does indeed present the most trenchant challenge to God as that deity has been traditionally characterized and defined. Not a challenge to the existence of such a deity per se, but a challenge to claims of its fundamental benevolence. One answer is that while the natural world is neither good nor evil - in other words, neither a hurricane swamping a coastline nor a lion feasting on a gazelle is evil - humans are both good and evil, and this is a necessary ourcome of our self-conscious awareness, and our ability to abstractly reflect and freely and individually choose (limited but existent free will), rather than being totally circumscribed by the intersection of genetically inscribed instinct, behaviorally conditioning personal history, and presently impinging stimuli. I wrote a poem about this, and I'm posting it below.

In my next post I will provide a quote from Maurice Merleau-Ponty, that refutes a claim made by Jean-Paul Sartre that our freedom is absolute. Basically, just as good and evil are correlative opposites that mutually define, and neither can have meaning in the absence of the existence of the other, by means of which each can define itself through comparison and contrast, so must freedom and restraint or limitation both exist for either to possess meaning.

You can further research the problem that the existence of evil poses for the belief in the existence of a deity that is claimed to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent here:

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

Hard Question, Hard Answer

Why are we the only ones?
Of all life,
We commit mass homicide,
Kill ourselves,
And befoul our only home.
Only we.

Why?

After painful meditiation
And careful consideration
I've come to believe
That we are infected
With a blessed, damned disease
Called consciousness.

Caught between beasthood and divinity
Between being of the world and not of it
Between knowing none and knowing all
Between utter self-ignorance and supreme self-understanding
We are the creatures of individual possibility.

In the natural world there is neither good nor evil;
With awareness comes the capacity for both.
The same infection that permits art, altruism,
Loyalty and loving care, allows violence, indifference,
Cruelty and psychosis,
For it spawns personality and its offspring
Personal choice.

I have come to believe in both the divinity
And the diaboly of human nature
And that they are inseparable.
Our disease is terminal
And all we can do is try to make the best of it
By striving to treat its more virulent symptoms
While reaping its manifold blessings.

224 Salamantis  Thu, Mar 5, 2009 5:33:09pm

"The result, however, of this first reflection on Freedom would be to rule it out altogether. If indeed it is the case that our freedom is the same in all our actions, and even in our passions, if it is not to be measured in terms of our conduct, and if the slave displays Freedom as much by living in fear as by breaking his chains, then it cannot be said that there is such a thing as Free action, Freedom being anterior to all actions...We may say in this case that freedom is everywhere, but equally nowhere...the idea of action, therefore, disappears: nothing can pass from us to the world, since we are nothing that can be specified, and since the non-being which constitutes us could not possibly find its way into the world's plenum. (From nothing, nothing comes.) There are merely intentions followed immediately by effects...the very idea of choice vanishes. For to choose is to choose something in which freedom sees, at least for a moment, a symbol of itself. There is free choice only if freedom comes into play in its decision, and posits the situation chosen as a situation of freedom. A freedom which has no need to be exercised because it is already acquired could not commit itself in this way: it knows that the next instant will find it, come what may, just as free and indeterminate. The very notion of freedom demands that our decision should plunge into the future, that something should have been done by it, that the subsequent instant should benefit from its predecessor and, though not necessitated, should at least be required by it. If freedom is doing, it is necessary that what it does should not be immediately undone by a new freedom. Each instant, therefore, must not be a closed world; one instant must be able to commit its successors and, a decision once taken and action once begun, I must have something acquired at my disposal, I must benefit from my impetus, I must be inclined to carry on...Unless there are cycles of behavior, open situations requiring a certain completion and capable of constituting a background to either a confirmatory or transformatory decision, we never experience freedom. The choice of an intelligible character is excluded, not only because there is no time anterior to time, but because the idea of an initial choice involves a contradiction. If Freedom is to have room in which to move, if it is to be describable as freedom, it must have a field, which means that there must be special possibilities, or realities which tend to cling to being."

- Maurice Merleau-Ponty

Sal: Another point he is making is that there can be no freedom in the absence of effort and commitment. We cannot exercise our wills in the world if effort and commitment are not required, because the very distinction between mere wishes or whims and willed action toward a desired goal would disappear, as neither will nor action would be necessary if freedom were absolute. But just because freedom isn't absolute doesn't mean that it is nonexistent. Limited freedom does indeed exist. We cannot achieve whatever we attempt every time, but we can achieve it sometimes.

225 jdog29  Fri, Mar 6, 2009 4:02:40am

Why and how did a one celled organism evolve into a two celled organism?

226 jdog29  Fri, Mar 6, 2009 4:48:13am

The why would be from some environmental pressure if my reasoning is correct, while other like one celled organisms living under different environmental circumstances would feel no pressure to evolve to survive or exploit the environmental pressure the first group is enduring.

As for the how. I still don't understand how anything in the scientific community is accepted as fact that is not readily repeatable.

Also, doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics (increasing entropy) you know, the parts of a watch placed in a bag and gently tumbled with the goal being the production of a watch.

Obviously lifeforms with their wants, needs and agendas are infinitely more complex than a mere watch.

My reasoning goes immediately, granted, possibly because of my upbringing, to if just one universal law of physics or thermodynamics has to be set aside for any particular model to work, why would there be such an affinity against a supreme being who would not only be above such boundaries, but was actually the authority who passed those laws.

One of the more interesting pieces of information about DNA research brought up earlier was how viral immunity is identically patterned on the DNA of all primates. Would that not suggest the possibility, because of how DNA works, particular areas would necessarily be in charge of fighting off a particular disease.

Where is the research showing how a new virus was introduced into two different populations of primates, scarring if you will, different segments of their DNA? The identical scarring, to me, shows the nature and propensities of DNA rather than the relationship of the living organisms through evolution.

I say all this not to try to convince you of anything, but to show you how when looking through the prism of knowing there is a God, new information proves how awesome God is, while if I am looking through the prism of knowing there is no God or a God who is bound by the laws of science, new information will naturally reinforce my knowledge and surety of that fact being true as well.

227 Salamantis  Fri, Mar 6, 2009 8:53:20am

re: #225 jdog29

Why and how did a one celled organism evolve into a two celled organism?

You might check out this article:

[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]

228 Salamantis  Fri, Mar 6, 2009 9:10:54am

re: #226 jdog29

The why would be from some environmental pressure if my reasoning is correct, while other like one celled organisms living under different environmental circumstances would feel no pressure to evolve to survive or exploit the environmental pressure the first group is enduring.

It is also because there are many different ecological niches, and evolution is necessary to exploit most of them - including evolution from single-celled to multicelled (for motility).

As for the how. I still don't understand how anything in the scientific community is accepted as fact that is not readily repeatable.

The Big Bang is not repeatable, and neither is the creation of the earth, but we have a helluva lot of empirical evidence that they occurred. Would you have freed OJ in spite of the DNA evidence (Ron & Nicole's blood) because you couldn't replay the murder?

Also, doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics (increasing entropy) you know, the parts of a watch placed in a bag and gently tumbled with the goal being the production of a watch.

Obviously lifeforms with their wants, needs and agendas are infinitely more complex than a mere watch.

My reasoning goes immediately, granted, possibly because of my upbringing, to if just one universal law of physics or thermodynamics has to be set aside for any particular model to work, why would there be such an affinity against a supreme being who would not only be above such boundaries, but was actually the authority who passed those laws.

This idiotic creationist canard has been raised time and time again. The second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems, that receive no energy from outside. Now, does the terrestrial biospehere receive any energy from outside? Yep; it's called the FUCKING SUN, dewde! The watchmaker analogy has been discredited ever since 1860, when Thomas Henry Huxley destroyed Bishop Samuel Wilberforce when he attampted to defend it in an Oxford debate, and it has only suffered further in the interim as science has advanced. A credible case of 'irreduceable complexity' has never been found; Ken Miller has destroyed every single one of Ken Miller's examples, by showing that they are all quite reduceable.

One of the more interesting pieces of information about DNA research brought up earlier was how viral immunity is identically patterned on the DNA of all primates. Would that not suggest the possibility, because of how DNA works, particular areas would necessarily be in charge of fighting off a particular disease.

Where is the research showing how a new virus was introduced into two different populations of primates, scarring if you will, different segments of their DNA? The identical scarring, to me, shows the nature and propensities of DNA rather than the relationship of the living organisms through evolution.

Nope. The chances of two separate species both getting infected with THOUSANDS of different viruses, all at the same time, and those phages splicing themselves into identical sites in the infectees' respective 3 billion base pair genomes, and respectively showing identical age-caused degradation that would place their insertion dates before a single human or great ape skeleton has been found, are fucking NIL!

I say all this not to try to convince you of anything, but to show you how when looking through the prism of knowing there is a God, new information proves how awesome God is, while if I am looking through the prism of knowing there is no God or a God who is bound by the laws of science, new information will naturally reinforce my knowledge and surety of that fact being true as well.

Knowledge and the facts they are knowledge of are not subject to interpretation, nor do they bend to belief. Either X is or X is not, regardless of whether or not you fucking like it.

229 Salamantis  Fri, Mar 6, 2009 9:19:31am

Listen, dewde:

Instead of you playing the creationit hamster wheel game, and sending me scurrying after one answer after another for your interminable questions, every single one of which I've heard before, why don't you just read the answers yourself here?

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

230 jdog29  Fri, Mar 6, 2009 10:17:46am

Hey, we'll all find out soon enough, right? Good chatting with you and I was just going down the list of evolutionary conflicts in my own mind. Thanks for the links.

231 Salamantis  Fri, Mar 6, 2009 11:20:40am

re: #228 Salamantis

Ken Miller has destroyed every single one of Ken Miller's examples, by showing that they are all quite reduceable.

Umm...Ken Miller has destroyed every single one of Michael Behe's examples, by showing that they are all quite reduceable.

PIMF

232 Salamantis  Fri, Mar 6, 2009 11:23:57am

re: #230 jdog29

Hey, we'll all find out soon enough, right? Good chatting with you and I was just going down the list of evolutionary conflicts in my own mind. Thanks for the links.

We'll all know when we're dead, unless our self-conscious awareness simply disintegrates when its material substrate brain, from which it arises and emerges, dissolves, in which case we won't learn, or know, a damn thing.

233 jdog29  Fri, Mar 6, 2009 5:37:29pm

You're right.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 433 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1