Texas: falling over the cliff of DOOM

By Phil Plait | October 27, 2008 11:24 am

I simply cannot understand how Texas manages to exist day after day. The rampant insanity of the government in that state makes it seem likely that Texas will simply fly off the face of the Earth and spin into the Sun.

The latest shooting-itself-in-the-foot-moment for the Lone Star State is based on a panel to create its state science curriculum (oh, you already know where this is going, dontcha now?). Out of the six seats on the panel, three are going to creationists! And not just any run-of-the-mill creationists, but one of them is Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute.

I will pause a moment while the air leaks back into your room.

Ready? OK then, let me say this again: Texas has placed a creationist who runs the Discovery institute — a hotbed of creationist deceptions — on a panel that will decide what "science" the children of Texas will learn.

And who will lead this panel of three reality-based scientists and three people dedicated to destroying reality? Why, it’s our old friend Donald McLeroy! Remember him? He’s a creationist. He hates science. He thinks abstinence-only education works (if you want teen girls to get STDs and get pregnant, then you’d be right). And he’s proven that he has no business being within three hundred yards of any sort of educational process.

So if you live in Texas, what can you do? First, educate yourself: read what others have to say on this topic, including Texas Citizens for Science, PZ Myers, the Houston Chronicle, and even Little Green Footballs (a website with which I agree on almost no other topic).

Then, write letters. Tell your friends. Send them here, or to those other links. Go to the Texas Citizens for Science site. If you have a blog, write about this, because when exposed to light this creationist ideologues tend to wither from embarrassment.

Unfortunately, McLeroy was appointed by Texas Governor Rick Perry, and the next election for governor isn’t until 2010. But don’t forget: Perry is the guy who put an anti-science, inexperienced man in charge of Texas education, a man who has proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that not only is he wrong for the job, but that he will destroy science education in Texas… and Texas is a state that drives textbook sales throughout the country. This affects all of us. One man — one creationist — can unduly influence the entire country. And this must be stopped.

Otherwise…

Texas (and science education in the U.S.):

<img src="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2007/doomed.jpg" alt="LOLcat: Doomed"

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Antiscience, Politics, Religion, Science

Comments (229)

  1. … Okay, please tell me you have a plan to get us off this crazy planet!

  2. Celtic_Evolution

    This affects all of us. One man — one creationist — can unduly influence the entire country. And this must be stopped.

    Before the march of the hyperbole police stomps in here to cry foul over this statement, please keep in mind that the sheer size of Texas in no small way will affect the publishing of science textbooks across the entire country. Think about it…

  3. Dan

    I will say one thing in defense of Texas. The Texas Youth Commission runs one of the best, most progressive, juvenile delinquency rehabilitation programs in the United States.

    But that’s largely a result of the rational people involved. Once you get out of that…well…you get crap like this “panel.”

  4. Sometimes I’m truly ashamed to be from Texas.

  5. I don’t suppose Mexico still wants it back…

    It’s so frustrating to see the lunacy continue unchecked.

  6. I wonder about this argument that textbooks for large states drive those across the country. While there are only minor differences in standards, that makes sense. But if, say, Texas, manages to introduce a seriously badly watered down textbook, I think some of the other states will get together to encourage rival textbooks.

    Eventually, you will get ‘red-state’ textbooks, for the real America, and ‘blue-state’ textbooks, for the other parts. Which is probably an even worse outcome, since the blue parts will have less incentive to do anything about the red parts.

  7. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Vagueofgodalming

    Eventually, you will get ‘red-state’ textbooks, for the real America, and ‘blue-state’ textbooks, for the other parts. Which is probably an even worse outcome, since the blue parts will have less incentive to do anything about the red parts.

    Even if you’re right… still… shudder.

  8. Ryan

    I find it odd that Perry would do this. I’ve met him briefly, and seen him speak. He’s a greaseball of the highest degree, but that’s every politician ever. The reason this is odd is that he tried to force down the throats of Texans the requirement that all teenage girls be vaccinated for HPV before they could go to middle school. He circumvented the state legislature. It’s illegal, but it’s the one controversial thing he’s done that I actually respect him for (go herd immunity!). To then turn around and do this… there must be some other motivation here. Incidentally, I’ve also heard old Donny speak too. He blatantly came out and said he wanted God back in our public schools… on camera… in front of a few thousand people. He’s nutso and will eventually be kicked out by the supreme court if not before. There may be damage done in the mean time, but he won’t stay forever.

  9. Lawrence
  10. ekb

    You know, I just learned something interesting about when Texas became a state. They had been screaming for it for nine years, and it turns out that one of the reasons why was that they were $9 million in debt (in 1840s dollars) to British banks, and the Brits were eyeing them as a possible cotton colony to circumvent the U.S. So in 150 years, the Texans still haven’t learned the dangers of defecit spending!

  11. Todd W.

    @Vagueofgodalming

    Texas and California are two of the largest market drivers for textbooks. Part of the DI strategy is to get those two markets changed in order to change what textbooks publishers will go with for the rest of the market. Yes, some states or cities may choose to go with a book that has less demand, but they are going to also be paying higher prices for those books.

    So, if demand for something like The Panda’s Thumb go up in TX and CA, publishers will shift gears to keep up with that demand so that they can keep making money. Production of books that have a more sound scientific basis will decrease. The result being that the creationist books cost less money and are more readily available than scientific books.

    At least, that’s what I understand about the whole thing. Instead of showing scientific validity (because they can’t), they’re trying to play the market and shift public opinions.

  12. Andre Vienne

    I weep for my state.

    Also: Oh god, he’s using hyperbole again!

    Next it’ll be unprotected culinary practices!

    How can one man do such terrible things in his kitchen?

  13. Creptic

    Let me guess. Other states will follow. Children learn to pray, pray and pray, and to blame others if praying doesn’t work. Heretics like atheists (US Intelligence warned that atheists amongst others are using Twitter!!!) will be prosecuted. Foreign businessmen with common sense take over US companies. TV pastors warning that It Has All Been Written (and please donate). Millions of deluded people flocking the streets since Armageddon must be near.

    How on earth is it possible for somebody biased as this discovery institute dude to have a seat in an all important board? Why not invite Pol Pot as a counterpart.

    I would recommend (especially to younger people) the rather short cult movie ‘The Wave’.

  14. Ian

    Houston we have…awww…screw it.

    The day will come when kids from certain public school districts will wonder why their applications to good universities are summarily rejected.

  15. Terry

    Of course, the problem is not really Texas, but the continued dynamic created by a vigorous minority that is easily mobilized and very motivated.

    And this kind of thing was forseen by the US founding fathers who were worried that a vigorous minority would be easily drowned and set up a constitution and bill of rights to guarantee the ability of these minorities to express themselves in matters of governance.

    So, the problem is not Texas or even this board, they are within their rights and their actions are legal. The problem is that those of us that are in favor of a progressive and reality based government (local or national) are not nearly as vigorous as the faith based communities. Else, how do you explain the election of this governor in the first place?

  16. Adrian Lopez

    “So, the problem is not Texas or even this board, they are within their rights and their actions are legal.”

    Right now it’s only a potential problem, but it will become a very concrete problem the moment the delusional half of the board decides to slip creationist nonsense into the curriculum.

  17. Quiet Desperation

    I simply cannot understand how Texas manages to exist day after day.

    Inertia?

  18. Celtic_Evolution

    So, the problem is not Texas or even this board, they are within their rights and their actions are legal.

    Depends on the outcome… I think there are some people in Dover that may disagree…

  19. Can't wait for the 5th of November

    I’ve taught in Texas for 20 years, and I am just as upset as you about this. However, here is what will happen:
    1. These idiots will put forth their agenda and probably get it passed.
    2. It will be taken to court, again.
    3. They will lose, again.
    4. Vast amounts of money will be wasted in the process that could be put to better use.

    #4 is what makes me madder than anything else. I need lab equipment, dangit! But have no fear, those of us who are real science teachers will teach the truth no matter they put in some book. I DARE them to fire me!!

  20. BILL7718

    I’m guessing that a lot of people in Texas will be happy about this. When I read this, I thought to myself I have to e-mail the link to my ex-wife because she and some of my kids live in Texas. Then I realized she’ll write a letter to them saying that its about time they start teaching the “truth” in school.

  21. Teach only evolution!

    All the religious protestant folks from “pro-America” small towns in the Midwest and South are realizing the numbers of their political, demographic and economic dominance their kind has had since the Revolution is dwindling and will soon be gone. This is their last stand! They unite against the common enemy (scientists and/or atheists) for once and give them a hard time, with the help of the Republican party. But they will ultimately lose: ironically, by a evolutionary process, because they will clearly be unfit in the future if literally following a 2000 old book.

  22. tacitus

    One of the first steps you can take as a Texan is to make sure you vote on the down ballot races next week. While it’s likely that McCain and Cornyn will win the statewide races, the Democrats are only four seats away from retaking the majority in the Texas House of Representatives. I know some of you might be Republicans, but one look at the Texas GOP’s platform will tell you that unless you’re a fire-breathing wingnut, you will have little in common with them.

    Republicans only took over the House because of the financial help they got from Tom Delay (remember him?) illegally funneled corporate campaign contributions to the state election races. I believe all the corporations involved have since pleaded no contest to the charges, and it’s only Tom Delay himself who still awaits trial for his part in the affair.

    The Democrats in Texas are, by and large, still way too conservative for my tastes (I live in Austin, after all!) but you have to start somewhere, and pushing the loony right out of power in Texas State House is as good a place to start as any.

  23. Mark UK

    Also,

    PLEASE join the debates on the science blogs at the Houston chronicle. There is a real need for more informed and rational people there.

    The science blog: http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/

    And the evolution blog: http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/evosphere.html

  24. billsmithaz

    @ Can’t wait

    > those of us who are real science teachers will teach the truth no matter they put in some book. I DARE them to fire me!!

    Thank you.

    That’s not nearly enough for me to say, but sometimes the language just fails.

  25. billsmithaz

    A good article from the Scientists and Engineers for America website about this:

    http://sefora.org/2008/10/20/texas-science-standards-disco-plays-fast-and-loose/

  26. L ONeill

    Good science teachers….that’s right, I said GOOD science teachers don’t need textbooks. So who gives a *doodle* what’s in them.

  27. DGKnipfer

    @ Teach only evolution!

    You are in error if you think the wack-job IDiots will go away any time soon. Evolution favors them in a way that is exceedingly scary. They are reproducing like rabbits while the rest of us practice reproductive restraint. Evolution does not simply favor the most successful. It favors the reproductively most successful. How many large non-religious families do you know? How many large religious families do you know? Have you seen the feel good news stories about extra large families with 15 to 18 kids? Did you notice that they are always very religious? Do you know any non-religious families with 15 to 18 kids? Add it up; it’s scary.

  28. Lawrence

    Seriously, how could anyone with any iota of intelligence put “Pro-Creationist or ID’ers” on a Scientific Review Board – even it is only regarding educational requirements?

    Again, I say “Bonkers.”

  29. RJ

    Can’t wait for November 5th said it best. It’s such a waste of funding for education poured down an idiotic hole. Of course in Texas the extra spending would be funneled into football.

  30. I really hope that, in the GOP civil war that will ensue after the election, the rational conservatives make a clean break with the anti-intellectualists that are responsible for all this.

  31. David

    I am a devote Christian who is on your side in this issue. I agree that science should be taught in school and religion in the home and church. But really now? Are some of you really ashamed of being from Texas, or see this as the end of society as you know it.

    You are starting to sound as whacked out and as extremist as the other side that is trying to force their version of truth into the text books that have your version of the truth printed in them.

    When it comes right down to it, neither side really knows what the truth is. Neither side can quote an eye witness who was there. Both sides accept their version of the truth on faith. We Creationists have our faith in the writings in the Bible. We scientists have their faith in the science as we know it today. But that can change. I remember being taught the ‘truth’ about the atom in grade school – they were made up of the smallest matter in the universe. Little clumps of protons and neutrons with electrons orbiting around them like little planets. Anyone else out there still believe that truth?

    So keep fighting to keep creationism out of your classrooms. But remember you are fighting against a far right fringe group. You cannot combat fringe radicals with hysterics. You need to marginalize them and appeal to the mainstream folks in your great state. I lived in Texas for three years and most of the folks I met were good, decent, god-fearing, intelligent folks who can be dealt with with calm rational debate.

    If creationism is going to be taught in our government schools, which version of creationism are they going to teach? Who’s God created the universe? God, Allah, Yahwey, Odin ,Trimurti of Brahma, Tepeu and Gucumatz, Talapas, or any other of countless deities that have been credited through out human history with the creation of the universe.

    Once a single version of creation has been selected by whatever committee is doing the selecting have they not then violated the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Would not declaring that we are going to teach Christian Creationism be establishing a state sponsored religion? But in the same manner, would a teacher refusing to listen to a discussion, or question and answer session initiated by a student on how science fits with, contradicts or compares to creation, a violation of the second phase of the first amendment – “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”.

    In 1978 my college Astronomy class our text book in the chapters on Cosmology mentioned several of the mainstream religions beliefs on the creation of the universe. It also briefly compared them to how they may fit in with the current accepted scientific theories on how our universe began. My professor, a deacon in his church, when asked by a student how he could stand up there and teach the big bang theory when his own personal beliefs taught him otherwise responded “The large mass that exploded to create the universe had to come from somewhere.” Then he offered to hold a special optional class session on Friday specifically to discuss science vs creationism. He already had the classroom booked for this class believing that it would be an issue. There were 300 students in our class. Twelve of them showed up for the special class. Four of them were religious fundamentalists who were outraged at his attitude. 6 of them were there to argue that this discussion should not be even taking place. Myself and on other student were there simply because we were curious. The rest of the class apparently didn’t care on way or the other.

    On our midterm the professor offered a 10 point bonus question which you got the 10 points for simply for answering the question.

    Should I continue to teach cosmology the way I do now?
    A. No, teach only creationism (5% picked this)
    B. No, teach only science. (7% picked this)
    C. Yes what you are doing is fine. (35% picked this)
    D. I don’t care. (51% picked this)

    2% were too stupid to answer the question or didn’t need the 10 points.

    He claimed that these results pretty much tracked the results from his previous three years of asking that question.

    BTW the percentages quoted there are accurate to the best of my aging memory. But they are close to the results because I remember over half the class didn’t care, a third was fine the way things were, of the remainder a slight majority wanted only science taught and 6 people were too dumb to grab a free 10 points in a class that was graded on a straight 10% scale.

    So take a deep breath and stop panicking. Mentioning creationism is your classroom will not bring about the end of society. It will not stifle all scientific curiosity in your students. Just as leaving it out of your classrooms will not bring down the wrath of a vengeful God up on your heads. At least I hope it won’t.

  32. Yoeman

    Yeesh, I feel like I’m stuck in the movie Idiocracy a little more each day.

  33. @DGKnipfer- right on

    Oh and a little advice to some of you families with6 or more kids…STOP USING THE SAME FIRST LETTER FOR ALL YOUR KIDS NAMES!!! There’s 26 letters, you don’t have to use just 1!!! No offence, but show a little originality already, jeez! And if you absolutely have to, don’t pick “T” they’re waaaaay overdone, use a L or a Q or something. Thanks!

  34. James

    @DrN
    Good scientific names for kids: Quantum and Fractal. No one will have those!
    Other names anyone?

  35. TheBlackCat

    @ James:

    Celegans, Gaba, Modulus, Alkyne.

  36. http://www.slate.com/id/2203120 Well, Texas is a “red” state after all…

  37. IVAN3MAN

    Hmm… Phil Plait, I posted an amusing picture and it did not get past ‘moderation’. Is it something I said?

  38. Davidlpf

    Ivan just stay away from the codes for the colours.

  39. DrFlimmer

    *irony on*

    That always reminds me of the ending of Monty Pythons “Life of Brian”:

    Everybody hanging on a cross and singing:

    “Always look on the bright side of life! Always look on the light side of life!

    Always look on the bright side of death! Just before you draw your terminal breath!”

    Good luck!

    *irony off*

  40. IVAN3MAN

    Davidlpf, and Phil Plait, if we had a preview/edit facility here then the HTML tags would not end up FUBAR.

  41. Tobin

    I just sent off emails to my State Senators, State Representatives, The Texas Education Agency, The State Board of Education, The Governor’s Office, the Lt. Governor’s Office and to my elected representative of the State Board of Education. I hope others here that are from Texas will do the same……

    I doubt it will make any difference, but I sure hope it will…

  42. billsmithaz

    Ivan, I posted a comment with a link awhile ago and it’s still waiting moderation as well. I doubt that it’s you, I think we’re just waiting for his BAness to wrap up today’s set of DEATH interviews.

    :)

  43. JB of Brisbane

    After mass last Sunday (sorry, Phil, but I am a Catholic) an elderly woman was talking to my similarly-aged father and me about her native United States. As she went to go, she said, “And don’t forget to say a prayer that Obama doesn’t get elected… he’s an evil man!” I didn’t have the heart to tell her that everything I read tells me that if anyone, McCain and the Republicans are the evil ones. I told my dad this, and he said, “She’s from Texas.” Suddenly it all made sense, except that she was at a Catholic mass rather than something pentecostal.

  44. drksky

    @DGKnipfer – Ever see “Idiocrasy”? Not necessarily religious-based, but puts forth the idea that only the stupid reproduce. Not much difference in my book. The first five minutes of the movie would be hilarious if it didn’t scare me so much.

  45. Oh, come now.

    Do you know how much delta-V you’d have to impart to Texas to get it to spin into the sun?

    If Texas flies off the face of the Earth, it’ll be in an at-most-MILDLY-eccentric elliptical solar orbit. It’ll probably re-intersect the Earth some day, too.

  46. Andre Vienne

    At least the oil workers to get rid of the Texas-sized asteroid would already be on it?

  47. Davidlpf

    But are there any nukes in Texas?

  48. Andrew

    Perhaps I’m being unrealistically optimistic, but I have faith in our children. Surely, there will be those who say. Hold on, wait a minute here, theres something wrong with that statement isn’t there? Surely there are some Eleanor Arroways (yes, I know she’s a fictional character) who will challenge this system, and start thinking for themselves?

    The US is surely one of the most bizarre and interesting countries in the world. It has a lot to do with the parenting as well, as much of the ideals and beliefs come from them. Its simply not good enough to have a go at the political system and its benefactors. The US political system is always a two horse race, which is certainly not representative of a true democracy. Its either one or the other, who take their turn in office every 8 years or so.

    Whilst I am in support of the sceptical movement. I also do not appreciate singling out individuals and their beliefs. This can lead to segregation and ridicule – a sort of “them and us” mentality. If we think back to the late, great Carl Sagan, who was indeed one of the greatest sceptics and scientists who ever lived. He never mocked or completely dismissed cranks and pseudoscientists. In fact, he even refused to sign a paper dismissing astrology, as he believed it to be authoritarian. He always made his arguement in an eloquent and structured manner.

  49. Davidlpf:

    But are there any nukes in Texas?

    The Pantex plant, situated on a 16,000 acre (65 km²) site 17 miles (27 km) northeast of Amarillo, in Carson County, Texas, is America’s only nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly facility and is charged with maintaining the safety, security and reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. The plant is managed and operated for the United States Department of Energy by BWXT Pantex and Sandia National Laboratories. BWXT Pantex is a limited liability enterprise of BWX Technologies, Honeywell and Bechtel Corporation.

    Click on my name for more information.

  50. Andre Vienne

    @Davidlpf

    I figured the rest of the world would gladly supply them. Or, we could steal some from some nearby state before we go up.

  51. Andre Vienne

    And I totally didn’t read that.

    Hey, awesome, we actually have a nuclear assembly plant. First I’d heard of it.

    Though, it -is- in Amarillo. Nobody likes the Panhandle. It’s like East Texas, between Houston and Dallas, utterly worthless. <.<

  52. Uh yeah Phil, I really love this blog and all, but I think it’s fair to say everyone is clamoring for a “preview” button. Can’t you at least tell us it can’t be/won’t be done, so we can get on with our lives?

  53. Fruit Fly

    I see Alaska has another nutjob in it’s ranks. Found him on the Enterprisemission page:

    http://enterprisemission.com/
    http://www.chetsnow.com/signs.html

    Dr Nick BEGICH – is the eldest son of the late United States Congressman from Alaska, Nick Begich Sr. He has been pursuing independent research in the sciences and politics for most of his adult life. He co-authored with Jeane Manning Angels Don’t Play This HAARP. Begich has also authored Earth Rising – The Revolution: Toward a Thousand Years of Peace and and his latest book: Earth Rising II– The Betrayal of Science, Society and the Soul with the late James Roderick. He is also the editor of Earthpulse Flashpoints. Married to Shelah Begich-Slade, they have five children and live in Alaska.

    Nick’s Web site: http://www.earthpulse.com
    .

    http://www.earthpulse.com/

  54. Andre Vienne

    A preview or an edit would be very nice, yes. Though, that there was because I had typed the reply before he even posted the nuke bit, and had just remembered to hit ‘post’ a few minutes ago.

    Not to say that they wouldn’t be a good idea, but that failure was completely mine.

  55. Cindy

    Maybe the NASA folks at Houston can organize something.

    Well, blame my great-great-great-great-grandfather as he was one of the ones who negotiated Texas into the US.

  56. Lawrence

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – we’ve seen this type of thing before. At the beginning of each century, there seems to be this kind of “religious” revival as a counter to the changes in morals, advances in technology, and progress in society (happened in the early 1600s – pilgrims, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s & now today).

    People have difficulty adjusting to all of the changes going on & speeding up of technological developments. There are groups of people that turn to religion (that old standby) as a means to cope or push back against this progress.

    If we can keep up a delaying action for another few years, it should burn itself out (hopefully).

  57. Shane P. Brady

    Phil,

    Take solace in the fact that the current Republican party/Red State structure is dying. I may be too optimistic, but I think things like this Texas book situation are the last gasp by groups like the Discover Institute. I’m not happy about education in this country, but I don’t think it’s quite as dire as true doom. :)

  58. Also, please check out Texas Freedom Network (www.tfn.org) and their blog, TFN Insider (www.tfninsider.org). They’ve been fighting the religious right on the SBOE and the Texas Legislature for over a decade. They are the leading voice for mainstream Texans.

  59. Davidlpf

    @Ivan3man, I was about to post “I hope they don’t”, but now I am really scared.

  60. Ryan
  61. RickK

    Phil,

    My opinion – don’t direct people to PZ Myers as the first port of call for fighting this stuff in Texas. PZ is great, I love his blog, but he’s the LAST person who will reach the people who are voting in Texas.

    Eugenie Scott and the National Center for Science Education (http://www.ncseweb.org/) is a great resource that avoids the religious agenda. If you want to win an argument in Texas (or most of the rest of the country), don’t lead with atheism.

    I’m also a big fan of this letter, which I’m sure has been posted a million times. 12,000 Christian clergy speaking up for evolution can’t all be wrong: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm

    As for what to do about Texas – can’t all these blogs get together and do the same for some Texas congressional race or local judicial race that people did for Minnesota’s 6th district? I don’t know a thing about Texas politics, but if we pick one rational candidate in a key local Texas race and get everyone on these blogs to write a check, it would send the message that (1) Texas is part of the U.S., (2) the rest of the U.S. is not happy with Texas turning out ignorant kids. It’s one thing if coastal liberals (even worse, coastal atheists) raise hell about some creationist Republican candidate – he/she might actually BENEFIT from our outrage. It’s quite another if running against a creationist is a way to get out-of-state campaign funds.

    Just a thought. Maybe some of our friends in Texas could help organize the fall of a creationist politician or two. Even in these economic times, I’d write that check.

  62. David

    IVAN3MAN:

    Nah, You got that all wrong, all they make at Pantex is soap and laundry powder.

  63. John M

    As a native Texan, the thought of these morons having any say over our science curriculum makes me want to cry. We’re better than that down here, or at least I hope we are.

    It’s very frustrating seeing something as sacred as our children’s education becoming a political football because some intolerant religious extreemists have weaseled their way into a position so that they can influence something as important as school books.

    And don’t fool yourselves, if they get their way and introduce their creationist claptrap into our kid’s science textbooks, it will affect the books used in your state’s schools. Hopefuly, the science textbook publishers will stand up to them if they do try to get any of their antiscience nonsense into science texts.

  64. I do not think Texas is the only state in trouble.
    Click my name to link on a news story about a couple planning to kill Obama and other blacks.
    (first saw this on PZ Myers website.)

  65. Cusp

    Why don’t you have a national curriculum in the US?

  66. David “I am a devote [sic] Christian”:

    Nah, You got that all wrong, all they make at Pantex is soap and laundry powder.

    Are you serious or just trying to be funny?

    Everybody else, click on my name and see for yourselves.

  67. schism

    I simply cannot understand how Texas manages to exist day after day.

    We’ve adapted to convert incoming hatred from Colorado and California into energy. It’s amazing that we aren’t all hyperactive, really. Maybe it’s the heat.

  68. David

    IVAN3MAN Are you serious or just trying to be funny?”

    The Pantex Plant was operated by the Proctor and Gamble Company for many years before Mason Hanger took over in the late 1950s. Since the government never announced what kind of work was being done there, all the local Amarillo residents knew was that the people who worked there worked for Proctor and Gamble. So many residents assumed it was a soap factory. No one ever bothered to tell them any differently.

    I lived in Amarillo for a few years in the early 80s and even then a lot of locals still thought it was a soap factory.

  69. IVAN3MAN

    Well, David, governments are in the habit of telling its citizens only what they “need to know”. ;-)

  70. IVAN3MAN & David,

    I thought the allusion was that all high tech WMD factories were something innocuous like baby food plants or soap factories. Remember Shock & Awe. The Iraqis kept claiming that every time a “chemical weapons factory” was hit it was a fertiliser factory or they made baby formula. Looking back now they were probably telling the truth.

  71. Just for a change of pace, remember the Wassup campaign? Well it has been Obamafied and is really quite hilarious…

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE

  72. Just for a change of pace, remember the Wassup campaign? Well it has been Obamafied and is really quite hilarious…

    Click my name for Wassup 2008.

  73. Richard Eis

    What you need to do is stop using Texas as the definition of what should be in the school textbooks. Ok, there are issues to doing that, but i think it’s about time someone started thinking ways around this rather than “fire-fighting” everytime this happpens.

    It’s bad for Texas too as it then becomes a warring ground with the kids caught in the middle every time.

  74. Nigel Depledge

    David said:

    When it comes right down to it, neither side really knows what the truth is. Neither side can quote an eye witness who was there. Both sides accept their version of the truth on faith. We Creationists have our faith in the writings in the Bible. We scientists have their faith in the science as we know it today. But that can change. I remember being taught the ‘truth’ about the atom in grade school – they were made up of the smallest matter in the universe. Little clumps of protons and neutrons with electrons orbiting around them like little planets. Anyone else out there still believe that truth?

    This is why the religious moderates aren’t fighting as hard as the less religious people – because they have been too deeply indoctrinated.

    David, I appreciate your attempt to calm the debate, but you betray a huge ignorance of the process of science.

    Our current scientific knowledge does not represent any kind of ultimate “truth”. It is always, in principle, open to revision in light of new evidence. However (and this is the important part), what we do know is that our current scientific theories are at the very worst a pretty good approximation of how reality is.

    What happened when protons and neutrons were found to be composed of quarks and gluons was that the level of detail improved, but this changed nothing about our understanding of the behaviour of the proton and neutron in 99.99% of situations. Our previous understanding of protons and neutrons was shown to be a pretty good approximation.

    So, while we cannot claim to know “the truth” (BTW, your argument about no-one being there to witness it is specious – events that occur in the past leave evidence for us to examine in the present, as it is trivial to demonstrate, and a trivial conclusion to arrive at with about 2 minutes’ thought, unless you are an adherent of “last-Thursdayism”), that is irrelevant. What we do know for sure is that the various creationist accounts of how biological diversity arose are all wrong, i.e. they are at odds with reality as we observe it today. We also know that our existing scientific theories are at the very least a pretty good approximation to how reality works.

  75. Nigel Depledge

    David also said:

    But in the same manner, would a teacher refusing to listen to a discussion, or question and answer session initiated by a student on how science fits with, contradicts or compares to creation, a violation of the second phase of the first amendment – “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”.

    In a word: No.

    Saying that you cannot discuss creationism in a science class does not prohibit anyone from discussing creationism elsewhere. This is another tactic of the creationists – claiming that their freedom of speech is infringed (most ironically of all, in the feature-length movie “Expelled”).

    What is so wrong with expecting students to stick to discussion of science in the science class?

    After all, are they not expected to stick to discussion of English in English class? Likewise maths in a maths class? And so on.

  76. Nigel Depledge

    Andrew said:

    Whilst I am in support of the sceptical movement. I also do not appreciate singling out individuals and their beliefs. This can lead to segregation and ridicule – a sort of “them and us” mentality. If we think back to the late, great Carl Sagan, who was indeed one of the greatest sceptics and scientists who ever lived. He never mocked or completely dismissed cranks and pseudoscientists. In fact, he even refused to sign a paper dismissing astrology, as he believed it to be authoritarian. He always made his arguement in an eloquent and structured manner.

    Yes, this is all fine and noble, Andrew, and I wish we all could be a bit more like Carl Sagan.

    However, when a small but well-organised, well-funded and well-motivated minority starts trying to take over control of science education so they can indoctrinate other people’s kids with their own brand of demonstrably-false wishful thinking, then they should be opposed. Passionately and in detail.

  77. Ben

    It’s in some ways a sorry fact that rational people tend towards rational behavior. If you act as though there’s an appreciable, functional reality that can be understood a bit at a time by looking at the processes then the chances are you’re a thoughtful kind of person. Thoughful people tend to appreciate the existance and therefore the rights of others, and so tend towards ‘live and let live’ philosophies that allow them to get on with their lives without getting too upset about stuff. Oh, you might worry about injustice, stress about the lot of people less fortunate than yourself, but what do you do? You get on with life, love, kids and the rest as these are the important things. They make us happy and balanced.

    The Crazed Zealots with their Insane Certainties and Terrifying Truth Claims will win if we carry on like this. I genuinely have no idea what to do about it. In order to mount an effective resistance I’d need to have the motivation of a crazed zealot. By the time sensible people realise what has crept up on them they’ll find that they no longer have the rights to act in defense of their intellectual freedoms. It’s coming. Fighting is crazy, so how then can you fight the crazies? What’s the moral code? How can reasonable people underpin the need, ultimately, to fight?

    This issue keeps me up at nights :(

  78. Atticus05

    The greatest hope we have left is that the teachers in the classroom will remain objective and keep religon out of the public classroom. I have no problem with creationisim being taught in Religous schools, and if that’s what you would like your children to learn there are plenty of them around, so send them there.

    As for the appointment of an un-qualified individual as the head of the BoE. I hope that Texas as a whole will wake up and remove the current leadership in 2010, beyond that we will have to hope the people that dirrectly inteact with the children can keep a level head and be strong in the face of political pressure that shouldn’t effect the way they teach in the classroom.

  79. Darth Robo

    I’m sure the Disco Institute will offer to pay for the legal fees THIS time…

  80. Don Snow

    OK, this Texan says this: that panel is the perfect example of the Fairness Doctrine: equal time for both sides. All you folks against equal time for creationists and evolutionists should also be against equal time for liberals and conservatives. Heh? Or, have double standards joined Congressional double-speak? Heh?

    Now, get real. A majority of the population thinks that creation is the basis of reality. So, don’t presume yourselves the spokespeople for what all people think (or should think)is real.

    Real life has educational politics just as much as real academic life has acsademic politics.

    Politics are a fact of life.

    Now, to console those of you who don’t like the above Facts of Life 101,
    here are some sugar coated realisms:
    Life is too a bed of roses, you can tell from all the thorns.
    Life is too a bowl of cherries, you can tell from all the pits.

    Now, I’m an opinionated man, and I’m entitled to the following opinon; the only thing scarier than an education system ran by creationists is one which sole input comes from science. History, music, other arts, are as necessary to education as the first two. Don’t make like science has the only claim to reality. Without history, science would still be in the Dark Ages.
    However, scientists who learn history also learn what experiments no longer need repeating. Yes, dear bloggers, the Journal of Science includes history, ere the ealier experiments are repeated againa and again, in a closed loop.

    So, try to relax. I think Texas is good for the rest of the nation. OH, yes! Without Texas, what would you have to complain about? Life would be hell, if any one of the several establishments in America had total control: science, religion, politics, military, medical, law enforcement, etc are each different establishments in this nation. A balance of authority between each and all of them reamins humanly and humanely necessary. Imho.

  81. Don Snow

    Quiet Desperation Says:
    October 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
    I simply cannot understand how Texas manages to exist day after day.

    Inertia?

    Nah, illegal immigrants.

  82. Dan

    @ Don Snow

    No one is arguing for the teaching of NOTHING but science. That’s preposterous!

    What we are saying is that CREATIONISM (which is RELIGION) has no place in a science classroom. It does not employ scientific methods.

    Fundamentally: science makes a hypothesis…looks at the observed facts…test the hypothesis …if the facts fit the hypothesis you conclude the hypothesis is correct…if the facts DON’T fit the hypothesis…you change the hypothesis to fit the facts (or start over with a new hypothesis)

    Creationsts however have a conclusion (The Bible is factually correct)…when the observed facts go against that hypothesis…they REJECT the FACTS. They refuse to accept that their conclusion might be in error.

    Creationism is proper in maybe a philosophy class, or a world religions classroom etc. It is not proper in a SCIENCE classroom.

    And no one is arguing for an end to art, music, history etc. That’s just a straw-man/bogeyman argument. Not one scientist has said that music, art, history, math, English, literature etc. should be dropped

    However, you will see creationists (the real whack jobs) who say we should teach proper “biblical” history.

  83. Don Snow

    @[b]David[/b]

    “…Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion…”,
    does not prohibit state legislatures from doing that. Populations, citizens and local governments have been abused since the 1960’s, by misreading that.

    In the early colonies, Rhode Island was Catholics, fleeing persecution by the Puritans in an earlier colonoy. There’s, in a literal reading, wrong with local theocratic, socialist, parlimentary or any other kind of local governments.

    When it comes to our Constitution, I’m an originalist and don’t try to sway me, I won’t hear it.

    Just my two cents worth.

  84. I no expert on constitutional law. Hey, I’m not even American. But didn’t you guys fight a war over just what the states could and couldn’t do in relation to the federal government?

  85. Don Snow

    @Dan,

    Read history. That is no straw bogeyman.

    I agree that the Holy Bible in no way should be used as a science source. However, I agree with Dave, that Creationism can be appropriately handled in a cosmology class.

    I’m sorry Dan, but I think it’s just as wrong to be zealously anti-religious as you think it’s wrong to be zealously anti-science. Both those extremes hide an equal evil, imho. I will not, will not, will not neither forget the Nazi Holocaust nor believe it never happened.

    I have Jewish inlaws. I love them. Believe me, sir: the less anti-religion and less anti-science the better. Religion, historically, was the cradle of science. The two may easily co-exist without clashing.

  86. Don Snow

    Hi, Shane –

    Well, the Civil War 1860-1865 established that people aren’t property.

    The Civil rights movement in the 1960’s consumated that Union.

    If Sen. Obama becomes president, and tries to strangle our individual rights and liberty with his Marxist Socialism, you will see at the very least, a passionate defense by law of this Union and it’s government of the people, for the people and by the people. Socialism doesn’t fit that. A lot of my ancestors came here to get away from European and UK socialism.

    Let socialism stay in Europe.

  87. Daffy

    “If Sen. Obama becomes president, and tries to strangle our individual rights and liberty with his Marxist Socialism, you will see at the very least, a passionate defense by law of this Union and it’s government of the people, for the people and by the people. Socialism doesn’t fit that. A lot of my ancestors came here to get away from European and UK socialism.”

    And people accuse ME of hyperbole.

    Republicans have to be—as a group—the most frightened people on the planet.

  88. Don,

    1. Oh dear, I call Godwin’s.
    2. Religion the cradle of science?
    Obviously. Giordano Bruno was a monk. But he was executed for Blasmphemy.
    Galileo was devout too. But he was imprisoned by the church.
    What about Luther?
    This is what he thinks; “People give ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus]who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy.”

  89. Hyperbole? Isn’t that the game after the super bowl?

  90. Lou

    The most annoying thing about you atheists and evolutionists is your insufferable pomposity. This I-am-smarter-than-you attitude is a type of self-righteousness and it will be your undoing. Nothing frightens you more than to be perceived by others as being stupid. Well, I got bad news for you. Your worst nightmare is about to be realized. LOL.

  91. Daffy

    Yes…but it’s played very, very nervously. ;)

  92. David

    Neil,

    Nice job tearing apart my arguments. However you missed the most important one.

    “I am a devote Christian who is on your side in this issue. I agree that science should be taught in school and religion in the home and church. ”

    How come you didn’t want to tear that one apart also?

    You may think “I betray a huge ignorance of the process of science.” thinking this way. But the day you stop questioning every aspect of your science and start thinking that you have “a pretty good approximation of how reality is” is the day you stop being a scientist and become a religious zealot.

    Both sides are equally guilty of wearing blinders and refusing to see anything that does not fit their paradigm of how the world works. Robert Sheckley wrote a very short story in 1982, that I will not quote here because of copyright issues, called The Eye of Reality. In this story three men are comparing their visions after being given the chance to see the secrets of the universe. In the end, what they saw was the same things that they saw everyday of their lives.

    Creationist are guilty of this. Most of us only see what we have been taught to see and believe. But scientists are also guilty of seeing only what their current interpretation of the world shows them is true.

    I do not believe that you can honestly claim that only science should be taught in science class. Science is so much more than F=MA and V=IR. As Don pointed out “scientists who learn history also learn what experiments no longer need repeating.”

    The most memorable classes I took in school were the ones that did not constrain themselves into teaching only the contents of the current text book. In my high school french class we were free to discuss any topic of conversation we chose to discuss, as long as we did it in French. I learned a lot about world politics those two years because I had a teacher who had worked at the UN for years and would share his experiences with us. I had an astronomy teacher in college who was a devoutly religious man. Who could not understand how anyone could look at the stars and the world around us and believe that it all happened by accident. While working on my Master’s degree I had a professor who taught symbolic logic and artificial intelligence who was a hold over from the 60’s flower child generation. We had marvelous discussions, in class, about blending technology and the social sciences. I had geology and chemistry professors who were profoundly incapable of discussing any aspect of their science without cracking jokes about it.

    Now I am going to stop commenting here because I just noticed that I quoted myself in this posting and that is a sure sign that it is time for me to start thinking about something else. I’m too caught up in this argument to see it clearly any more.

  93. I’m too caught up in this argument to see it clearly any more.

    I agree.

  94. Peptron

    I said it before and I say it again: those people are actually chinese/soviet spies trying to destroy the United States from the inside to to make it lose its status as a world super-power.

  95. TheWalruss

    @Dan: “Don’t make like science has the only claim to reality. Without history, science would still be in the Dark Ages.”

    Thing is … while it’s very true science is not the only important curriculum, we have remember to base all other curricula on science.

    Why?

    Because science is (as far as is humanly possible) unbiased. Imagine if history classes were taught based on the Bible. How would the history of the ancient Mesopotamian civilizations be shown? They’d be cut short (you know – starting at 4000BCE), villified (those philistines praying to their false pagan gods!), and marginalized (after the foundation of Israël). All the cool new things we know about them through science would be cast aside, but even worse: what would the pupils think of the descendents of those civilizations – Palestinians, Iraqis, and Iranians…

    I could make examples of literature, biology, sociology, the humanities – or astronomy! – but I think the point is clear.

    Furthermore, the same would hold true if we used the Qu´ran as a basis, or Buddhist scriptures, or Wikipedia.

    It is clear that science is the most important curriculum taught in schools. Sadly, it is also one of the most neglected in the US (after English!).

    Also: “Fairness doctrine”? If we spent equal time on everyone’s opinion or belief on everything science (or history, or whatever), then weeks would be spent on absolute wastes of time. Schooldays are short enough as it is – we must ensure that teachers can spend it on teaching subjects that are both correct and useful. Saying “fairness means 50% evo and 50% ID” is a real slap in the face for Deists, Hindi, Pagans, and others. Just because they are a minority doesn’t mean they should get 0% of the pie! The only “fair” solution? Stick to reality!!!

    ps… 1st time writing with tags. I hope the standard old taggies I learned about seemingly decades ago still work!

  96. Don Snow

    @[b]Shane/b],

    1. Who/what was “Godwin’s”?

    2. Yes, but I was thinking of much earlier than the Catholic Reformation and all. I was thinking, (blasphemy!) outside of Europe. While my Celtic ancestors were running naked through the woods, with Tutons chasing them, world religions in Egypt, Babylon, Sumer, India and such were studying Astronomy, math, steam and other such hard science, before the Greeks ever started philophosizing Euclidian math or the Atomic theory.

    Since, in those long ago days, only the priests of a pagan religion had the time to notice anything linked to the beginnings (cradle) of science.

    True enough, thousands of years later, Mendel, a Catholic priest, for the same reason as pagan priests, discovered genes. So, relgion remained the nursemaid at the cradle.

    I just think that science should respect its origins.

  97. TheBlackCat

    “…Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion…”,
    does not prohibit state legislatures from doing that. Populations, citizens and local governments have been abused since the 1960’s, by misreading that.

    I take it you have never heard of the 14th amendment, which read (in part):

    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  98. kuhnigget

    @ Don Snow:

    Observation of the world around us predates civilization, and hence religion, by a long shot. Hunter-gatherer societies had to be keenly aware of their environments and the forces at work within them. Those that could observe and predict – where the animals would be, which landscapes offered the most sustenance, what happens when the sun rises higher in the sky – were the ones that survived. Only much later did the most successful tribes have the luxury of appointing shamans to focus exclusively on fostering the tribe’s relationship with the forces of nature everyone else had been observing for untold generations.

    So if we’re going back to origins…best skip all that Johnny Come Lately religious stuff and focus on…observation. Hey! Fits right in with science, doesn’t it?

    BTW…when are people like you going to stop referring to colonial history as if it were U.S. history? Next you’ll be bringing up the old saw that the Mayflower Compact is proof the United States is a Christian nation.

  99. Don Snow

    @[b]The Walruss[/b]

    See if I can get bold right, this time.

    Scientists unbiased? Science (as far as humanly possible) unbiased? I heartily disagree. I will stand with my earlier post, that science, religion, law, military, medical etc all include members who think they and their establishments are unbiased and should be the foundation for all society. And, they’re all wrong.

    I respectfully submit, that which subject remains the most important curriculum taught in school remains open to interpretation by not only academia, but also by the public.

    Because, we pay your salaries. That makes the common person’s interpretation as signifant as any person’s in academia. Sir.

    Imho.

    Also, imho Christian opinion, ID and Creationism are two totally different things. Ever hear of Zacariah Sitchins? He wrote an interpretation of Sumerian story, which said Annunaki (aliens from another planet) did genetic modification on simians to produce Homo Sapiens. That’s ID. So, I think that Creationists are very foolish to play, with that game.

    No, like you, I doubt that the Fairness Doctrine is fair. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Whether liberal or conservative, evolutionistsw or creationist, atheist or religious, let them all vie for their turn at, and hold for as long as they can, the floor from which we all and each seek to say our respective pieces. That’s what I go for.

    Oh…[i]Reality[/i], as anything else, remains a mattrer of interpretation. I think it wise to give each different interpretation of realtiy, equal freedom of expression. Lest no freedom of expression for any interpretation of reality be forbade. Lest it becomes Politically Correct, to not mention reality. Sound familiar?

    In closing, science is important. Without it, we wouldn’t have this internet, nor the BA’s blog, to converse about all these things.

    I’m not anti-science. I’m not anti-religious, nor anti-law, nor anti-military, nor anti-medicine nor anti-evolution nor anti etc, either.

  100. Chuck

    Please keep in mind that Perry only received 39% of the vote and still won in 2006. So, not all of us have the crazies.

  101. Gary Ansorge

    I have no idea how much text books cost today, but with $200.00 lap tops coming on line, and Sony ebooks making inroads into the market place, how hard would it be to provide up datable electronic books for the mass of school kids. That could eliminate the impact single states could have in the text book market place. The woo woo states could have their foolishness, the kids could still go on line to check the real facts and every one else can have the latest good data to teach.

    Just a thought,,,

    Gary 7

  102. My-Name-is-Kenneth

    Would Texas please stop futzing around and just break away from the USA to become its own nation? Thank you.

    While we’re at it, most of New England (except for Maine and NH) and most of the West Coast should become their own nations, too. Before the Stupidity Disease wipes us all out.

  103. mgold

    Look here your belief in evolution is nowhere. You change daily and have the advantage to do so. You who change everyday are so easily lead, it is unbelievable. Texas is the third largest economy in the world and the most prosperous state in the country and you hate that it brings debate to evolution.

  104. Gary Ansorge

    Don Snow:
    Oh…[i]Reality[/i], as anything else, remains a mattrer of interpretation.

    ??? Yeah, interpretation, very individualistic,,,snark,,,as in, “I don’t believe in gravity, so I think I’ll just levitate my way to school,,,”

    Reality is NOT subject to debate. It is what it is. Our UNDERSTANDING of reality is individual and however closely it approaches the way things really are determines individual survival rates and, I might add, the propagation of DNA.

    Ancient manhood test were equivalent to reality tests, ie, the ability to suppress/control our “gut feelings” , to enable our rational minds to over ride those ancient instincts. THAT was what such tests were really all about. Today, we are so civilized, we allow the reality disabled to breed. That may be the only thing they’re really good at.

    GAry 7

  105. mgold,

    California is the 8th largest economy in the world. Texas’, I think, is about half that of California. Yee haw.

  106. Reality eh.

    Who said “Reality has a well known liberal bias”? See that is your problem there dontcha know.

  107. Todd W.

    @Don Snow

    The primary issue of concern is the insertion of Creationism/ID into science curriculum. In Texas, this is a particular concern, as pointed out in Phil’s post, since the director of the Discovery Institute is on the panel established to create the science curriculum.

    Note, this is not in order to establish the curriculum in general, it’s specifically for science. So, your concerns, while perhaps valid for a panel on the general curriculum, is a bit off the mark here.

    Science teachers should not be forced to teach creationism/ID as science because a) it’s not science and b) such coercion is against the First Amendment. If the discussion is brought up, individual teachers can deal with it as the curriculum and their own lesson plans allow, but the discussion should be kept within the context of science and should not detract from the class’ science education.

    As to reality being subject to interpretation, you’re getting into philosophy, which is also best kept outside the general ed. science classroom. A better fit would be a humanities or psychology class.

    As far as science class goes, science should be taught and the scientific method be used as the basic tool for inquiry and discovery.

    Please try to keep that in mind when arguing your points, that this particular thread is about the science curriculum being decided by some people who want to put religion into the science class.

  108. Lou

    I am really tired of atheists/evolutionists accusing those who believe in creation that they are not fit to be scientists. For your information, India just successfully launched a Moon mission and the mission engineers used good old Newtonian physics to calculate the trajectory of the rocket and the eventual lunar orbit of the probe. Guess what? Newton was a true blue creationist. Somehow, for not being a scientist, he managed to set the stage for modern physics and calculus for centuries. And guess what again, great thinkers like Leibniz (co-inventor of calculus), Galileo, Descartes (inventor of analytic geometry), Da Vinci and Kepler all believe that the universe and the species were created by a supreme being. That did not prevent them from being awesome scientists, did it? Compared to those guys, you people are mental midgets.

  109. Todd W.

    @Lou

    No one is saying that creationists cannot be good scientists. What we’re saying is that creationism/Intelligent Design is not science. We are further saying that, not being science, creationism/ID does not belong in the science classroom. Also, there is well-established evidence of vocal creationists, such as the people at the Discovery Institute, trying to get creationism into science classes. There is also ample evidence that they are trying to invalidate the theory of evolution, a well-established, well-supported scientific theory.

    The targets of these posts are not the people who believe in some form of creationism but keep such beliefs to themselves. The targets are those who are taking clear steps to water down what is considered science and to insert religious beliefs into science curricula.

  110. Peptron

    To Lou:

    Of course Newton was a creationist, as was anybody living in that period. Because if they were not, they would have been imprisoned or executed. Actually, Newton is a very good example of where science works and where it doesn’t. In his works on gravity he tested everything, and in the end made a series of theories that are very good representations of reality. He also was a strong proponent of alchemy, which we know today is completely wrong.

    Basically, science (and reality) does not care about what you believe. For example, if an atheist drops an apple, it will fall to the ground, same thing if a religious fanatic does the same. As long as your work follows the scientific method, that work will be scientific and the findings will be falsifiable and repeatable. The worst problem I have with ID is that they ignore things that are already proven, and IDers seem to have no problem with rejecting reality when it countradicts their beliefs. And to me that is just counter-productive, especially in today’s technological world.

  111. Lou

    @Todd W.

    “No one is saying that creationists cannot be good scientists.”

    You’re kidding me? This is precisely what atheists and evolutionists have been saying. And they say it as loud as they can.

    “What we’re saying is that creationism/Intelligent Design is not science.”

    And who made you the sole arbiters of what is or is not science? I happen to believe that ID is a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis whose predictions are no less testable that those of evolution. Why is your opinion better than mine? What makes you so much smarter than everybody else? Besides, ID IS an evolutionary theory since it incorporates natural selection. Surprise!

    It’s funny that evolutionists have managed to convince themselves and others that Darwin discovered natural selection. FYI, hunters, breeders and farmers have known about natural selection for millenia before Darwin appeared on the scene. What is in dispute is the notion advanced by evolutionists that all species on earth arose via a combination of NS and random mutations over millions of years. Some of us are convinced that it is a silly theory. How about that?

    IDers further argue against the possibility of biogenesis from random chemical interactions. Where is the falsifiability for abiogenesis? Answer: It’s nowhere to be found. Conclusion: abiogenesis is pure superstition and wishful thinking. Why is this superstitious nonsense allowed in the classroom?

  112. Art

    In response to Dan ( http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/27/texas-falling-over-the-cliff-of-doom/#comment-128887 ):

    The Texas Youth Commission is by no means a rehabilitation program. Speaking as a youth who was incarcerated for nine months in said system about eight years back, I feel I’m qualified to inform you that no rehabilitation takes place in this institution.

    TYC is simply “kiddie prison.” This is emphasized by the fact that the campus I was at was formerly an adult prison, ran for a few years as a kiddie prison, and then returned again to an adult prison. It exists as a step beyond boot camp for rebellious youth who the system no longer cares to deal with.

    Yes, you attend daily “groups,” however these prove to be nothing more than opportunities for the dominant gangs to further harass those unable or unwilling to go with the flow of gang-mentality, all under the guise of “peer counseling” and with the adamant approval of the uncaring wardens.

    If you’re of age, you’re forced to enroll in the GED program, regardless of whether you desire to finish high school or not. There’s no high school diplomas offered (though you can go to class and earn credits while working toward your GED). Astonishingly, they even reduce the minimum age by a year. 16 year olds are convinced that getting a GED is better than seeing your way though high school and, as a result, upon release their only option (as mandated by the parole officer) is to enter the workforce. Unforgivable.

    In order to be released, you must go before a parole board and prove you’ve memorized the terms they provide. “Thinking errors.” Sure, these dumbed-down versions of fallacies can serve to enlighten a young, misguided mind, but ore often than not you do just that – memorize them. If you forget a word in the definition? You’re incorrect, come back and try again in another thirty days.

    The motto of the youth is “fake it to make it.” In time, you come to see the hoops they wish you to jump through and, if you’re lucky enough, you realize no amount of going against this system will help you regain your freedom. The dominant theme in these prisons is to smile and nod, do anything the sadistic wardens demand, and proclaim to the world that you’ve reformed your ways and are on your path to becoming a respectable citizen.

    You may, of course, be inclined to assume that my opinion is biased, that I am not of the mentality to accept help where it is offered. To the contrary, the “rebellious act” that got me imprisoned was not wanting to go to church. My mother called the police and, several probation violations later (for cussing, no less), I was shipped off to the roughest place a bright young mind can be forced into.

  113. Todd W.

    @Lou

    You said:

    I happen to believe that ID is a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis whose predictions are no less testable that those of evolution.

    Please provide the specific predictions that ID makes, what evidence points to the validity of those predictions, the papers that have been written stemming from research into such predictions and evidence, and what other papers have replicated those studies?

    Also, I would appreciate your not putting words into my, or other people’s, mouth. Where did I say or imply that I, personally, was any smarter than anyone else? Where was it stated that “evolutionists” think that Darwin was the first to discover natural selection?

    As to biogenesis from random chemicals, it’s my understanding that evolutionary theory does not deal with the origins of life, only how life develops and changes once it’s gotten going. It does have implications for evolutionary theory, though.

    Regarding who decides what is or is not science, that would be the larger scientific community. Thus far, ID has failed to pass muster as a science.

  114. kuhnigget

    @ Lou:

    “FYI, hunters, breeders and farmers have known about natural selection for millenia before Darwin appeared on the scene. ”

    Please support that statement. I suspect you do not understand what natural selection is.

    Breeders, et al, may understand the concept of selection, by which weak individuals are culled, or strong individuals are purposefully chosen for breeding, but that is not natural selection.

    Darwin’s theory of natural selection (which he himself acknowledged built upon and paralleled the work of others) was the first to successfully show how natural forces could do the selecting, and thus advance evolution, without the hand of man or god or any other conscious entity.

  115. Carl Matherly

    @Lou:

    “I happen to believe that ID is a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis whose predictions are no less testable that those of evolution. ”

    O.K., I’ll bite. What is the hypothosis of ID, and how can it be tested?

  116. Corey P

    AronRa over on Youtube had something to say of this (or at least exactly the same issue) recently too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTVpzwcpCCM

  117. Dwayne

    Interesting debate with the usual arguments on both sides. However, the more fundamental issue is, unfortunately, obfuscated by the difference in belief between the two sides.

    Let’s suppose I’m a Christian and I believe that the God of the Bible created the universe and evolution was in no way involved in the process. I don’t want an atheistic perspective being forced on my children. I’m willing to engage in some form of public discussion as long as my beliefs aren’t vilified in the process. But what galls me beyond belief is the thought that a public school, funded by my tax dollars, is going to teach something that is anathema to me. What right do you have to force me to pay to teach your beliefs to others.

    Let’s suppose I’m an Atheist and I believe that all religion is the product of man’s own creation. Life is the product of natural evolution and, while we don’t understand all of the nuances, we can clearly see that there’s no need to invent a deity to explain how we got here. I’m more than willing to allow you Christians to have your own beliefs, but keep them to your churches and private schools. What galls me is that you want to force your beliefs into a system that should be free from the influences of religious dogma. I can’t stand the fact that you want to teach something that is so anathema to me.

    Both sides have valid points. There are a host of other philosophical points to be made regarding epistomology, ultimate truth, relativism, etc. But in the end we are facing the age old problem of whose belief system is going to be “normative”.

    It is the height of hubris to insist that Christians pay for “public” schools with their tax dollars and then insist that they have no say in the curriculum.

    It is the height of fanaticism to insist that atheists be subject to patently Christian beliefs.

    The answer MUST lie in one of two directions:
    1) Either allow for public debate to include all views – which is really tantamount to having no view.
    2) Allow for parents to send their children to any school they want and have their tax dollars pay for it. In other words, a voucher type system that allows parents to “vote” with their money. A Christian can send his/her children to a school that reflects their beliefs and not have to worry about supporting “wrong beliefs.” An atheist can send his/her children to a school that reflects their beliefs and not have to worry about supporting “wrong beliefs.”

    If atheists are wrong and God somehow manifests himself in such a way as to dispell the notion of evolution, then their schools will eventually fall by the wayside.

    If Christians are wrong and science proves more and more that life emerged as a natural physical process, then their schools will eventually fall by the wayside.

    No Christian wants to force an atheist to teach Christianity in their home. No atheist wants to force a Christian to deny God in their home. (NOTE: Yes, there are a few outliers in both groups that would gladly cause deliberate harm to the other, but for the most part, the original statements are true.) And THAT IS where the problem comes in – when we have PUBLIC school that takes PUBLIC money, then which belief system wins the day?

    Atheists aren’t evil.
    Christians aren’t stupid.

    They both belief something FUNDAMENTALLY different from each other about the very nature of reality.

  118. TheBlackCat

    @ Lou:

    “What is in dispute is the notion advanced by evolutionists that all species on earth arose via a combination of NS and random mutations over millions of years. Some of us are convinced that it is a silly theory. How about that?”

    No, not modern biologists claim that. It is well-known, and has been for decades, that there are a number of other mechanisms that are important to evolution, perhaps even more important than mutation and natural selection. These include genetic drift, sexual selection, endosymbiosis, isolation, and horizontal gene transfer, amongst others. The only ones trying to restrict modern evolutionary theory to “natural selection and mutation” are creationists who either do not understand evolution or are trying to set up a strawman that is easier to attack.

    “IDers further argue against the possibility of biogenesis from random chemical interactions. Where is the falsifiability for abiogenesis?”

    If it was found that the conditions in the early earth were incapable of forming the chemicals necessary for life, this would have falsified abiogenesis. If it was found that simply, self-replicating molecules were not possible, this would have falsified abiogenesis. As it turns out conditions on early Earth were capable of forming the chemicals needed for life and simple, self-replicating molecules are possible, but it is still falsifiable.

  119. Lou

    @Peptron,

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. Newton and anybody in his time were free to publically announce their atheism if they were atheists. It is a lie that Newton was a creationist because he was threatened with death. Newton was an avowed Christian who went to great lengths to research certain Biblical prophecies. He even predicted from his study of the book of Daniel that the end of the present world order would come in the year 2030 which would also be the year of the establishment of God’s rule on planet earth.

    As far as alchemy is concerned, science cannot make any pronouncement on its validity since modern science does not understand it. Alchemists and other practitioners of the occult (that which is hidden or secret) took great pains to hide their research from the public. They spoke in strange metaphors that are unintelligible to the uninitiated. Newton’s writings on alchemy are near impossible to decipher.

    The use of metaphors as an encoding mechanism is an age-old practice that has been around since the days of the ancient Sumerians and Egyptians. Only the priesthood could understand the meaning of the texts. In fact, Newton and Leibniz were of the opinion that the vast majority of what historians call “myths” were, in fact, allegorical stories that were meant to hide the true meaning of the allegories from the general public.

  120. Well for most of this century and last (20th) we have failed our children to teach Science(knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation). Everyone with the capability of observation have seen a dog produce a dog, you may get a little or a big one, a hairy not to hairy, but you still get a dog every time guarantee. When I hear my fellow evolutionists tell me Angel how can u believe in creation I say to them I don’t I believe in creation I believe in Science. Science the knowledge of the physical world gained through observation and experimentation. The idea that a single cell organism created all life flies in the face of science, no one has ever observed such a thing it was invented to lie to us. That is my only conclusion Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups plain and simple. If you can’t believe a dog produce dogs and a pig produces a pig, then I can’t help you.

    Let me go a deep further evolutionists claim that the evidence is in the fossils, the fossils can show you and me the transitions of life (Macro evolution) and animal changing in to another. What I have observed is that a fossil is dead, a fossil was a fully formed animal or species and yet that is the evidence. How is it that a dog produces dogs every time but a fossil produced a different species of animal we have never observed, excuse me. That is the problem you have not the people who want to teach Science in the classrooms. And believe me it is science, Evolution is a fairy tail for grown ups.

    Profesor Dawkings said that the building blocks of life were started by the little green men he said this out of his mouth. This is an avowed atheists(evolutionist), he would rather believe that, than a creator setting the building blocks of life. Science backs up Creation 100 percent so you can wine and bitch like a little girl and call me an idiot all you want the truth slaps you in the face all the time and you don’t like it, that is why you resort to name calling to further your insane claim I dare you proof me wrong.

  121. TheBlackCat

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. Newton and anybody in his time were free to publically announce their atheism if they were atheists. It is a lie that Newton was a creationist because he was threatened with death. Newton was an avowed Christian who went to great lengths to research certain Biblical prophecies. He even predicted from his study of the book of Daniel that the end of the present world order would come in the year 2030 which would also be the year of the establishment of God’s rule on planet earth.

    Newton was a heretic and an anti-trinitarian who hid his views from the established religion. Whatever the case, the important thing isn’t the church, it was the state of scientific knowledge at the time. Notice that all of your examples are from hundreds of years ago. There is a reason for this. It wasn’t until the early 1800’s that strong evidence that the world was very old became known, and it wasn’t until Darwin that a plausible scientific explanation was available for the diversity of life on Earth. The people you discuss were creationists not because they rejected science like modern creationists, but because at the time there was no scientific alternative and the scientific knowledge that was available was consistent with creationism. That is no longer the case. You will find very few, if any, scientists from the last century or so who are creationists.

    As far as alchemy is concerned, science cannot make any pronouncement on its validity since modern science does not understand it. Alchemists and other practitioners of the occult (that which is hidden or secret) took great pains to hide their research from the public. They spoke in strange metaphors that are unintelligible to the uninitiated. Newton’s writings on alchemy are near impossible to decipher.

    WOW! Are you honestly saying you think the transmutation of elements using normal chemical processes is actually possible? I will say this simply: alchemy is not possible. The sort of energies needed to change one stable element into another in any substantial amount is so large it is far beyond any chemical process. What we now know about nuclear physics renders alchemy completely impossible. We can transmute elements, but it requires huge amounts of energy and often unleashes even larger amounts of energy (depending on the element).

  122. IVAN3MAN

    Lou:

    I happen to believe that ID is a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis whose predictions are no less testable that those of evolution. . . Besides, ID IS an evolutionary theory since it incorporates natural selection.

    I thought that this evolution/intelligent design business was already settled at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial?

  123. Lou

    @TheBlackCat

    “These include genetic drift, sexual selection, endosymbiosis, isolation, and horizontal gene transfer, amongst others.”

    Why don’t you add “pissing on a spark plug” for good measure? None of these things have been shown to create new macro species. And no, a Chihuahua is not a news species of dogs and selection does not create news genes. It merely selects from existing genes that have been around for tens of millions of years, doing their best to prevent the ravages of random mutations. You don’t evolve new genetic codes through selection. Where did those genes come from?

    The truth is that the primary mechanism for speciation in evolution (other than natural selection) is random mutations. It turns out that random mutations is orders of magnitude more nefarious to genetic material than otherwise. So the most important meachanism in macro-evolution is also the one that kills it. I know because I have experimented with GA and I can assure you that as soon as the search space (complexity) crosses a very low (extremely low compared to lifeforms) threshold, the exponential explosion kills any possibility of further evolution via random mutations. Conclusion, the evolution that we see in nature was planned that way.

    The same argument applies to abiogenesis: the very random mechanism (random chemical reactions) that supposedly gave rise to life is also the mechanism that is hard at work (orders of magnitude harder) trying to keep life from emerging. This is the reason that Miller had a not-so-secret mechanism (a trap) that he used to remove the amino acids from the chemical soup and sparks of his experiment in order to prevent them from being destroyed by the same soup that formed them. You people are a superstitious bunch aren’t you?

    “If it was found that the conditions in the early earth were incapable of forming the chemicals necessary for life, this would have falsified abiogenesis. If it was found that simply, self-replicating molecules were not possible, this would have falsified abiogenesis. As it turns out conditions on early Earth were capable of forming the chemicals needed for life and simple, self-replicating molecules are possible, but it is still falsifiable.”

    You have no clue what falsifiability means, do you? It means to devise an experiement that can falsify a hypothesis or a theory. There is no experiment that can falsify the hypothesis that abiogenesis is valid. You can take that to the bank. What you wrote above is just stupid. It’s not even wrong.

  124. Teach only evolution!

    Lou

    “Conclusion, the evolution that we see in nature was planned that way”
    So there we have it. Evolution itself is part of the intelligent design. Not to mention other inaccuracies with your agrument. The huge majority of mutations are neutral. Your body experiences them daily by the hundreds, yet still here you are.
    Genetic codes are indeed evolved through mutation, which includes insertion of base pairs, as well as deletion and change. There is no such thing as macro evolution. No one but creationists make distinction between macro and micro evolution. This is as lame as distinguishing walking and riding a car as fundamentally different type of movement.

    Evolution can be falsified easily. If fossil records were found which MIXED remnants of extinct species with present day living species.

    ID is not a science. Look up definition of science: it involves observation, hypothesis and testing (prediction). ID has no testable hypotesis.

  125. Right, Ok since miller experimentation failed at creating life, where did we come from Master Genius. Mutations or random mutations doesn’t create a different animal is still the same with an extra feature or lack there of. I have seen many mutations of animals but I still see the same type of animal. You can sugarcoat it any way you want but it is still the same. Since we can go nowhere let me ask you a simple question just a simple question where do we come from Lou?

  126. Todd W.

    @Lou

    Since you didn’t answer my question before, here it is again in case you missed it.

    Please provide the specific predictions that ID makes, what evidence points to the validity of those predictions, the papers that have been written stemming from research into such predictions and evidence, and what other papers have replicated those studies?

  127. Lou

    @TheBlackCat

    “WOW! Are you honestly saying you think the transmutation of elements using normal chemical processes is actually possible? I will say this simply: alchemy is not possible. ”

    What did I tell you? You don’t know what you’re talking about. The whole gold transmutation story is what the occultists (alchemists) told the powers that be in order to keep the greedy morons off their backs. An alchemist would never openly reveal the nature or purpose of his business to anyone other than another alchemist. That was a no-no.

  128. bottlcaps

    Get NASA out of Houston and as far away from Texas as humanly possible!!!!!!!

  129. Carl Matherly

    Hey Lou,

    So, what was that ID hypothesis and how to test it again? I must have missed it.

  130. Here we go again you did not understand my premise at first, you avoided the obvious now your dodging the obvious, why can you say you don’t know man there is no fallacy here. There is nothing wrong whatsoever when a man doesn’t know, If you are embarrass to talk about the truth then stop talking.

    Alchemy please I don’t have the time to discuss Alchemy I have the time to discuss Science isn’t what the subject matter is about anyway The evolutionist don’t want to answer the obvious Evolution is a dying religion and they are desperate that’s why we have the attacks because they don’t want to face the fallacy of their arguments, so if it makes you feel to dodge the obvious be my guest.

    Here is my question again Where do we come from?

  131. Carl Matherly

    @Angel:

    Where do we come from? I’m honest enough to admit “I don’t know” I’m not a biologist (or an -ist of any stripe) and I can’t tell you.

    HOWEVER, I do know that even if everything about the Modern Theory of Evolution was shown to be wrong, that WOULD NOT make ID right. ID has to be proven on its own merits, and right now they don’t even have a hypothesis to test (Lou, here’s you chance again to show that I’m wrong).

  132. Well there most be some huge waves going trough the evolutionists wow I must have missed it.
    The argument of creationist make in regards to macro and Micro I’m sorry did I miss a meeting here. Macro-Evolution came from your side, we are only arguing that no animal, no animal changes into another it hasn’t been seen ever. You and I have seen that a variety within the animal but not a different type of animal. If we continue going to attention to detail we will set a record for the most time writing in a blog.

    Now I like how you define Science I actually like it finally you made a reasonable observation way to go Lou. I know stepping out of Fantasy and religion is really tough. Now can you answer my question is really simple.

  133. TheBlackCat

    @ Angel:
    “Right, Ok since miller experimentation failed at creating life,”

    Yes, a single experiment wasn’t able to reproduce millions of years of chemical processes. What a surprise. The goal of the experiment was not to “create life”, it was to create organic molecules that were necessary at life. At that the experiment succeeded.

    “where did we come from Master Genius.”

    Define “we”. If you mean humans, we evolved from a species of tree-dwelling great ape a few million years ago. If you mean all life, the best explanation we have right now is that we arose out of simple self-replicating organic molecules, probably some nucleic acid that is able to catalyze its own formation.

    “Mutations or random mutations doesn’t create a different animal is still the same with an extra feature or lack there of. I have seen many mutations of animals but I still see the same type of animal. You can sugarcoat it any way you want but it is still the same.”

    Alright, Angel, let me ask you this: how can you tell whether two animals are the same animal or different animals? I need a specific, objective method for determining this. “I know it when I see it” is not an answer. I see this sort of argument all the time, no matter how big of a change we present, you can always say it is the “same animal”. So rather than just basing this on your gut instinct, I need some specific criteria.

  134. Lou

    @Todd W.

    “Since you didn’t answer my question before, here it is again in case you missed it.

    Please provide the specific predictions that ID makes, what evidence points to the validity of those predictions, the papers that have been written stemming from research into such predictions and evidence, and what other papers have replicated those studies?”

    Look, all the papers on ID are there on the internet for everyone to find and read at their own leisure. Nothing is hidden. Go do some reading and research on your own time. I am just passing through. Still, here’s my take on it. Do with it as you please.

    My understanding is that ID predicts (among other things) that living organisms will contain “specified complexity”, that is to say, complex mechanisms that cannot, by their nature, evolve in an incremental manner, as is required by evolution. The reason is that certain complex mechanisms need the concurrent support of one or more other mechanism in order to survive. This is corroborated by computer experiments using GA.

    One such mechanism, taken from my own study, is the cerebellum. The cerebellum is a supervised motor system that gets its training from the motor cortex. It is used to handle routine motor tasks (such as walking and maintaining posture) while the motor cortex, through the use of the basal ganglia, is busy with volitional tasks, These tasks are learned and selected via operant and classical conditioning and motor conflict resolution. There are no animal on earth or in the fossil record that has just a cerebellum and no motor cortex even though its organization and operation is orders of magnitude simpler than that of the motor cortex/basal ganglia ensemble. This contradicts incremental evolution in that the more complex motor mechanism precedes the simpler one even though the simpler one would work just fine for survival.

    ID further stipulates (at least my notion of ID) that all the code in the genome are useful and are carefully preserved for a reason and a purpose. In other words, there is no such thing as “junk” DNA.

  135. TheWalruss

    Hehehe – I like how that argument covered Newton and all, in light of the “Newtonian physics” the Indian scientists used to get the moon probe launched. Newton was all Christrian and stuff, too, so that’s bonus points for them Creationists and ID’ers, right???

    Do you think that communicating with a moon probe would be easy without Einstein’s theories, even at these relatively (har har) short distances? Ah yes, Einstein – who was agnostic at best!

    Seriously – arguments have to be based on evidence, not “this guy sed thus soz its gotta be tru”.

  136. TheWalruss

    @Lou:

    What I still think is missing from all ID arguments is any notion of a mechanism for the Designer to implement his designs.

    I’ve read a lot on the topic, but haven’t encountered any real work in that area. Care to share?

  137. Carl the whole argument really is how and where do we come from. I would argue how we where made that is a valid question wouldn’t you agree. Here is my answer I don’t know. I would argue where do we come from isn’t that a valid question. Here is my answer I don’t know. Now I answer that by observing the outside of my house while I was drinking coffee. I look to the sky with my own eyes and I see that the sky is blue and there are clouds. That is what I saw. You, me and everybody can conclude that, the question then becomes How do those things got there and where do they come from. With many studies we can conclude there are many characteristics of the sky and clouds and we find there are amazing each and everyone of them. No fallacy there here is the kicker Evolutionist believe that all of that came out of nothing or came from nothing therefore is without purpose and there is no consequence. ID’s or creationist believe that a creator or God made it with a purpose and there are consequences. Either way we both don’t know how exactly it was made but nevertheless it was made.

    Now lets suppose I walk through the woods and I see a building there are no people and there is no machinery is just the grass, the trees, and the building without hesitation I conclude a builder made it. When I look at my watch I conclude immediately and without hesitation a watchmaker created the watch, then why is it so hard to conclude a creator made this earth instead of nothing. I would argue that the God of evolutionist is nothing and just like Creation that is religion. That is the problem evolutionist have they want us to believe nothing did it and when we challenge that assertion we are dumb asses and idiots.

    Since we have concluded Evolution is a religion then why can the Id’rs get a fair chance in the classrooms just like Evolution. there is a lot of Science in the books but unfortunately is mixed with a go nowhere religion like Evolution, so lets mixed with a go somewhere religion like creation. If I am forced to pay this out of my taxes then why can we get a fair shake. I know because I am stupid and your smart I got you.

  138. Todd W.

    @Angel

    Your sky and clouds example actually hurts your argument. We do know where the sky and clouds came from. Long, long ago, molecules coalesced under graviational forces, condensing into a big ol’ ball floating around a star. Some of that matter consisted of elements that exist, under the conditions of the time, in a liquid or solid state. Other matter took on gaseous form. Those gases were kept in place by gravity. That’s where the sky came from. It was not created out of whole cloth, and probably was not always blue.

    Also, evolution does not deal with the origins of life. So that part of your argument has no bearing on the discussion.

    Evolution examines natural evidence and comes up with natural explanations that are tested with further natural evidence. When something in evolutionary theory does not fit the evidence, the theory changes. ID/Creationism takes religious beliefs and assumptions as inherently true and tries to fit current observations to those supernatural beliefs. Where ID/Creationism does not fit the evidence, it discards the evidence or rationalizes it away, rather than changing ID/Creationism.

  139. Carl Matherly

    @Angel

    So… when we see people we know they were created because they are so diffrent than the trees and the rocks and the sky?

    O.K., so since you can tell the parts that were created from the parts that weren’t created doesn’t that mean God didn’t create all of it?

    I’m no theologian but I think very few churches would agree with you that God only created some of the things we see in the Universe.

  140. TheBlackCat

    “The truth is that the primary mechanism for speciation in evolution (other than natural selection) is random mutations. It turns out that random mutations is orders of magnitude more nefarious to genetic material than otherwise. So the most important meachanism in macro-evolution is also the one that kills it. I know because I have experimented with GA and I can assure you that as soon as the search space (complexity) crosses a very low (extremely low compared to lifeforms) threshold, the exponential explosion kills any possibility of further evolution via random mutations. Conclusion, the evolution that we see in nature was planned that way.”

    This is incorrect. First, the vast majority of mutations are neutral. They have no effect whatsoever on the organism. And I am not particularly concerned with your assurances, the issues related to mutations have been heavily studied from numerous different angles and the consensus is that beneficial mutations are easy to come by. The evolution of complex biochemical pathways has even been directly observed in nature. Your claim is simply wrong. I don’t know what sort of experiment you did, but since it contradicts a huge body of research from countless scientists over decades forgive me if I don’t simply take your word for it.

    “The same argument applies to abiogenesis: the very random mechanism (random chemical reactions) that supposedly gave rise to life is also the mechanism that is hard at work (orders of magnitude harder) trying to keep life from emerging. This is the reason that Miller had a not-so-secret mechanism (a trap) that he used to remove the amino acids from the chemical soup and sparks of his experiment in order to prevent them from being destroyed by the same soup that formed them. You people are a superstitious bunch aren’t you?”

    The Miller experiment was an extremely early experiment using conditions that were not that similar to the early Earth. It was only the first in a long series of experiments on the subject. Why are creationists so obsessed with experiments that are decades out of date?

    “You have no clue what falsifiability means, do you? It means to devise an experiement that can falsify a hypothesis or a theory. There is no experiment that can falsify the hypothesis that abiogenesis is valid. You can take that to the bank. What you wrote above is just stupid. It’s not even wrong.”

    No, you do not know what falsifiability means. It does not have to be an experiment, it means that a hypothesis or theory makes predictions about evidence that has not been collected yet, and those predictions can be proven wrong. The evidence that the hypothesis or theory predicts can be from an experiment, but it does not have to be. It can be from any sort of observation. Experiments are only one of many methods scientists have for collecting evidence.

    “My understanding is that ID predicts (among other things) that living organisms will contain “specified complexity”, that is to say, complex mechanisms that cannot, by their nature, evolve in an incremental manner, as is required by evolution. The reason is that certain complex mechanisms need the concurrent support of one or more other mechanism in order to survive. This is corroborated by computer experiments using GA.”

    If this were true it would not be evidence for ID, it would be evidence against evolution. Even if evolution turned out to be true it would not automatically mean ID would be right. It could be that a third, previously unknown principle was at work. This is called the “false dichotomy” fallacy. So even if you were right it would not help your case.

    You are not right, however. First, you are mixing up specified complexity and irreducible complexity, these are two different principles. Evolution does not require that things necessarily evolve in an incremental manner.

    For instance, systems can co-opt parts of other systems. For instance one biochemical system could take a piece of another biochemical system an use it. A large chunk of the bacterial flagellum, one of Behe’s favorite examples, comes from the Type III secretory system, an otherwise completely unrelated system used for injecting toxins. This is also seen in light-sensitivity, where the light sensitivity is merely a small piece added onto an existing signalling pathway called the GPCR pathway, which is used in countless signaling roles throughout pretty much every form of life in the planet. It is probably used in dozens, if not hundreds of different roles in the human nervous system alone.

    Also, systems can lose functionality as well as gain it. So a new component can evolve that is not necessary but has a beneficial effect. However, once that component is in place it is there, and the rest of the system can evolve around it. Something that was initially only optional now becomes essential. Also, if there is already a component that serves a particular role, but a second component evolves that does the same role, you can lose the first one, either through chance or through natural selection.

    So irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution. The mechanisms that can deal with it were well-known even before Behe brought it up. And so far no one in the ID crowd has actually been willing to come up with a specific method to determine whether a structure is or is not irreducibly complex. All of their examples are actually “possible examples”, they have steadfastly refused to actually pose irreducible complexity in a form that can actually be tested.

    “ID further stipulates (at least my notion of ID) that all the code in the genome are useful and are carefully preserved for a reason and a purpose. In other words, there is no such thing as “junk” DNA.”

    This is called “proving a negative”. It can’t be done. No matter how much we learn about the genome, someone can always say “but you can’t prove that we won’t find a role for this later on”. However, our best evidence right now indicates that large portions of the genome play no role whatsoever.

  141. TheBlackCat

    “Now lets suppose I walk through the woods and I see a building there are no people and there is no machinery is just the grass, the trees, and the building without hesitation I conclude a builder made it. When I look at my watch I conclude immediately and without hesitation a watchmaker created the watch, then why is it so hard to conclude a creator made this earth instead of nothing. I would argue that the God of evolutionist is nothing and just like Creation that is religion. That is the problem evolutionist have they want us to believe nothing did it and when we challenge that assertion we are dumb asses and idiots.”

    Last time I checked houses and watches don’t breed. Animals and plants do. Since being able to reproduce is a requirement for evolution, I don’t find your examples at all convincing.

  142. There you go again and Now is Black cat sorry I know I did not miss a meeting. Miller indeed was experimenting on how did life originate on earth that’s what he experimented on so don’t try to clouded with organic molecules that was only part of his experiment I got to give you credit nice try but not good enough. All Miller build was few amino acids but not the proteins need it to create life ohh what a shame he was light years a way from actually demonstrating the impossible no one and I mean no human being is capable of creating life we can duplicate it by cloning but that is as far as we can go. Again please tell me evolutionists how life originate it is a simple question why can’t you answer it.

  143. TheWalruss

    @Angel: Right – science doesn’t have all the answers yet. We all know that. The difference between the scientific and religious view of the origin question is that us scientists say “we don’t know, but we’re in the process of figuring it out”, whereas the religious people say “we have known it all along”. Which one seems more reasonable to you?

  144. TheBlackCat

    Miller indeed was experimenting on how did life originate on earth that’s what he experimented on so don’t try to clouded with organic molecules that was only part of his experiment I got to give you credit nice try but not good enough.

    You are the one clouding the issue. He was doing an experiment that was related to understanding how life originated, but he was not trying to create life himself, nor was he trying to create complex organic macromolecules. The goal of the experiment was to determine whether conditions similar to what were thought to exist on early Earth could produce the basic building blocks of life, amino acids, sugars, and other molecules. The experiment succeeded at this goal.

  145. Todd what did you do Oh no you just prove something here let me see if you can follow. “Your sky and clouds example actually hurts your argument. We do know where the sky and clouds came from. Long, long ago, molecules coalesced under graviational forces, condensing into a big ol’ ball floating around a star. Some of that matter consisted of elements that exist, under the conditions of the time, in a liquid or solid state”. Long, Long ago” what do you mean “Long, Long ago. Are you actually saying that no one observed this to conclude an observable hypothesis. Oh no the sky is falling. “It was not created out of whole cloth, and probably was not always blue”. I never said it was created out of whole cloth I said it was created, and now you stated it was not always blue how do you base that observation Todd. I simply said I walked outside and saw the sky is blue and there were clouds, where at anytime did I separate from science and when into religion Todd.

    Carl Come on man do you want me to write every single animal, tree, and man in this you know I can’t. I can’t cover everything in a blog it takes years brother Carl. I made an example of a few things give me a break man. Ok lets do it like this everything that includes man, tree, and animal(aquatic, land, and air) ok everything, I see it you see it with ur own eyes. They came from somewhere what was it please don’t let me hold my breath.
    I’ve gone to many churches and no there is no argument they all agree it was created by a superpowerful force that is not bind by space, time and manner(God) unlike us he’s eternal we are not oh no what could be happen if we die.

  146. Black cat there you go again I am not talking about breeding I am talking observation, Observation do you understand that or do I have to spell it for you Listen careful I walk trough the trees and i saw a building no people and no machinery I conclude without a shadow of a doubt a builder made it, a watch I observed it and I conclude a Watchmaker made it. A dog, human, the skies, the moon, the stars. I don’t know how these beings were made, but because they are so complex as i observed them they were made by a creator. Now I would argue that science which is observation, an experimentation of subjects I can see and touch physically with my own two hands, that I can see them with my own two eyes helps us understand what they are and what they can do, science doesn’t tells us who was responsible for this beings. So to us the logical conclusion is a God made it, no nothing like the fallacy of evolution will have us believe. NOTHING is your God while mine is simply GOD. Either way you look at it is still a religion I logically conclude that why can you, and you still haven’t answer my question.

  147. Carl Matherly

    But don’t you see, in your example of the watch and the buildings you could tell the difference between what was designed and what wasn’t. So either everything was designed and you have no outside frame of reference to tell design from not-design or God only designed some of the stuff in the Universe and you can tell the difference.

    Its a flawed analogy either way.

  148. Hey Walruss how are you this is what you wrote “@Angel: Right – science doesn’t have all the answers yet. We all know that. The difference between the scientific and religious view of the origin question is that us scientists say “we don’t know, but we’re in the process of figuring it out”, whereas the religious people say “we have known it all along”. Which one seems more reasonable to you?

    Science doesn’t have all the answers yet we all know that. walruss I love you man you are the greatest but here is my problem is not science who makes the argument is evolutionist, since I can’t convince anyone otherwise I leave it at thatEvolutionists/scientists. we don’t know, but we’re in the process of figuring it out. I have heard that everytime us in science proves you wrong. I know you think that for us the easy answer is God did it well is certainly the most logical and reasonable other than nothing did it because neither Todd or Black Cat has been unable to answer a simple question, instead is the usual. Well Long, ago and far away this is how it all went down that is not science that is a fantasy and religion and is smacking them in the back of their heads but I can’t help them they must help themselves.

    Listen I am hungry folks this has been a lively conversation I would love to continue writing with each and everyone of you but my belly is killing me I just want to eat if you guys want to discuss this further I would love that guys, here is my email rodr2003@hotmail.com take care and God Bless.

  149. Carl Matherly

    Your evasion of my critisim is noted.

  150. Oh Carl where are you from do I have to spell it for you to Man, you say design I say made it, lets us use another word shall we it was constructed. The mind of a builder are obviously different than that of a watchmaker because they look diferent however they require to be design. so in the mind of this two people they created, design, and build, either way I don’t know how they did it but they did it didn’t they. These two things did not magically made themselves long ago and far away. Yes we may have observed a building being constructed, or the watch being made by a designer called a builder or a watchmaker. So you see someone is responsible for building, and designing the building, and watch. So my argument is this who made everything in the universe what was his name, classification or so on. Listen I can satisfy no one in here you make your mind was it nothing, long ago and far away. or was it God
    either I did not observe it anymore than you. Nothing is illogical, while a God is more reasonable. No Carl i am hungry besides I left you my email how is that evasion don’t you get hungry.

  151. Lou

    @TheBlackCat,

    “This is incorrect. First, the vast majority of mutations are neutral. They have no effect whatsoever on the organism.”

    This is false, not to mention disingenuous. Nobody is talking about the effect on the organism. The subject is the genetic material that is passed on to the offsprings via selection. Of course, mutations have little or no effect on an orgamism since it has billions if not trillions of cells that do not mutate and continue to work as prescribed by the genetic code. Nature goes to extreme lengths to ensure that the genetic code that gets passed to the next generation is free of defects. It does not favor mutations. On the contrary, it tries its best to eliminate it.

    “Your claim is simply wrong.”

    No it is not. Any programmer can tell you that almost all random modifications of the code and parameters that make up a computer program leads to either catastrophic failure or some malfunction. They are never beneficial. And the more complex the code is, the more likely that a modification will be detrimental.

    “No, you do not know what falsifiability means. It does not have to be an experiment, it means that a hypothesis or theory makes predictions about evidence that has not been collected yet, and those predictions can be proven wrong. The evidence that the hypothesis or theory predicts can be from an experiment, but it does not have to be. It can be from any sort of observation. Experiments are only one of many methods scientists have for collecting evidence.”

    The prescribed observation is the experiment. You are just grasping at straws since you do not have a means to falsify abiogenesis, your feeble attempts at denial notwithstanding.

    “If this were true it would not be evidence for ID, it would be evidence against evolution. Even if evolution turned out to be true it would not automatically mean ID would be right. It could be that a third, previously unknown principle was at work. This is called the “false dichotomy” fallacy. So even if you were right it would not help your case.”

    So say you but your objection is nonsense on the face of it. A process is either random or it is not. If it is not random, it is deterministic, by definition. Same with evolution. If the species did not randomly emerge all by themselves, they were put there by some intelligent agency. What is so hard to understand?

    “You are not right, however. First, you are mixing up specified complexity and irreducible complexity, these are two different principles. Evolution does not require that things necessarily evolve in an incremental manner.”

    You’re kidding me?

    “For instance, systems can co-opt parts of other systems.”

    Wow! You do realize that this leads to an infinite regress, don’t you?

    ” For instance one biochemical system could take a piece of another biochemical system an use it. A large chunk of the bacterial flagellum, one of Behe’s favorite examples, comes from the Type III secretory system, an otherwise completely unrelated system used for injecting toxins.”

    You have observed this to happen all by itself in nature or is this another one of your non-falsifiable hypotheses?

    “Also, systems can lose functionality as well as gain it. So a new component can evolve that is not necessary but has a beneficial effect. However, once that component is in place it is there, and the rest of the system can evolve around it. Something that was initially only optional now becomes essential. Also, if there is already a component that serves a particular role, but a second component evolves that does the same role, you can lose the first one, either through chance or through natural selection.”

    You have very little grasp of the meaning of exponential explosion. The truth is that the cerebellum is a later addition to the brain. It requires a pre-existing and fully functioning motor cortex, hippocampal formation and basal ganglia, not to mention an adaptive mechanism. These things do not need a cerebellum to work since many intelligent life forms do not have one. As soon as you put a randomly wired, quasi-cerebellum in the works, it will kill the organism because proper behavior is essential to survival. It’s either you have a cerebellum that is fully connected to the pre-existing brain in a manner that enhances its chances for survival or you don’t. Again, the prediction that I am making is that no organism will be found with only a cerebellum and no motor cortex.

    ““ID further stipulates (at least my notion of ID) that all the code in the genome are useful and are carefully preserved for a reason and a purpose. In other words, there is no such thing as “junk” DNA.”

    This is called “proving a negative”. It can’t be done. No matter how much we learn about the genome, someone can always say “but you can’t prove that we won’t find a role for this later on”. However, our best evidence right now indicates that large portions of the genome play no role whatsoever.”

    Your best evidence is based on ignorance, I would say. More and more areas, previously labeled as junk DNA by evolutionary biologists are turning out to have specific functions. The truth is that evolution does predict that a huge portion of the genome should be junk as a result of random mutations over millions of years. I, on the other hand, think junk DNA is another example of front loading, that is, it’s code that is designed to express its purpose when the predetermined environmental pressures pop up.

  152. Dan

    @ Don Snow

    Certainly there are anti-religion people. But when Creationists come up with a legitimate theory that survives scrutiny and experimentation…fine put it out there. But every Creationist I have seen simply says “The Bible says…” when they are pressed.

    The reject other facts simply because they don’t fit their conclusion.

    Carbon dating for example is routinely explained as either God wanting us to think the Earth is older than it is as some kind of test of our faith. Or they simply say its wrong without ANY explanation or argument how or why. We’re just supposed to accept its wrong and that’s it. Why? Because the Bible says the Earth is only 6000 years old.

    That kind of reasoning is NOT proper for a science class.

    This isn’t about rejecting religion, this is about rejection uncritical thought.

    Saying that not teaching Creationism is going to lead to not teaching history, or art, or music IS a straw man argument.

    In fact, it is the RELIGIOUS educators that have historically said “If we don’t like it then it goes away.” I haven’t heard of ANY scientist saying “Stop teaching music, stop teaching art, stop teaching history.” Galileo didn’t advocate for the burning of any Bishops
    .
    And certainly not “stop teaching the Holocaust.” In fact, most of your Holocaust deniers tend to be anti-Semitic RELIGIOUS fundamentalist (extremist Christians and extremist Muslims mostly) who either

    1. Blame Jews for the death of Jesus
    2. Have whatever problem extremist Muslims tend to have to have with Jews

    I suppose your point is that Nazism and the Holocaust represented science run-amok? To an extent yes. But you can get that from ANYTHING, including RELIGION. Never mind that the Nazis co-opted a lot of religious (especially Catholic) ceremony and symbolism into their “cult” like system.

    Not teaching Creationism in a science classroom is not the same as saying “religion is bad.” There are just standards that have to be met.

    You certainly wouldn’t argue that Holocaust denial should be taught in a HISTORY classroom would you? After all, it’s an “alternative theory” accepted by a large number of people. Why shouldn’t it? The same arguments apply and are just as illegitimate when applied there.

    Certainly zealous anti-religious sentiment is not good. Anything can be taken to extremes. But the teaching of Creationism as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is not proper. Creationism CAN be introduced in a Cosmology class as an example of MYTHOLOGICAL Cosmology that has been criticized by science. But it is NOT a legitimate scientific theory.

    I took a Cosmology class in college that went through various Creation stories from various religions: Genesis, Sumerian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Ancient Greek, Native American etc (hit the major religious and cultural ones). But not one of those myths is based on any kind of basic observation about the world.

    Look, I’m Roman Catholic. I’m a religious person, but I don’t think the Genesis story is literal. I think it’s there to illustrate God’s power and the underlying “goodness” of the world (which is why each section of the 7 day story ends with “And God saw that it was good…'”). Especially I think the Creation stories in Genesis illustrate that human beings are ultimately “children of God.” I’m not anti-religious. But Creation stories do not have a place in a science classroom being taught as legitimate alternative theories.

    If the Creationists go out and find evidence beyond the Bible that stands up to legitimate experimentation, well then sure bring it in.

  153. S.o.G.

    The solution to this problem is trivial:

    Step One: allow people to study what they want. If they want creationism on the curriculum, let them put it on the curriculum.

    Step Two: go slightly further, and actively DENY science classes to the people who are against science. This is easy done with a simple entrance exam that tests your worldview. Start with biology, but expand to include all sciences, math, engineering, computer science.

    Step Three: Once your society is nicely stratified by the wingnuts self-selecting themselves out of a science education, begin limiting access to the BENEFITS of science to those who support it. Start with the stuff they don’t care about, and gradually include everything that comes as a result of the scientific method.

    Problem solved. They may still be around in their little enclaves, but with no computers, radio, television, antibiotics, cars, etc. the degree to which they annoy us will have been reduced to almost nothing.

  154. Wow Black cat you have provided us with a very intelligent argument well said. However you still did not answer my question. when you get around it you let me know.

    When you stop calling me names we can go somewhere now you haven’t call me and idiot or dumb ass, however the word ignorant comes in to being. Now all your mutations and random mutations doesn’t create a different animal still the same that is what I said and you added more we obviously agree we are going somewhere see what happens. I never said mutations created something we haven’t seen. so i don’t know why you are bringing this up you must of miss it that is ok I forgive you. Now you stated that the genome play no role I beg the difference tell me why it doesn’t play no role. Are you suggesting vestigial?

    I would argue that everything in our human form is not vestigial we need everything in it.
    Someone once suggested that the last bone in our body is vestigial and has no use well is that is the case let me take it out of you and lets see the results bend over. I bet you would not do it why I live that up to you.

    I already given you every possible venue to look at this but you however have decided to complicate things because you want to win no matter what. I want to win too but i have to do it with the truth. It is not my intention to keep this in lamest terms but because of limitations of time I have to. Now black cat in simplest terms how did all came about?

    I already answer this question and I did not hesitated to give you the answer I said it let me repeat myself for the last time It was God. now I don’t know how he did it except the bible says he spoke and it was made. Now that is a very profound and a powerful answer. I know that is not enough for you and neither is for us. We have the tools and the knowledge to study, observe and experiment and we can conclude only the characteristics of the being(human or animal, or cell) we know how it works but we don’t know how it was made, and neither can you ok my friend. Take a break before you implode, you and your religion of evolution will never figure this out ever, and neither will we. I am taking a break why don’t you join me Black cat.

  155. oopss sorry I tought black cat wrote that

  156. Carl Matherly

    @Angel…

    So you’re argument that God made the Universe is that the Universe is here?

    I apologize, I really am not userstanding what you are saying. But to me, it seems very circular. “This is here because someone built it. Someone must have built it, because it is here”

  157. Todd W.

    @Angel

    If you post again, please use proper punctuation! Your posts are very difficult to read due to the typographical errors.

    If you come across a pile of rocks near the base of a cliff, is the pile of rocks stacked in a stable, apparently orderly fashion, evidence that someone took the time to stack them up like that? Or is it also possible that a natural force (gravity) caused them to end up in such a formation, without the intervention of any intelligent agent?

    @Lou

    I’m not going to argue the irreducible complexity bit, as I’m not a biologist, though I understand that one biologist that testified in the Dover case has studied the bacterial flagellum mentioned by BlackCat and noted the shared structural elements between the flagellum and a secretion system.

    Regarding your cerebellum/motor cortex example, what you have shown is that a motor cortex is a prerequisite for cerebellum development. How does this demonstrate design? Can you say, with absolute certainty, that such a feature did not develop over thousands of years? Can you prove that it did not?

    As to mutations, you say that nature tries to eliminate mutations. My guess is that you view mutations as aberrations that are at worst, detrimental and at best, neutral to the organism or species. If that were the case, then a 20+ year study by Richard Lenski on the E. coli bacterium would not have had a line take advantage of a mutation that allowed it to use citrate as a source of energy. To this particular line, the mutation was beneficial and allowed the mutated variety to outcompete the non-mutated variety.

  158. Todd W.

    @Angel

    On the origins of life: you say God created it. As evidence, you point to the existence of life. Scientists say, “We don’t know, but we’re working on figuring it out.” I’m curious what your response will be if scientists do manage to conduct an experiment (if they haven’t already) that produces simple living organisms out of otherwise non-living materials.

    On the difference between animals: what is the criteria for determining what is a different animal? I assume you are saying that we don’t see one species turn into a different species. So, what is the objective, clear definition of a species? According to evolutionary theory, speciation is a gradual process of changes building on one another over vast periods of time. Because of this, it is impossible to point to a single moment where something goes from one animal to another. Evolution just doesn’t do that. Nowhere in evolutionary theory is there anything that suggests, for example, that a duck can suddenly become a horse.

  159. A lot was said I do apologize for my lack of writing skills but it seems you understand what I am trying to say, otherwise you would not have made your arguments. Ok brother Todd the rocks as i see it by observation I conclude two things one they were created by a superpowerful force that I can be certain 100 percent, I know i did not observed that but i already went that way I am not repeating myself again. Now where they move or place in perfect harmony totally possible. Lets take this further could it be a person yes, could it be an animal certainly why, because we have observed man move things and animals do the same however with more of a challenge than us humans. Now gravity we have seen that if you are in a tower and we let go of an apple it goes straight down not up or side by side, just straight down. I have never seen any object being move except by the help of the mention above or by water, wind or some kind of mechanical device. So gravity could not do it unless it has help. I hope that answer you question.

    Todd on the experiment It has already try it was call the miller I believe Urey experiment Mr Miller and Urey were respected and intelligent man in their time it has been 50 years and no one follow their work. They created amino acids but no proteins. The electrical discharge did not help them create the proteins they need it, it made it worse. years back Mr. Miller was ask why can’t we create the building blocks he flat out told them because we can’t is impossible. in the interest of your question I will be amaze at such a discovery.

    Todd you have encounter people that believe in evolution and those that don’t, same here.
    We have read many topics on the subject. What is the chance that we encounter the same people and read the same books, nil. Now what has been presented to me throughout these years are the arguments I stated above. You and I are capable of making mistakes so we go back and learn and correct those mistakes.

    What has been presented to me all these years since Junior high is that evolutions arguments in biology is that one animal can change into another, but you said it yourself
    “According to evolutionary theory, speciation is a gradual process of changes building on one another over vast periods of time. You see what you did and you did not even notice it. You went from science into religion. Let me repeat that According to evolutionary theory, now you are taking some one at their word, speciation is a gradual process of changes building on one another over vast periods of time. Todd how is that observable there is no observation, and no experimentation of any kind. The author went out of science and into religion.

    Todd the bible teaches that every animal will bring forth after their kind. That my friend is not religious in any way the bible just made and observable hypothesis where is the religion

    Look man I can’t convince in any way but the truth as Jesus said will set you free. I saw the evidence not with my eyes but also with what I heard and I let the chip fall where they may ok.

    Carl I don’t know how is that circular. but both answers make sense to me. I can’t see the whole universe from my standpoint i can all see part of it. By observing it I can only conclude an Intelligent superpowerful force design it and create it I don’t know how he did it but he must have done it because nothing ever creates, and an explosion destroys it never creates.

  160. The last part not with my eyes I meant to say not only with my own eyes but also and so on.

  161. TheBlackCat

    This is false, not to mention disingenuous. Nobody is talking about the effect on the organism. The subject is the genetic material that is passed on to the offsprings via selection. Of course, mutations have little or no effect on an orgamism since it has billions if not trillions of cells that do not mutate and continue to work as prescribed by the genetic code. Nature goes to extreme lengths to ensure that the genetic code that gets passed to the next generation is free of defects. It does not favor mutations. On the contrary, it tries its best to eliminate it.

    Please don’t play semantics. I am talking about the organism that first arises with the mutation. For multi-cellular organisms this would have to be a germ cell mutation, while most mutations will affect a single cell organism right off the bat.

    And yes, organisms do, in many cases, have mechanisms that minimize mutations. these are far from perfect. Some organisms, however, have mechanisms that will actually increase the rate of mutation when the organism is under some sort of environmental stress. Why would organisms have specific specific mechanisms to increase mutation rates when they are in danger if mutations are so harmful?

    No it is not. Any programmer can tell you that almost all random modifications of the code and parameters that make up a computer program leads to either catastrophic failure or some malfunction. They are never beneficial. And the more complex the code is, the more likely that a modification will be detrimental.

    Well, then it is a good thing that DNA does not operate at all like a computer program. Random changes in a computer program are so damaging for two reasons. One, they do not have much built-in redundancy. In the genome there can be multiple copies of the same gene, meaning that one copy is free to mutate while the other stays intact. Bacteria have plasmids, which mean they can have dozens or even hundreds of copies of a gene, while many multicellular organisms, including humans, have two or more copies of every chromosome and thus every gene. Further, there are often multiple genes or even multiple pathways for the same purpose, allowing one to evolve and the other not.

    What is more, computer programs (unless you are using Perl), tend to have very strict syntax. The genome does not. The genetic code, that is what sequence of DNA nucleotides codes for what amino acid, is redundant, most amino acids have multiple different nucleotide sequences that code for it. That means a mutation may have no change whatsoever in the amino acid sequence. Further, in many cases the exact amino acid sequence is not important. For large portions of most proteins you have several different amino acids that can be used interchangeably. The portions of most proteins that need to be very specific are usually fairly small. And even if there is some effect, it is not a “run” or “crash” duality like you have in many computer programs. We are dealing with chemistry, not boolean logic, so there are ranges of effectiveness. A protein could be rendered more or less effective in fairly small increments. What is more, changes that do not directly affect the function of the protein can give a protein other functions. A site that allows a protein to bind to another molecule might require only one or two specific amino acids, and those amino acids might have no other effect on the protein. The binding might be very weak, but even a weak binding can have a significance for selection.

    So the problem is trying to draw an analogy between a computer program and the genome. The analogy is very weak.

    The prescribed observation is the experiment. You are just grasping at straws since you do not have a means to falsify abiogenesis, your feeble attempts at denial notwithstanding.

    If the observation is the experiment, than the examples I gave could have falsified abiogenesis. My examples are clear-cut cases where abiogenesis could have been falsified but wasn’t. You have provided no reason to think otherwise.

    So say you but your objection is nonsense on the face of it. A process is either random or it is not. If it is not random, it is deterministic, by definition. Same with evolution. If the species did not randomly emerge all by themselves, they were put there by some intelligent agency. What is so hard to understand?

    You are making a big leap here. You are asserting that evolution cannot explain things that cannot happen by small, incremental steps. But then you jump to say that no non-intelligent process can explain things that cannot happen by small, incremental steps. There is no reason to think that, even if evolution cannot explain things that do not happen by small, incremental steps that no non-intelligent process can.

    Wow! You do realize that this leads to an infinite regress, don’t you?

    Not necessarily. Just because a structure could not evolve by small, incremental steps in the system that you are currently looking at does not mean that it could not evolve by small, incremental steps in a different system.

    You have observed this to happen all by itself in nature or is this another one of your non-falsifiable hypotheses?

    Yes, this has been observed. For instance in a recent experiment they kept several populations of E. coli for many years. Eventually one population spontaneously, after several different mutations, evolved the ability to metabolize citrate. In short, they evolved the ability to bring citrate into the cell, something no other E. coli can do (lack of that ability is one of the defining features of E. coli). Once inside the cell it could then be used in the citric acid metabolic cycle. If you saw that bacteria only after it evolved this it would appear irreducibly complex, because loss of any part of the citrate acid metabolic pathway would render the organism incapable of consuming citrate. But the truth is citrate metabolism was the result of a new capability which then integrated with an existing metabolic pathway.

    You have very little grasp of the meaning of exponential explosion. The truth is that the cerebellum is a later addition to the brain. It requires a pre-existing and fully functioning motor cortex, hippocampal formation and basal ganglia, not to mention an adaptive mechanism. These things do not need a cerebellum to work since many intelligent life forms do not have one. As soon as you put a randomly wired, quasi-cerebellum in the works, it will kill the organism because proper behavior is essential to survival. It’s either you have a cerebellum that is fully connected to the pre-existing brain in a manner that enhances its chances for survival or you don’t. Again, the prediction that I am making is that no organism will be found with only a cerebellum and no motor cortex.

    I did not specifically deal with the cerebellum. But the cerebellum is far from something that is either present or absent. In fact different parts of it evolved at different times in evolutionary history and play different roles. It also has a very simply neural circuit compared to much of the rest of the cortex. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario where a primitive cerebellum arose to fulfill a specific role, such as coordinating eyes and balance, but that this sort of function was generic and the other parts of the brain co-opted this for similar coordination and planning-oriented tasks. With such a simple circuit and relatively unspecialized cell types it would not have been difficult for it to arise out of existing neural population in the brainstem and would have been easy for it to grow rapidly with relatively little genetic change. You are forgetting that structures in the body are not independent, evolution can cause structures to evolve together. Initially weak, accidental connections between the cerebellum and new areas of the cortex could easily have led to small benefits that could be selected for without having much of a negative impact.

    And there is nothing in evolution which states that a simpler structure more come before a more complex one, this is the “great chain of being” myth that evolution directly contradicts.

    Your best evidence is based on ignorance, I would say. More and more areas, previously labeled as junk DNA by evolutionary biologists are turning out to have specific functions.

    Not true. Yes, there are a few cases dealing with small fractions of what were once considered “junk”. But there are ways to test whether a segment of DNA plays a role or not. For instance, you can see whether damaging or removing a segment has any impact on the organism. You can see whether there is any restrictions on the sequence. Both of these have been done and they both show that large portions of what is called “junk DNA” is of no consequence to the organism.

    The truth is that evolution does predict that a huge portion of the genome should be junk as a result of random mutations over millions of years. I, on the other hand, think junk DNA is another example of front loading, that is, it’s code that is designed to express its purpose when the predetermined environmental pressures pop up.

    Evolution did not predict junk DNA, interestingly, it was thought that having all that wasted space would be selected against. However, scientists at the time did not appreciate the power that non-selective mechanisms had over evolution. And how, exactly, would extremely long sequences of very short repeating DNA segments (like ATATATATATAtATATATA…) be useful for front-loading?

  162. Todd W.

    @Angel

    If your exposure to evolutionary theory has lead you to understand that you can start with a duck and end up with a horse in pretty short order, then either your understanding is flawed or you had pretty bad teachers. My suggestion is that you take a good introductory course or two on evolution to learn what it is really saying.

    Onto my pile of rocks example. My point was to demonstrate that something that has the appearance of order can come about purely by natural means. Although I pointed out gravity, I did not intend that it was the only natural force involved. A stack of rocks that is stable and seemingly well-ordered can come about due to a complex interaction of natural phenomena. Something dislodges a rock on the hillside (an earthquake, wind, passing animal, rain, gravity gradually shifting underlying matter, etc.). The rock rolls down the hill, dislodging other rocks. These rocks cascade down the hill. Once the surface precludes further downward motion (e.g., the rocks fall off an overhang and onto level ground), depending on the direction of fall of each of the individual rocks, speed, number of rocks, and so on, one possible result is for at least some of the rocks to pile up on each other in a stable stack (almost certainly in a pyramidal/conical structure).

    Without knowing anything about the landslide, and only seeing the end result (the stack of rocks) one can come to several conclusions: some supernatural being created the pile of rocks, without the rocks ever having been anywhere else; some non-human animal moved the rocks into a pile; a person picked up rocks and piled them up; other natural forces that do not require the intervention of any intelligent or living being (e.g., a landslide) caused the rocks to end up in the pile.

    From a scientific perspective, there is no physical evidence available to suggest the first option as likely. It is possible, but the remaining explanations are far more likely causes. As we examine the evidence further (e.g., matching the material in the rocks to material higher up on the hill and which does not occur in any of the ground around the pile; the weight and size of the rocks; marks on the hillside and surrounding ground and so forth), we can get a better picture of which of the remaining explanations is more likely.

    If the rocks are particularly large and heavy, we can rule out non-human animals. That leaves us with people or some natural occurrence. If we find that there are no marks of any tools for moving the rocks, no human artifacts, difficult access to the pile, etc., a natural eplanation becomes the most likely explanation. Science will conclude, then, that some natural occurrence, such as a landslide and subsequent workings of physics, caused the rocks to be piled in the manner that they are, based on the available evidence. The other exaplanations (people, animals, supernatural being) are still possible, but in varying degrees unlikely, and, barring any other evidence, can reasonably be discarded. Now, should new evidence surface that suggests one of the other causes, then the scientist will change their conclusion.

    A similar thing occurs with evolution. Biologists start by observing natural evidence and then offer up conclusions that are most likely based on that evidence. As the evidence changes, they change their conclusions. By contrast, creationists start with “God did it” and try to fit their observations to their a priori explanation. They dismiss anything that contradicts their explanation and never change their explanation. “God did it” is the beginning and the end, with no room for any other explanation.

    Science does not simply involve seeing the event as it occurs. That is only one type of experimentation and observation, albeit probably the most exact. One can also look at the outcomes of an event to determine what the event actually was with reasonable accuracy, depending on the evidence available. In the case of evolution, there is abundant evidence from many different scientific disciplines, including, but not limited to, biology, geology, botany, chemistry, medicine, etc. That evidence, and the approach to examining it, makes evolution science, not religion.

    I hope you can see the diffrentiation between evolution (science) and creationism (religion). If not, I’m not sure how else to explain it to you and suggest that you seek out science courses to learn more about it, if you are interested in the subject matter.

  163. Elisha

    as a 6th generation Texan, PLEASE let me assure all of y’all that this cretin’s ideas do NOT represent what Texas is truly about. I live in southeastern Ohio right now and have never seen as many religious wackos as I have seen here in the last 10 months. yes, there are evangelical extremists in Texas, as well as every other state in this country, but don’t let this guy influence your opinion of my home, my heart, my Texas.

  164. Well said, Todd W., I could not have stated the facts better myself.

    For anyone who needs an Introduction to Evolution, click on my name for the link to the Wikipedia article — that is if you can be bothered to educate yourself, instead of living a life of ignorant bliss!

  165. IVAN3MAN, lets not be forgetting the granddaddy of all the resources on cretinism/evilution, the Talk Origins site.

    http://www.talkorigins.org

  166. Im so glad we can have this discourses is a breath of fresh air. Todd I am sorry i misinterpret the pile of rocks as something small, but this is what you get when you write in a blog limits just like the limits in the variations of all kinds of animals. There is an amazing variety withing each and every kind but unfortunately there are limits most won’t argue about that.

    Folks I believe we kind of deviate it from the main topic. It seems that when creation wants a fair share in the classroom as evolution it gets ultimately shutdown completely. Why is that what is the fear from the Evolutionists. When I see this kinds of discourse, the one side in is on the attack instead of lets hear the other side. Now if any of you have any understanding of what liberty means then each and everyone that doesn’t want Id or creation to be thought alongside evolution doesn’t want liberty or doesn’t understand what freedom of speech means.

    If any of you say you are for freedom speech but doesn’t allow any of this to be teach in the classroom I am sorry but you are not. What kind of country you want your grandkids to be in. What will be leaving them with. I have no experience in a dictatorial country but I have read quite a bit of history. When there are limits to free speech then we will be in a society that has no tolerance of ideas none, folks that frightens me bad. The good thing is that folks like me doesn’t get mad when I hear about subjects like this I am all about hearing the other side I want to hear what you got to say. All I ask is that in the course of debate we respect each and everyone. I don’t have any verse biblically that I favor but there is a verse I like to share Love your brother as you love yourself, what a profound statement. I don’t hate you and I mean each of you. But I have to respect you and all I ask is that you do the same.

    Is it to much to ask for a share in the classroom and let the children decide, to do otherwise is to not allow our children decide for themselves. If you disagree with this I respect you Take care folks and if your here tomorrow am going to be as well take care.

  167. IVAN3MAN

    @ shane

    I was counting on you to mention the Talk Origins web-site, mate. :-)

  168. Ivan 3 man I may not be well verse but is that the best you can do, even Todd did not resort to the level of contempt those in the evolution side might have. There is good science thrown at by black cat but unfortunately he has mixed it with the religion of evolution. There is one thing I like to add that Todd said early see if you guys can pick it up. “According to evolutionary theory, speciation is a gradual process of changes building on one another over vast periods of time”. Where is this observable nowhere and I am ignorant. I do agree there have been changes within the kind as I stated above variations happen however there are limits you might get a little dog or a big one but it is still a dog. I have never seen a dog produce something other than a dog. An I already know that is not what evolution teaches, so what do you teach where is the science. am I crazy to say that the topic of Macro evolution was never though even though I heard it tens of times. I bring it up because I heard it in class even after high school.

    Now I have read extensively on Wikipedia about Evolution you said there is no Macro evolution then what is this: “When a species is separated into populations that are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection cause the accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of new species”. Emergence of new species you mean to tell me a different kind of animal. Excuse me but you guys just said macro evolution is no longer thought then what is going on. But the best this is great: “The similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence”. how is any of this observe, I’ll tell you what you tell me how all of this happen even if you were not there millions of years ago.

    I can go on but I am tire I’ll let go this for now is been a lively conversation take care.

  169. Angel,

    No one is suggesting the curtailing of free speech.
    No one is suggesting that kids can’t ask questions about ID/Creationism. That can obviously be dealt with appropriately.
    Creationism/ID is inappropriate for the science classroom. It is not science.
    Creationism should not be on the syllabus in a science class. Again, it is not science. It is religion. No amount of hand waving, or appeals to popularity, or demands for free speech will make it science. There is no other side. There is no controversy. There is no letting the kids decide for themselves – the classroom is not a democracy.

  170. TheWalruss

    Anyone interested in more sciencey research-paper type of reading material on the subject should visit:
    http://www.nature.com/evoeco/

    But make sure you’re prepared to put your thinking caps on!

  171. CoffeeffoC

    The simple solution is for the states to get out of the adoption process and leave it up to the local school districts.

  172. Todd W.

    @Angel

    On Macroevolution vs. microevolution. In biology, scientists do not distinguish between variations in one species and variations leading to speciation. It’s all evolution. Why? Because the dividing line between what is considered the same species and what is considered a separate species is never easy to tell. As I mentioned before, speciation is a long, gradual process, and there is no moment where one animal suddenly gives birth to something else.

    Apparently my explanation of how science can be done didn’t get through. Yes, speciation takes a long, long, long time and, for the most part, we have not been able to observe the process because, well, we weren’t there. What we can do, however, is examine the evidence of speciation. We can see gradual divergences in the fossil record and other sources. The recent E. coli experiment by Richard Lenski provides further evidence of this. In his experiment, lasting around 20 years and still going, he and his team observe the emergence of a new species of E. coli.

    You won’t see a dog suddenly give birth to something that is not a dog. What you will see is a dog give birth to something that is slightly different. That pup will grow up and give birth to something slightly different still. Over the course of generations, these differences build up until you have an animal in the end that is quite different than that original dog. Your example of dog breeds is just an early part of this process.

    What makes this so difficult to understand, is that there is no clear, objective, easily discernible criteria for what constitutes a “species”.

    Again, I suggest visiting science-based web sites that discuss evolution, take some classes, and, at least for a moment, suspend your belief that all animals were created just as-is and have not changed. Find out what, exactly, evolution really is saying and separate that out from what you think it is saying.

    Also, I had hoped that I’d shown that evolution is science, while creationism is religion. The science class deals with science. Lessons on religious beliefs belong in a comparative religions, humanities, psychology or sociology class, if it’s going to be in a class at all. But, really, the best place for such teaching is in a religious institution, such as a church.

  173. Texas Teacher

    I am a Texas Science teacher, and let me assure you that I will NOT teach Creationism in my classroom. I will continue to teach Evolution, and if I end up in court, so be it. I rarely use a textbook in my class anyway, and if they have religious ideas in them, I definitely won’t use them.

    And I’m not the only one! So, don’t forget the power of the individual… there are a lot of us who will take up this fight in the classroom (heck, I already take up the fight with parents every year).

  174. Darth Robo

    But ID is all about SCIENCE, nothing to do with religion, nope! Nisirreee-bob! It’s just them lying atheist Darwinists who say it is!

    Right?

    So many creationists, so many repetitions of the same old flawed nonsense…

  175. SLC

    Re Lou

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. Newton and anybody in his time were free to publically announce their atheism if they were atheists. It is a lie that Newton was a creationist because he was threatened with death. Newton was an avowed Christian who went to great lengths to research certain Biblical prophecies

    Mr. Lou is entirely incorrect in these assertions. Had Newton professed to being an atheist, he would have immediately lost his university position and quite possibly ended up in the slammer. Furthermore, Newton was not a Christian as he rejected the Trinity, considering it to be a fabrication of the Roman Catholic Church which he loathed. In fact, had it become known in his lifetime that he rejected the Trinity, he also would have lost his university position and certainly his position as head of the mint as such a rejection was considered almost as heretical as atheism.

  176. Todd W.

    @Texas Teacher

    Keep up the good work!

  177. IVAN3MAN

    @ Angel

    Although I did not refer to you specifically, the reason for my somewhat contemptuous overtones is because people like you — Evangelical Christians — insist on referring to the Theory of Evolution as a “religion”. Evolution is not a bloody religion! That is like equating the science of astronomy with bloody astrology!

    Most dictionaries define religion: 1. The expression of mankind’s belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creating or governing the universe. 2. Any personal or institutionalized system of beliefs of practices embodying such a belief or reverence. 3. The spiritual or emotional attitude of one who recognizes the existence of a superhuman power or powers. 4. Any objective pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. 5. The monastic way of life. 6. Sacred rites or practices.

    The Theory of Evolution, and science in general, is absolutely none of the above. Scientists (a) don’t believe in nor have reverence for a supernatural power, (b) don’t engage in practices embodying such beliefs, (c)don’t have any emotional attachment to the existence of a superhuman being, and (d) don’t pursue any objective with blind emotional zeal — when was the last time that you heard a scientist threaten to kill someone because of a disagreement with him?

    “According to evolutionary theory, speciation is a gradual process of changes building on one another over vast periods of time”. Where is this observable nowhere and I am ignorant. I do agree there have been changes within the kind as I stated above variations happen however there are limits you might get a little dog or a big one but it is still a dog. I have never seen a dog produce something other than a dog.

    That old chestnut! This is called argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) where the speaker, you Angel, asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in their knowledge as ‘evidence’ in favour of an alternative view of their choice; it is the same sort of argument from ignorance one gets from Dr(!) Kent Hovind.

    The process of evolution is not necessarily slow. Millions of years are not required to see evolution, nor even to see speciation in action. Indeed, it has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature, e.g., insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Speciation does not happen within a single organism: a chimpanzee cannot be born a chimpanzee and turn into a different species within its lifetime; a chimpanzee cannot give birth to a human. Evolution deals with changes to the gene pool of a population, which accumulate only over generations.

    Think of it this way: you invest one penny in a hypothetical bank that doubles your money at the end of each week, how much do you think you would have amassed after 52 weeks’ (one year)? The answer is. . . wait for it. . . wait for it. . . over 4.5^13 (45 million million) dollars/pounds/euros!

    Now I have read extensively on Wikipedia about Evolution you said there is no Macro evolution then what is this: “When a species is separated into populations that are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection cause the accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of new species”. Emergence of new species you mean to tell me a different kind of animal. Excuse me but you guys just said macro evolution is no longer thought then what is going on.

    It appears that you have read the article, but not understood it. The use of the term “macro-evolution” can be misleading and frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually brandished by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macro-evolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. Creationists may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species (“micro-evolution”), but they deny that one species can evolve into another (“macro-evolution”).

    These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macro-evolution has occurred in the past. The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution. Not surprisingly, evolutionary theory (including macro-evolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth’s biodiversity. Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community.

    Macro-evolution is thought of as the compounded effects of micro-evolution, resulting from environmental influences, which cause an animal population to adapt over a long period of time to its surroundings.

    But the best this is great: “The similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence”. how is any of this observe, I’ll tell you what you tell me how all of this happen even if you were not there millions of years ago.

    Evidence from Genetics

    Although it has only recently become available, the best evidence for common descent comes from the study of gene sequences. Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species, producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin’s original hypothesis of common descent. The simplest and most powerful evidence is provided by phylogenetic reconstruction. Such reconstructions, especially when done using slowly-evolving protein sequences, are often quite robust and can be used to reconstruct a great deal of the evolutionary history of modern organisms.

    Evidence from paleontology

    It is possible to find out how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil records in a chronological sequence. Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by layers of silt or mud on top of each other; thus, the resulting rock contains a series of horizontal layers, or strata. Each layer contains fossils which are typical for a specific time period during which they were made. The lowest strata contain the oldest rock and the earliest fossils, while the highest strata contain the youngest rock and more recent fossils.

    Evidence from comparative anatomy

    Comparative study of the anatomy of groups of animals or plants reveals that certain structural features are basically similar. For example, the basic structure of all flowers consists of sepals, petals, stigma, style and ovary; yet the size, colour, number of parts and specific structure are different for each individual species.

    A further aspect of comparative anatomy is the presence of vestigial organs. Organs that are smaller and simpler in structure than corresponding parts in the ancestral species are called vestigial organs. They are usually degenerated or underdeveloped. The existence of vestigial organs can be explained in terms of changes in the environment or modes of life of the species. Those organs are thought to be functional in the ancestral species but have now become unnecessary and non-functional, e.g., the vestigial hind limbs of whales.

    Evidence from geographical distribution

    Data about the presence or absence of species on various continents and islands (bio-geography) can provide evidence of common descent and shed light on patterns of speciation.

    Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry

    All known extant organisms are based on the same fundamental biochemical organisation: genetic information encoded as nucleic acid (DNA, or RNA for viruses), transcribed into RNA, then translated into proteins, i.e., polymers of amino acids, by highly conserved ribosomes. Perhaps most tellingly, the Genetic Code (the “translation table” between DNA and amino acids) is the same for almost every organism, meaning that a piece of DNA in a bacterium codes for the same amino acid as in a human cell. ATP is used as energy currency by all extant life.

    Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance

    The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria, like the spread of pesticide resistant forms of plants and insects is evidence for evolution of species, and of change within species. Thus the appearance of vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and the danger it poses to hospital patients is a direct result of evolution through natural selection.

    Evidence from studies of complex iteration

    Computer science allows the iteration of self changing complex systems to be studied, allowing a mathematical understanding of the nature of the processes behind evolution; providing evidence for the hidden causes of known evolutionary events.

    There, that’s the best that I can do!

  178. Todd W.

    @IVAN3MAN

    That’s all you could come up with? Weak. :P

    Lots of nice detail in there. Far more than I would have come up with in a short span of time on my own. The only thing I would say, though, is that there are some scientists who are also religious (in that they believe in some sort of god). Only caveat to that is that generally speaking, the good scientists maintain a scientific approach to their research and do not invoke a deity to explain their observations. For them, religion is not used to explain the natural world around them. Rather, it is a source of spiritual comfort and support, as well as some form of moral compass.

    I understand what you’re saying, but I know someone is going to come along with examples of scientists who are Christian/some other religion. Just wanted to clarify.

  179. @IVAN3MAN,

    Ahem,
    *puts on creationist hat*
    Oh yeah?!?!?!?

  180. kuhnigget

    @ IVAN the Great:

    Yeah, but, you know, they should teach the controversy and let the kids decide!

    Buwah ha ha ha ha haaaa!

  181. IVAN3MAN

    @ Todd W.

    Thanks. I am somewhat surprised that I managed to write all that — while endeavouring to be concise! — after studying some facts on the subject in the early hours of the morning. Normally, I am a lazy bastard and a man of few words that I can’t be bothered, but when someone or something winds me up, I just have to respond! :P

  182. Todd W.

    @IVAN3MAN

    I’m actually surprised you haven’t posted a pic yet. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Surely you can find one that sums up your thoughts? :)

  183. IVAN3MAN

    @ shane & @ kuhnigget

    Thank you, fans! :)

  184. IVAN3MAN

    @ Todd W.

    Exactly, a picture is worth a thousand words and I did try to post an amusing picture on this thread on 27-Oct-2008 (post #5), as I had mentioned above, but his Lordship, Phil Plait, deleted it while it was still “awaiting moderation”. I think his sense of humour software was “not responding” that day! :roll:

  185. Todd W.

    @IVAN3MAN

    Better luck next time.

  186. Darth Robo

    In response to IVAN3MAN’s detailed post, I offer a paraphrase of Angel’s last post as a rebuttal:

    “You evolutionists are all mean!”

    “Evolution(ism) is a religion!”

    “Animals only reproduce after their “kind” – a dog won’t produce a non-dog!”

    “There’s no macro, only micro! (Probably cuz of the magic species barrier) ”

    “How do YOU know? Where you THERE?”

    Of course when you add this up, it all means “evolution is wrong therefore GODDIDIT!”

    Of course NONE of these creationist “arguments” have been used before, surely… he said he had more…

  187. Stafford Gordon

    No one was there when the mountains formed and the continents shifted; but it happened, it is still going on and it is all part of evolution.

    The task for evolutionists is to dis-prove it.

  188. Stafford Gordon

    This is to replace my last posting.

    No one was there when the mountains formed and the continents shifted; but it happened, it is still going on and is all part of evolution.

    The task of the CREATIONISTS is to dis-prove it.

  189. Anjin

    Rational Republicans need to help stamp out this silliness.

    For all the Texas haters out there, this is an advance warning of what four individuals are trying to sneak past the rest of us. There is still time to cut this off before it becomes a lawsuit. You can’t condemn the whole state just yet. If there’s a big uprising of support for the Creationists, then you can call us hicks.

    But I predict there will instead be a big backlash against these nominations. Of course, I don’t expect the Texas slanderers to give us any credit for that. . .

    Call your local representatives and demand they vote against the Creationists.

    If you’re a Democrat, you can support whatever Godless Heathen is running for your team.

    If you’re a Republican, you can also call up the local Republican HQ and demand an explanation for this. All four of the board members who nominated the Creationists are Republicans. How can we even gain respect when we have people like this in our party? How much longer are we going to let Christian Theology dominate our party, to the detriment of what we know is right?

    We’re right on so much, except when the Christian “right” tries to claim the moral high ground. This can be the moment when we take back the party of reason and logic from the religious proselytizers.

  190. No matter what is said this problem will never be resolved. The fairy tale of evolution is a religion anyway you cut it. The Science of today is being muddled with this fairy tale.

    The bottomline is this one day all of us are going to die that is inevitable it happens, where do we go from this point is totally up to you. I f you believe in evolution you will be recycled and forgotten. If you believe in creation you will face the creator of all live and the universe.

    The idea of a creator doesn’t sit well with evolutionists because they don’t want someone telling them what to do. If there is a creator that means he owns it and there are rules like thou shall not bear false witness don’t lie, an even with such a good thing you guys won’t budge. No sir you want to do whatever it feels good no matter if it hurts you or your neighbor.

    The truth you don’t like but is there wheter you like it or not one day you will die and will have to give an accounting on everything you thought, said, and done. The choice is yours

  191. kuhnigget

    Yahweh mad! Yahweh stomp! Gaaarrrrrr! Nasty evilutionists!

  192. José

    The idea of a creator doesn’t sit well with evolutionists because they don’t want someone telling them what to do.

    I don’t care if there’s a creator. What I don’t want is ignorant humans telling me what to do in the name of that abomination I’ve read about in the Old Testament.

  193. José

    If there is a creator that means he owns it and there are rules like thou shall not bear false witness don’t lie

    If the only reason you follow these rules is because they’re written in the Bible, you’re a sociopath.

  194. IVAN3MAN

    @ Angel

    Dark Biblical Quotes

    Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

    Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

    Isaiah 13:15-16 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
    Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

    Isaiah 13:18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

    Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
    But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

    1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
    Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

    Deuteronomy 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.

    Deuteronomy 3:6-7 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.
    But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves.

    2 Kings 6:28-29 And the king said unto her, “What aileth thee?” And she answered, “This woman said unto me, ‘Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow’.
    “So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.”

    2 Kings 18:27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, “Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?”

    Judges 19:22-29 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.” (Yes, in the biblical sense. ;-) )
    And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, “Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
    “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.”
    But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
    Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light.
    And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
    And he said unto her, “Up, and let us be going.” But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.
    And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.

    —————————————————————————-

    I will wager that they never taught you all that in Sunday school. I ask you, Angel, how can Christians carry that bloody Bible around and swear by its contents as “the word of God”, but have absolutely no bloody idea what it says? Amazing! :roll:

  195. IVAN3MAN

    ADDENDUM: The biblical quotes above are quoted verbatim from the King James Version Bible.

  196. kuhnigget

    Oh, sure, Ivan…take it all out of context!

    Ha.

    Bwah-ha.

    BUH-WAAAA-HA HA HA HA HAAAAA!!

  197. Jose How are you man, let me get this straight So Lying, cheating adultery and murder are good. Then if anyone does the opposite is a sociopath. Test have shown that when you do good and unto others that is an upstanding person, people actually want to be surrounded by such attributes. the opposite type, no one wants to be around that person.

  198. Todd W.

    @Angel

    Jose is not saying that lying, cheating, adultery or murder are good. He is saying that if someone does not do those things only because of what the Bible says, then that person is a sociopath. A person should not do those things whether they are written in a book or not.

    If you believe in evolution you will be recycled and forgotten. If you believe in creation you will face the creator of all live and the universe.

    Let me correct that for you. If you believe in evolution [and there is no god], you will be recycled and forgotten. If you believe in creation [and there is no god], you will also be recycled and forgotten. If you believe in evolution [and there is a god], then you will either be cast into a lake of fire or simply dwell outside the presence of god, depending on which interpretation of “hell” is right. If you believe in creation [and there is a god], you will face the creator of all life and the universe.

  199. José

    @Todd W.
    You forgot two.

    -If there is a God, and he only cares about whether you’ve led a just life or not, some people who believe in evolution will get into heaven, as well as some people who don’t.

    -If there is a God, and he only cares about whether you believe in him or not, then screw him. He’s a pretty crappy God, and heaven is probably like an overcrowded Chuck E Cheese’s anyway (In other words, just like Hell).

  200. José

    @Angel
    You seem to think that because I don’t believe in God, there’s nothing keeping me from stealing, cheating on my wife, and murdering, but that’s not the case. Morality doesn’t come from the Bible. You might be surprised to know this, but there are many people (myself included) who think that folks like you, who believe the Bible is the word of God, are far more likely to engage in stealing, adultery, and murder than someone who doesn’t believe the Bible is the word of God.

  201. Angel

    Hey Jose I don’t know what you believe nor I care but you wrote what you wrote so I am taking with a grain of salt stop making this so personal man.

    Every one lies not just christians my dear Jose, you and me and everyone else so don’t accuse of the impossible ok Pal. We have cheated, stolen, committed adultery, and murder all of us are guilty of this crimes all of us. Those that take the word of God as his infallible truth and obey it will have eternal peace and joy forever, while those that choose to refuse it well you know deep down what is going to happen you all feel that worry. If there is one chance that the word is true and you don’t take it at face value then you choose your own destiny, while I already choose mine. By the way I never said to you Jose you don’t believe in God, I was replying to back to your comments stop the anger brother I am not angry at you I worry about my fellow brothers and sisters. Why because there is so much confussion out there man is all insane. I mean you have the Catholics(man made religion mixed with the faith of Christianity), Muslims, Buddhist, Evolutionist(Man made religions) that were created to confuse and lead men away from the truth and make them feel good if you do this simple things, excuse me wrong answer too easy to get away from our crimes, that is not justice no sir.

    God bless you all and you may find peace.

    Well the Bible talks and prophesied in the last days there will be scoffers(people that don’t like what the bible says) there here and I am talking to a few in this blog right now. Is okay scoff at it I don’t care that is more fuel to your fire not mine.

  202. Angel

    Ivan I have to split this the site won’t let me do it all at once ok brother

    Oh my good friend Ivan, why are you taking the verses out of context.

    First Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
    First if you read the whole chapter you realize that it is a song an it relates to a time when the true Israelites where in captivity in the land of Babylon, i tell you what I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes since they suffer greatly at the hands of their captors. Keep in mind the times were far more different in those days. So if I was captive I would do anything in my power to get out of that situation. But the verse doesn’t imply let me grab my children and mash them against rocks. It simply implies let sing a song and describe how Baylonians treat their own people is not suggesting nor commanding to murder your own kids here is the whole chapter.
    Psalms 137 1 By the rivers of Babylon,
    There we sat down, yea, we wept
    When we remembered Zion.
    2 We hung our harps
    Upon the willows in the midst of it.
    3 For there those who carried us away captive asked of us a song,
    And those who plundered us requested mirth,
    Saying, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
    4 How shall we sing the LORD’s song
    In a foreign land?
    5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
    Let my right hand forget its skill!
    6 If I do not remember you,
    Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth—
    If I do not exalt Jerusalem
    Above my chief joy.
    7 Remember, O LORD, against the sons of Edom
    The day of Jerusalem,
    Who said, “Raze it, raze it,
    To its very foundation!”
    8 O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed,
    Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!
    9 Happy the one who takes and dashes
    Your little ones against the rock!

  203. Angel

    Next verse taken out of context by Ivan

    Ok moving along Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
    Rough verse I give you that but again you just pick and choose and did not read the whole chapter let me help you out Ivan. If you read it all you will find out that in that time The Creator and Master of this Universe is a Jealous and Firm God who blesses and punish the people of Israel for their disobedience it was tough times back then. In Exodus chapter 20:3-6 3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.
    4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. There you go Ivan they were warn before so why are you calling this a black verse I don’t think so. Hosea CH 13 says 1 When Ephraim spoke, trembling,
    He exalted himself in Israel;
    But when he offended through Baal worship, he died.
    2 Now they sin more and more,
    And have made for themselves molded images,
    Idols of their silver, according to their skill;
    All of it is the work of craftsmen.
    They say of them,

    “ Let the men who sacrifice[a] kiss the calves!”
    3 Therefore they shall be like the morning cloud
    And like the early dew that passes away,
    Like chaff blown off from a threshing floor
    And like smoke from a chimney.
    4 “ Yet I am the LORD your God
    Ever since the land of Egypt,
    And you shall know no God but Me;
    For there is no savior besides Me.
    5 I knew you in the wilderness,
    In the land of great drought.
    6 When they had pasture, they were filled;
    They were filled and their heart was exalted;
    Therefore they forgot Me.
    7 “ So I will be to them like a lion;
    Like a leopard by the road I will lurk;
    8 I will meet them like a bear deprived of her cubs;
    I will tear open their rib cage,
    And there I will devour them like a lion.
    The wild beast shall tear them.
    9 “ O Israel, you are destroyed,[b]
    But your help[c]is from Me.
    10 I will be your King;[d]
    Where is any other,
    That he may save you in all your cities?
    And your judges to whom you said,

    ‘ Give me a king and princes’?
    11 I gave you a king in My anger,
    And took him away in My wrath.
    12 “ The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up;
    His sin is stored up.
    13 The sorrows of a woman in childbirth shall come upon him.
    He is an unwise son,
    For he should not stay long where children are born.
    14 “ I will ransom them from the power of the grave;[e]
    I will redeem them from death.
    O Death, I will be your plagues![f]
    O Grave,[g] I will be your destruction![h]
    Pity is hidden from My eyes.”
    15 Though he is fruitful among his brethren,
    An east wind shall come;
    The wind of the LORD shall come up from the wilderness.
    Then his spring shall become dry,
    And his fountain shall be dried up.
    He shall plunder the treasury of every desirable prize.
    16 Samaria is held guilty,[i]
    For she has rebelled against her God.
    They shall fall by the sword,
    Their infants shall be dashed in pieces,
    And their women with child ripped open. Do you understand that You obey me because I created this place and the universe therefore I own it, I gave you live and limits and you just going to be ungrateful and rebel against me wrong answer. I don’t care if you grasp that or not I don’t care if those verses frighten you or not, whether you believe that or not, What you must realize that is not going to happen again stop scaring man.

  204. Angel

    Next verse Isaiah 13:15-16 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
    Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. Strong words no doubt but unfortunately for you there is a whole chapter that explain why are these actions are taking place, here it goes reading is amazing Ivan check this out:

    Isaiah 13

    Proclamation Against Babylon

    1 The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.
    2 “ Lift up a banner on the high mountain,
    Raise your voice to them;
    Wave your hand, that they may enter the gates of the nobles.
    3 I have commanded My sanctified ones;
    I have also called My mighty ones for My anger—
    Those who rejoice in My exaltation.”
    4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains,
    Like that of many people!
    A tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together!
    The LORD of hosts musters
    The army for battle.
    5 They come from a far country,
    From the end of heaven—
    The LORD and His weapons of indignation,
    To destroy the whole land.
    6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is at hand!
    It will come as destruction from the Almighty.
    7 Therefore all hands will be limp,
    Every man’s heart will melt,
    8 And they will be afraid.
    Pangs and sorrows will take hold of them;
    They will be in pain as a woman in childbirth;
    They will be amazed at one another;
    Their faces will be like flames.
    9 Behold, the day of the LORD comes,
    Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger,
    To lay the land desolate;
    And He will destroy its sinners from it.
    10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations
    Will not give their light;
    The sun will be darkened in its going forth,
    And the moon will not cause its light to shine.
    11 “ I will punish the world for its evil,
    And the wicked for their iniquity;
    I will halt the arrogance of the proud,
    And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
    12 I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold,
    A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir.
    13 Therefore I will shake the heavens,
    And the earth will move out of her place,
    In the wrath of the LORD of hosts
    And in the day of His fierce anger.
    14 It shall be as the hunted gazelle,
    And as a sheep that no man takes up;
    Every man will turn to his own people,
    And everyone will flee to his own land.
    15 Everyone who is found will be thrust through,
    And everyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
    16 Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
    Their houses will be plundered
    And their wives ravished.
    17 “ Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them,
    Who will not regard silver;
    And as for gold, they will not delight in it.
    18 Also their bows will dash the young men to pieces,
    And they will have no pity on the fruit of the womb;
    Their eye will not spare children.
    19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms,
    The beauty of the Chaldeans’ pride,
    Will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
    20 It will never be inhabited,
    Nor will it be settled from generation to generation;
    Nor will the Arabian pitch tents there,
    Nor will the shepherds make their sheepfolds there.
    21 But wild beasts of the desert will lie there,
    And their houses will be full of owls;
    Ostriches will dwell there,
    And wild goats will caper there.
    22 The hyenas will howl in their citadels,
    And jackals in their pleasant palaces.
    Her time is near to come,
    And her days will not be prolonged.”

    If you read verse 11 it says 11 “ I will punish the world for its evil,
    And the wicked for their iniquity;
    I will halt the arrogance of the proud,
    And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

    We have a non material thing call sense of justice, when someone does you wrong what ever it is steals, hurts or murder some one in your family you Ivan not only will want justice you will demand it. The same applies above; this goes to the time when the israelite were held into captivity for more than 70 years and after King Nebuchadnezzar said he will release the Israelites he did not kept the end of the bargain. Instead a new Kingdom arose from the East the Medo-Persians remember those guys(Darius, Xerxes). Well this guys took over and brought wrath and sorrow to the Babylonians. That is what the bible is referring in this chapter. It is God’s Wrath by predicting what would happen to the Babylonians, through the Persians. It was rough times back then. Read history it helps. I don’t mean to skip the next verse is all included ok.

  205. Angel

    Next 1 Samuel 15:2-3 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
    Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

    This is the whole chapter

    1 Samuel 15

    Saul Spares King Agag

    1 Samuel also said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the LORD. 2 Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
    4 So Saul gathered the people together and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah. 5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and lay in wait in the valley.

    Not so dark verse wouldn’t you say Ivan

    6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart, get down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.

    7 And Saul attacked the Amalekites, from Havilah all the way to Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 He also took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.
    Saul Rejected as King

    10 Now the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11 “I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.” And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the LORD all night. 12 So when Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul, it was told Samuel, saying, “Saul went to Carmel, and indeed, he set up a monument for himself; and he has gone on around, passed by, and gone down to Gilgal.” 13 Then Samuel went to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed are you of the LORD! I have performed the commandment of the LORD.”
    14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?”
    15 And Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the LORD your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.”
    16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Be quiet! And I will tell you what the LORD said to me last night.”
    And he said to him, “Speak on.”
    17 So Samuel said, “When you were little in your own eyes, were you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the LORD anoint you king over Israel? 18 Now the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the LORD?”
    20 And Saul said to Samuel, “But I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 21 But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal.”
    22 So Samuel said:

    “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
    As in obeying the voice of the LORD?
    Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
    And to heed than the fat of rams.

    23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
    And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
    Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
    He also has rejected you from being king.”
    24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD.”
    26 But Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel.”
    27 And as Samuel turned around to go away, Saul seized the edge of his robe, and it tore. 28 So Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.”
    30 Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD your God.” 31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul worshiped the LORD.
    32 Then Samuel said, “Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me.” So Agag came to him cautiously.
    And Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.”
    33 But Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.
    34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house at Gibeah of Saul. 35 And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.

    Here is the reason why The Amelekites where destroy

    Exodus 17:8

    The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim.

    For attacking at that time they defeated Amelekites however God need it to test Saul in order for Saul to be King of Israel, although I wouldn’t agree to destroy the Amelekites however the Israelites were mortal enemies so what are you going to do.

  206. Angel

    Deuteronomy 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.

    Ok here is the whole Chapter Remember yes the brutal times but there were reasons

    Deuteronomy 2
    The Desert Years
    1 “Then we turned and journeyed into the wilderness of the Way of the Red Sea, as the LORD spoke to me, and we skirted Mount Seir for many days.
    2 “And the LORD spoke to me, saying: 3 ‘You have skirted this mountain long enough; turn northward. 4 And command the people, saying, “You are about to pass through the territory of your brethren, the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. Therefore watch yourselves carefully. 5 Do not meddle with them, for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much as one footstep, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession. 6 You shall buy food from them with money, that you may eat; and you shall also buy water from them with money, that you may drink.
    7 “For the LORD your God has blessed you in all the work of your hand. He knows your trudging through this great wilderness. These forty years the LORD your God has been with you; you have lacked nothing.”’
    8 “And when we passed beyond our brethren, the descendants of Esau who dwell in Seir, away from the road of the plain, away from Elath and Ezion Geber, we turned and passed by way of the Wilderness of Moab. 9 Then the LORD said to me, ‘Do not harass Moab, nor contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land as a possession, because I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.’”
    10 (The Emim had dwelt there in times past, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. 11 They were also regarded as giants,[a] like the Anakim, but the Moabites call them Emim. 12 The Horites formerly dwelt in Seir, but the descendants of Esau dispossessed them and destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their place, just as Israel did to the land of their possession which the LORD gave them.)
    13 “‘Now rise and cross over the Valley of the Zered.’ So we crossed over the Valley of the Zered. 14 And the time we took to come from Kadesh Barnea until we crossed over the Valley of the Zered was thirty-eight years, until all the generation of the men of war was consumed from the midst of the camp, just as the LORD had sworn to them. 15 For indeed the hand of the LORD was against them, to destroy them from the midst of the camp until they were consumed.
    16 “So it was, when all the men of war had finally perished from among the people, 17 that the LORD spoke to me, saying: 18 ‘This day you are to cross over at Ar, the boundary of Moab. 19 And when you come near the people of Ammon, do not harass them or meddle with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the descendants of Lot as a possession.’”
    20 (That was also regarded as a land of giants;[b] giants formerly dwelt there. But the Ammonites call them Zamzummim, 21 a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. But the LORD destroyed them before them, and they dispossessed them and dwelt in their place, 22 just as He had done for the descendants of Esau, who dwelt in Seir, when He destroyed the Horites from before them. They dispossessed them and dwelt in their place, even to this day. 23 And the Avim, who dwelt in villages as far as Gaza—the Caphtorim, who came from Caphtor, destroyed them and dwelt in their place.)
    24 “‘Rise, take your journey, and cross over the River Arnon. Look, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land. Begin to possess it, and engage him in battle. 25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the nations under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you, and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.’

    And this why

    King Sihon Defeated

    26 “And I sent messengers from the Wilderness of Kedemoth to Sihon king of Heshbon, with words of peace, saying, 27 ‘Let me pass through your land; I will keep strictly to the road, and I will turn neither to the right nor to the left. 28 You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink; only let me pass through on foot, 29 just as the descendants of Esau who dwell in Seir and the Moabites who dwell in Ar did for me, until I cross the Jordan to the land which the LORD our God is giving us.’
    30 “But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass through, for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into your hand, as it is this day.
    31 “And the LORD said to me, ‘See, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to possess it, that you may inherit his land.’ 32 Then Sihon and all his people came out against us to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him over to us; so we defeated him, his sons, and all his people. 34 We took all his cities at that time, and we utterly destroyed the men, women, and little ones of every city; we left none remaining. 35 We took only the livestock as plunder for ourselves, with the spoil of the cities which we took. 36 From Aroer, which is on the bank of the River Arnon, and from the city that is in the ravine, as far as Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us; the LORD our God delivered all to us. 37 Only you did not go near the land of the people of Ammon—anywhere along the River Jabbok, or to the cities of the mountains, or wherever the LORD our God had forbidden us.

  207. Angel

    Another one Ivan

    Deuteronomy 3:6-7 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.
    But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves.

    I guess you forgot to mention why this happen, that is why I am here to help you out

    Deuteronomy 3:1-11
    King Og Defeated
    1 “Then we turned and went up the road to Bashan; and Og king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. 2 And the LORD said to me, ‘Do not fear him, for I have delivered him and all his people and his land into your hand; you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt at Heshbon.’
    3 “So the LORD our God also delivered into our hands Og king of Bashan, with all his people, and we attacked him until he had no survivors remaining. 4 And we took all his cities at that time; there was not a city which we did not take from them: sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fortified with high walls, gates, and bars, besides a great many rural towns. 6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every city. 7 But all the livestock and the spoil of the cities we took as booty for ourselves.
    8 “And at that time we took the land from the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were on this side of the Jordan, from the River Arnon to Mount Hermon 9 (the Sidonians call Hermon Sirion, and the Amorites call it Senir), 10 all the cities of the plain, all Gilead, and all Bashan, as far as Salcah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan.
    11 “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the giants.[a] Indeed his bedstead was an iron bedstead. (Is it not in Rabbah of the people of Ammon?) Nine cubits is its length and four cubits its width, according to the standard cubit.

    That’s why they were being attacked

  208. Angel

    2 Kings 18:27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, “Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?”

    I hate to repeat myself but read the whole chapter my friend ok here it is

    2 Kings 18
    Hezekiah Reigns in Judah
    1 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea the son of Elah, king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Abi[a] the daughter of Zechariah. 3 And he did what was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father David had done.
    4 He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image[b] and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.[c] 5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him. 6 For he held fast to the LORD; he did not depart from following Him, but kept His commandments, which the LORD had commanded Moses. 7 The LORD was with him; he prospered wherever he went. And he rebelled against the king of Assyria and did not serve him. 8 He subdued the Philistines, as far as Gaza and its territory, from watchtower to fortified city.
    9 Now it came to pass in the fourth year of King Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea the son of Elah, king of Israel, that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria and besieged it. 10 And at the end of three years they took it. In the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is, the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken. 11 Then the king of Assyria carried Israel away captive to Assyria, and put them in Halah and by the Habor, the River of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes, 12 because they did not obey the voice of the LORD their God, but transgressed His covenant and all that Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded; and they would neither hear nor do them.
    13 And in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them. 14 Then Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; turn away from me; whatever you impose on me I will pay.” And the king of Assyria assessed Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. 15 So Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD and in the treasuries of the king’s house. 16 At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the LORD, and from the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria.
    Sennacherib Boasts Against the LORD

    17 Then the king of Assyria sent the Tartan,[d]the Rabsaris,[e]and the Rabshakeh[f] from Lachish, with a great army against Jerusalem, to King Hezekiah. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. When they had come up, they went and stood by the aqueduct from the upper pool, which was on the highway to the Fuller’s Field. 18 And when they had called to the king, Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph, the recorder, came out to them. 19 Then the Rabshakeh said to them, “Say now to Hezekiah, ‘Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria: “What confidence is this in which you trust? 20 You speak of having plans and power for war; but they are mere words. And in whom do you trust, that you rebel against me? 21 Now look! You are trusting in the staff of this broken reed, Egypt, on which if a man leans, it will go into his hand and pierce it. So is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust in him. 22 But if you say to me, ‘We trust in the LORD our God,’ is it not He whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah has taken away, and said to Judah and Jerusalem, ‘You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem’?”’ 23 Now therefore, I urge you, give a pledge to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give you two thousand horses—if you are able on your part to put riders on them! 24 How then will you repel one captain of the least of my master’s servants, and put your trust in Egypt for chariots and horsemen? 25 Have I now come up without the LORD against this place to destroy it? The LORD said to me, ‘Go up against this land, and destroy it.’”
    26 Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah said to the Rabshakeh, “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; and do not speak to us in Hebrew[g] in the hearing of the people who are on the wall.”
    27 But the Rabshakeh said to them, “Has my master sent me to your master and to you to speak these words, and not to the men who sit on the wall, who will eat and drink their own waste with you?”
    28 Then the Rabshakeh stood and called out with a loud voice in Hebrew, and spoke, saying, “Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria! 29 Thus says the king: ‘Do not let Hezekiah deceive you, for he shall not be able to deliver you from his hand; 30 nor let Hezekiah make you trust in the LORD, saying, “The LORD will surely deliver us; this city shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.”’ 31 Do not listen to Hezekiah; for thus says the king of Assyria: ‘Make peace with me by a present and come out to me; and every one of you eat from his own vine and every one from his own fig tree, and every one of you drink the waters of his own cistern; 32 until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive groves and honey, that you may live and not die. But do not listen to Hezekiah, lest he persuade you, saying, “The LORD will deliver us.” 33 Has any of the gods of the nations at all delivered its land from the hand of the king of Assyria? 34 Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim and Hena and Ivah? Indeed, have they delivered Samaria from my hand? 35 Who among all the gods of the lands have delivered their countries from my hand, that the LORD should deliver Jerusalem from my hand?’”
    36 But the people held their peace and answered him not a word; for the king’s commandment was, “Do not answer him.” 37 Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph, the recorder, came to Hezekiah with their clothes torn, and told him the words of the Rabshakeh.

    and that is the reason as to why the parable was said you understand what a parable is.

  209. Angel

    And last but not least

    Judges 19:22-29 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.” (Yes, in the biblical sense. ;-) )
    And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, “Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
    “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.”
    But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
    Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light.
    And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
    And he said unto her, “Up, and let us be going.” But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.
    And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.

    Judges 19:22-29 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.” (Yes, in the biblical sense. ;-) )
    And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, “Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
    “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.”
    But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
    Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light.
    And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
    And he said unto her, “Up, and let us be going.” But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.
    And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.

    And here’s why that happen just helping you out

    Judges 19
    The Levite’s Concubine
    1 And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite staying in the remote mountains of Ephraim. He took for himself a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 But his concubine played the harlot against him, and went away from him to her father’s house at Bethlehem in Judah, and was there four whole months. 3 Then her husband arose and went after her, to speak kindly to her and bring her back, having his servant and a couple of donkeys with him. So she brought him into her father’s house; and when the father of the young woman saw him, he was glad to meet him. 4 Now his father-in-law, the young woman’s father, detained him; and he stayed with him three days. So they ate and drank and lodged there.
    5 Then it came to pass on the fourth day that they arose early in the morning, and he stood to depart; but the young woman’s father said to his son-in-law, “Refresh your heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.”
    6 So they sat down, and the two of them ate and drank together. Then the young woman’s father said to the man, “Please be content to stay all night, and let your heart be merry.” 7 And when the man stood to depart, his father-in-law urged him; so he lodged there again. 8 Then he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart, but the young woman’s father said, “Please refresh your heart.” So they delayed until afternoon; and both of them ate.
    9 And when the man stood to depart—he and his concubine and his servant—his father-in-law, the young woman’s father, said to him, “Look, the day is now drawing toward evening; please spend the night. See, the day is coming to an end; lodge here, that your heart may be merry. Tomorrow go your way early, so that you may get home.”
    10 However, the man was not willing to spend that night; so he rose and departed, and came opposite Jebus (that is, Jerusalem). With him were the two saddled donkeys; his concubine was also with him. 11 They were near Jebus, and the day was far spent; and the servant said to his master, “Come, please, and let us turn aside into this city of the Jebusites and lodge in it.”
    12 But his master said to him, “We will not turn aside here into a city of foreigners, who are not of the children of Israel; we will go on to Gibeah.” 13 So he said to his servant, “Come, let us draw near to one of these places, and spend the night in Gibeah or in Ramah.” 14 And they passed by and went their way; and the sun went down on them near Gibeah, which belongs to Benjamin. 15 They turned aside there to go in to lodge in Gibeah. And when he went in, he sat down in the open square of the city, for no one would take them into his house to spend the night.
    16 Just then an old man came in from his work in the field at evening, who also was from the mountains of Ephraim; he was staying in Gibeah, whereas the men of the place were Benjamites. 17 And when he raised his eyes, he saw the traveler in the open square of the city; and the old man said, “Where are you going, and where do you come from?”
    18 So he said to him, “We are passing from Bethlehem in Judah toward the remote mountains of Ephraim; I am from there. I went to Bethlehem in Judah; now I am going to the house of the LORD. But there is no one who will take me into his house, 19 although we have both straw and fodder for our donkeys, and bread and wine for myself, for your female servant, and for the young man who is with your servant; there is no lack of anything.”
    20 And the old man said, “Peace be with you! However, let all your needs be my responsibility; only do not spend the night in the open square.” 21 So he brought him into his house, and gave fodder to the donkeys. And they washed their feet, and ate and drank.
    Gibeah’s Crime

    22 As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, perverted men,[a] surrounded the house and beat on the door. They spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring out the man who came to your house, that we may know him carnally!”
    23 But the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brethren! I beg you, do not act so wickedly! Seeing this man has come into my house, do not commit this outrage. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter and the man’s[b] concubine; let me bring them out now. Humble them, and do with them as you please; but to this man do not do such a vile thing!” 25 But the men would not heed him. So the man took his concubine and brought her out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until morning; and when the day began to break, they let her go.
    26 Then the woman came as the day was dawning, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master was, till it was light.
    27 When her master arose in the morning, and opened the doors of the house and went out to go his way, there was his concubine, fallen at the door of the house with her hands on the threshold. 28 And he said to her, “Get up and let us be going.” But there was no answer. So the man lifted her onto the donkey; and the man got up and went to his place.
    29 When he entered his house he took a knife, laid hold of his concubine, and divided her into twelve pieces, limb by limb,[c] and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. 30 And so it was that all who saw it said, “No such deed has been done or seen from the day that the children of Israel came up from the land of Egypt until this day. Consider it, confer, and speak up!”

    I will say you are right on Sunday school as a child and young adult I never heard of such a thing but as I was getting older and wanting to know more I learn of this things. They were brutal there is no doubt but so were the romans, the Greeks, The Huns, The Mongols, The Chinese and so on. This was the way of the Ancient world. The Israelites were different because they were laying the groundwork to all non believers such as evolutionist and non Christians. There was a beggining and there will be an end.

    However I prefer the end to be positive instead of negative. When we teach our children one side of the spectrum and not the other, we are not educating them we are indoctrinating them. That is why I must ask you where do we get our rights, if you said man you are wrong because man including u and me are inherently evil. Therefore a creator which his word have not changed and says don’t lie, don’t commit adultery, you have a problem with that. I don’t care what you believe you believe what you want, but neither you nor me can impose our believes on others. However if we both showed them then we must let them make up their own mind Ivan that is what I want for the children why can you. Where is the freedom loving in your arguments nowhere, but my message is simple let the other side have a voice and let those who are receiving the message to make a choice.

  210. Could you please just link to a bible online or something and save us the pain of having to scroll past your inane posts? Really, all your wall of text is doing is digging yourself further into a hole called delusion.

    While I (I guess) admire your skeptical approach, your sourcing is horrid. Your logical trails are fraught with mistakes, and your conclusions are wholly unsupportable.

  211. José

    @Angel
    Hey Jose I don’t know what you believe nor I care but you wrote what you wrote so I am taking with a grain of salt stop making this so personal man.

    I honestly don’t know what you’re responding to sometimes. I don’t remember making this personal, at least not as personal as you’ve made it. I do recall you saying people who believe in evolution will be recycled and forgotten. I’m not sure what that means, but it seems pretty personal to me. You also said “the idea of a creator doesn’t sit well with evolutionists because they don’t want someone telling them what to do”, which I refuted because it’s false and silly.

    Every one lies not just christians my dear Jose, you and me and everyone else so don’t accuse of the impossible ok Pal. We have cheated, stolen, committed adultery, and murder all of us are guilty of this crimes all of us.

    All I said was that I believe people who believe the Bible is the word of God are more likely to do these things. I didn’t say or imply that only Christians do them.

    Is it personal if I tell you you’re not really making sense any more? Are you sure you’re not a little angry?

  212. Angel

    The subject: Texas: falling over the cliff of DOOM

    This tittle is so right but unfortunately as long as evolution is the predominant religion class in our schools our children will continue to be indoctrinated and not given the chance to alternative theories. Let’s face it folks we are attacking one another and moving away from the subject at hand. You will not agree with me just as much as I. I will continue to pray that both evolution and Creation are thought side by side so that our children make a choice on their own. Unfortunately that is not going to happen since we all have been deceive since our birth.

    Those of you that have a birth certificate well bad news the original copy is at the hands of Dept. Commerce what you have is a copy, the Doctor lie to your parents. Blacks Law Dictionary translates Commerce as one of three Sexual Intercourse, Interesting. You all have a SSN right what for, well if you are born in this country you don’t need one but you are not a 1st class citizen oh no, you are a 2nd class citizen where your rights come from the government oh no, oh yes. Since the inception of the Dept. of Education in the 60’s our great education went from 1st place all of way down to 24th place out of 30th places from major industrialized 1st world countries. Why do each and everyone of you need to pay Income Tax when none of you are federal employees.

    Why are we seeing many people being arrested for exercising their God given right to free speech. Why are teenagers riding on skateboards being arrested for riding on the darn things. Why are old people being tased, pregnant, children. Why do we need tasers.
    Why are reporters, lawyers, and people being arrested for disagreeing for whatever the hell.

    Folks I am afraid that each and everyone of us are already slaves to a system of laws that were inserted by men, that undermine the Constitution, your liberties and my liberties.

    Call me paranoid, call me conspiracy theorist, call me nuts I don’t care.

    The reason why I said the above is simple if we all had follow what our founders set in stone as the Law of the land we would not be in the situation we are in. The Constitution is mainly derived from the Bible.

    Our ignorance we’ll be our undoing, The bible says Psalm 37:11 (New King James Version)
    New King James Version (NKJV)

    11 But the meek shall inherit the earth,
    And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

    Dictionary.com defines Meek as overly submissive or compliant; spiritless; tame.

    But we are not in control not anymore this country is no longer for the people and by the people. Is By the government, Corporation(Capital Fascism). We can see that already how This Government against the wishes of the people and against the Constitution pass the Bailout, including Our Elect President Obama. Count on the same crap you got From Bush
    because it could get worse(Obama).

    I brought all of this because this is the result of our Laziness, our ignorance, our complacency, our “is not going to happen to me”, well if is happening to others eventually it will happen to you. Bottom line we transfer our liberties and now well is up to you where are we going to go, so far you have chosen Slavery. One last thing if you respond without checking any of this I rest my case. Welcome To the NWO ladies and Gents.

  213. José

    @Angel
    Since the inception of the Dept. of Education in the 60’s our great education went from 1st place all of way down to 24th place out of 30th places from major industrialized 1st world countries.

    What do you think they teach in those countries that have passed us, creationism or evolution?

    Why are we seeing many people being arrested for exercising their God given right to free speech. Why are teenagers riding on skateboards being arrested for riding on the darn things. Why are old people being tased, pregnant, children. Why do we need tasers.
    Why are reporters, lawyers, and people being arrested for disagreeing for whatever the hell.

    If this is really happening where you live, I urge you to contact the ACLU immediately.

    The reason why I said the above is simple if we all had follow what our founders set in stone as the Law of the land we would not be in the situation we are in. The Constitution is mainly derived from the Bible.

    Here’s a fun game. Take a copy of the constitution and compare it to Mosaic Law. Then compare the constitution to Islamic Law. Which one does it most closely resemble?

  214. RE: Angel

    Oh, Gordon Bennett! This is getting to be bloody tedious, but it can’t go unanswered.

    Oh my good friend Ivan, why are you taking the verses out of context[?]

    Why do you creationist Christians take quotes from Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Prof. Stephen Hawkins, Prof. Richard Dawkins, et al., and twist them to fit your arguments, then?

    Keep in mind the times were far more different in those days. So if I was captive I would do anything in my power to get out of that situation. But the verse doesn’t imply let me grab my children and mash them against rocks. It simply implies let sing a song and describe how Baylonians (sic) treat their own people is not suggesting nor commanding to murder your own kids here is the whole chapter.

    I never suggested that it implies that you should “grab [your] children and mash them against rocks.” What the verse does imply is that you should smash the children of your enemies against the rocks, in order to “repays you as you have served us!”

    Towards the end of World War II, the Russian Red Army carried out some despicable acts against German civilians, but even they did not sink to that level despite the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis — who had on their belt buckles the words: Gott Mit Uns (God With Us).

    Ok moving along Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
    Rough verse I give you that but again you just pick and choose and did not read the whole chapter let me help you out Ivan.

    Well, thank you very much, that’s mighty neighbourly of you(!).

    If you read it all you will find out that in that time The Creator and Master of this Universe is a Jealous and Firm God who blesses and punish the people of Israel for their disobedience it was tough times back then.

    In Exodus chapter 20:3-6 3 You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

    There you go Ivan they were warn before so why are you calling this a black verse I don’t think so.

    Oh, I see now(!). What you are saying is that this ‘God’ is a “Jealous and Firm God”, who allegedly is “The Creator and Master of this Universe”, but has the attitude problem of a petulant and vindictive 15-year-old school-girl who had been jilted by her boy-friend, and he will get seriously pissed off with anyone who incurs his displeasure by worshiping another deity. Maybe God should punish his Public Relations and Marketing consultants instead for doing a half-assed job selling “The Creator and Master of [The] Universe” to the people.

    I ask you, Angel, would you marry a man that had such an attitude problem as your God? Probably not, unless you have some sort of masochistic tendency and a glutton for punishment.

    Next verse Isaiah 13:15-16 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. Strong words no doubt but unfortunately for you there is a whole chapter that explain why are these actions are taking place, here it goes reading is amazing Ivan check this out:

    Isaiah 13
    Proclamation Against Babylon

    [… (See Angel’s post above. This avoids tediousness of quoting everything. :roll: )]

    We have a non material thing call sense of justice, when someone does you wrong what ever it is steals, hurts or murder some one in your family you Ivan not only will want justice you will demand it. […] It is God’s Wrath by predicting what would happen to the Babylonians, through the Persians. It was rough times back then. Read history it helps.

    I don’t know kind of “justice” you, Angel, subscribe to, but to me that sounds like Total War, where there is less differentiation between combatants and civilians than in other conflicts, as nearly every person from a particular country, civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent war effort.

    After Nazi Germany was defeated, there was no indiscriminate slaughter of the innocents as advocated in those Bible verses, but instead we had the Nuremberg Trials — those directly responsible for the war crimes of Nazi Germany were given a fair trial, judged, then executed or served a term of imprisonment. That is what is known in a civilized society as “justice”, not the mindless barbarian slaughter of men, women, and children as advocated in the Bible — which is what gave the Crusaders the excuse(s) for their actions; when asked by a Crusader how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics, abbot Arnaul Amalric answered: “Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens.” (Kill them all; for the Lord knoweth them that are His).

    This is the whole chapter

    1 Samuel 15

    Saul Spares King Agag

    1 Samuel also said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the LORD. 2 Thus says the LORD of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey’.”

    Er… what did the “infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” do to deserve this?

    For a picture story version of the above verses, click on my name.

  215. Angel:

    9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them. But everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.

    Now that makes good business sense. Why kill the animals when you can sell them off for profit?

    Ferengi Rules of Acquisition that apply in this case:

    #002 The best deal is the one that brings the most profit.
    #009 Opportunity plus instinct equals profit.
    #010 Greed is eternal.
    #012 Anything worth doing is worth doing for money.
    #029 What’s in it for me?
    #034 War is good for business.
    #037 If it’s free, take it and worry about the hidden costs later.
    #041 Profit has its own reward.
    #042 What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine, too.
    #049 Everything is worth something to somebody.
    #052 Never ask when you can take.
    #061 Never buy what can be stolen.

    Saul Rejected as King

    10 Now the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11 “I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.” And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the LORD all night.[ :cry: ]

    Rule #089 Ask not what what your [prophets] can do for you, ask what you can do for your profits.

    For a picture story version of the above verses, click on my name.

  216. Angel:

    14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?” 15 And Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and the oxen, to sacrifice to the LORD your God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.”

    Rule #022 A wise man can hear profit in the wind.
    Rule #092 There are many paths to profit.
    Rule #162 Even at the worst of times, someone turns a profit.

    18 “Now the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, ‘Go, and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Why did you swoop down on the spoil, and do evil in the sight of the LORD?”
    20 And Saul said to Samuel, “But I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me, and brought back Agag king of Amalek; I have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. 21 But the people took of the plunder, sheep and oxen, the best of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal.”

    Rule #202 The justification for profit is profit.
    Rule #267 If you believe it, they believe it.
    Rule #277 Anything worth fighting for is worth hiding from.

    22 So Samuel said: “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also has rejected you from being king.”

    Rule #041 Profit is its own reward.
    Rule #077 It is better to swallow your pride than lose a profit.

    24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD.”

    Rule #015 Acting stupid is often smart.
    Rule #060 Keep your lies consistent.

    30 Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now, please, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the LORD your God.” 31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul worshiped the LORD.

    Rule #033 It never hurts to suck up to the boss.
    Rule #050 Gratitude can bring on generosity.

    32 Then Samuel said, “Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me.” So Agag came to him cautiously. And Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” 33 But Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

    Samuel is one seriously pissed off dude, probably because his ‘God’ is a bad influence.

    Here is the reason why The Amelekites where destroy (sic)
    Exodus 17:8

    The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim.
    For attacking at that time they defeated Amelekites however God need it to test Saul in order for Saul to be King of Israel, although I wouldn’t agree to destroy the Amelekites however the Israelites were mortal enemies so what are you going to do.

    I see, so God was pissed off because of what Amalek did about 400 years’ earlier. Well, that explains it, then(!).

    Ok here is the whole Chapter Remember yes the brutal times but there were reasons

    Deuteronomy 2

    The Desert Years

    […]

    6 You shall buy food from them with money, that you may eat; and you shall also buy water from them with money, that you may drink.

    Rule #003 Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to.
    Rule #020 Only give money to people you know you can steal from.

    7 For the LORD your God has blessed you in all the work of your hand. He knows your trudging through this great wilderness. These forty years the LORD your God has been with you; you have lacked nothing.

    Why did it take the Israelites 40 years’ to travel from Egypt to Canaan, when such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than ten days? Their navigator sucked!

    […]9 Then the LORD said to me, ‘Do not harass Moab, nor contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land as a possession, because I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.’

    So, God gave the Moabites and the Ammonites special protection since they were the descendants of Lot’s drunken, incestuous affair with his daughters — Gen. 19:30-38 (Click on my name to view an picture story).

  217. Angel:

    […]16 “So it was, when all the men of war had finally perished from among the people, 17 that the LORD spoke to me, saying: 18 ‘This day you are to cross over at Ar, the boundary of Moab. 19 And when you come near the people of Ammon, do not harass them or meddle with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the descendants of Lot as a possession.’”

    It appears that God has a soft spot for inbred people.

    […]20 (That was also regarded as a land of giants; [b] giants formerly dwelt there. But the Ammonites call them Zamzummim, 21 a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. But the LORD destroyed them before them, and they dispossessed them and dwelt in their place, 22 just as He had done for the descendants of Esau, who dwelt in Seir, when He destroyed the Horites from before them. They dispossessed them and dwelt in their place, even to this day.

    However, it appears that God hates basketball players.

    And this [is] why

    King Sihon Defeated

    26 And I sent messengers from the Wilderness of Kedemoth to Sihon king of Heshbon, with words of peace, saying…

    […]

    37 Only you did not go near the land of the people of Ammon—anywhere along the River Jabbok, or to the cities of the mountains, or wherever the LORD our God had forbidden us.

    So that’s why Moses was so pissed off!

    I guess you forgot to mention why this happen, that is why I am here to help you out

    Much obliged, I don’t know how I can manage without you(!).

    Deuteronomy 3:1-11

    King Og Defeated

    3 So the LORD our God also delivered into our hands Og king of Bashan, with all his people, and we attacked him until he had no survivors remaining. 4 And we took all his cities at that time; there was not a city which we did not take from them: sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fortified with high walls, gates, and bars, besides a great many rural towns. 6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every city. 7 But all the livestock and the spoil of the cities we took as booty for ourselves.

    “[W]e utterly destroyed [sixty cities]”?! It’s a good Job that they did not have thermonuclear weapons in those days because they would not have had any “booty” left to plunder, and the meek– flies, rats, and cockroaches — would have, then, certainly inherited the Earth.

    11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the giants.[a] Indeed his bedstead was an iron bedstead. (Is it not in Rabbah of the people of Ammon?) Nine cubits is its length and four cubits its width, according to the standard cubit. [So, one basketball player survived, eh?]

    That’s why they were being attacked

    Yes, it’s all clear now — “booty”!

    I hate to repeat myself but read the whole chapter my friend ok here it is

    2 Kings 18

    Hezekiah Reigns in Judah

    1 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea the son of Elah, king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Abi[a] the daughter of Zechariah.

    What a minute, according to this, Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, began to reign when he was 25 years’ old, but his father was 36 years’ old when Hezekiah took over, according to 2 Kings 16:2. So Ahaz was only eleven years’ old when he fathered Hezekiah! Explain away that one, Angel.

    […] and that is the reason as to why the parable was said you understand what a parable is [?].

    Yeah, I know what a parable is, but do you know?

    parable n. 1. A short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson. 2. A statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like. Synonyms: allegory, apologue, fable, legend, moral, myth, story, tale, lesson, teaching.

    That’s what the Bible is: a collection of fables, legends, myths, stories, tales, etc., not scientific facts. Therefore, it is the Bible that is a book of “fairy tales” — a talking serpent in Genesis 3:1, and a talking donkey in Num. 22: 29-30, for example — andnot books on the subject of The Theory of Evolution/The Big Bang Theory.

    And here’s why that happen just helping you out [Well, Duh(!)]
    Judges 19

    The Levite’s Concubine

    [… (See Angel’s post above. This is just to spare everyone from any further tediousness) :roll: ]

    However I prefer the end to be positive instead of negative. When we teach our children one side of the spectrum and not the other, we are not educating them we are indoctrinating them. That is why I must ask you where do we get our rights, if you said man you are wrong because man including u and me are inherently evil.

    Inherently evil?! Well, you speak for yourself, madam. The reason why you think that is because it has been inculcated into you since your birth by your religious parents, your religious teachers at school, the priest at your local church, etc., which is how the religious ‘meme’ is spread. Religious establishments, of various sorts throughout the history of man, have created this mythical disease of “inherent evil” for the sole purpose of psychological mind control of the masses, to which they and they alone can provide the ‘cure’ through repentance (usually in the form of a regular monetary donation to the church) and salvation.

    As to the question: where do we get our morals from? Well, it’s certainly not from the Bible, that’s for sure — see the Crusades. Our morals evolved through mutual co-operation with our own kind; e.g., you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch your back. It’s called altruism, and similar behaviour has been observed in many animals such as penguins who huddle together during severe weather, not because they believe in some great penguin god, but because of mutual benefit in doing so for survival — “survival of the nicest” — whereas the selfish penguin who chooses to stand alone, dies.

    I don’t care what you believe you believe what you want, but neither you nor me can impose our believes on others. However if we both showed them then we must let them make up their own mind Ivan that is what I want for the children why can you. Where is the freedom loving in your arguments nowhere, but my message is simple let the other side have a voice and let those who are receiving the message to make a choice.

    I don’t care what you choose to believe, either, and yes you’re right, for once, we can’t impose our beliefs on other people just as we cannot take a fish out of water; it will just flap about gasping, and eventually die. A fish has to evolve itself over successive generations from its dependence on water and to be able to crawl on land, which is what happened several hundred million years ago, but you don’t believe that, do you?
    In your closing argument, Angel, you suggest that “the other side have a voice and let those who are receiving the message to make a choice”. I presume that you mean your particular brand of religious belief (evangelical Christianity?), but not the other brands such as the Catholic “man made religion mixed with the faith of Christianity”, or Muslim, or Buddhist, eh? How about having neo-Nazi holocaust deniers in history class giving their alternative view of history without any hard concrete evidence to back up their claims? How about Phlogiston theory in chemistry class? Geocentric theory in astronomy class? Flat Earth believers in geography class? Hollow Earth believers in geology class? (It would be fun watching to last two fight each other. :-) )

    Finally, to see a picture story of the above verses in Judges 19 (Levite’s Concubine), click on my name.

  218. There is hope!

    Click on my name for a link to the Texas Freedom Network:
    EVOLUTION, CREATIONISM & PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
    Surveying What Texas Scientists Think about Educating
    Our Kids in the 21st Century

    The survey puts the smackdown on all those who think there’s any controversy regarding evolution and intelligent design in the scientific community.

    8)

  219. There is hope!

    Click on my name for a link to the Texas Freedom Network:
    EVOLUTION, CREATIONISM & PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
    Surveying What Texas Scientists Think about Educating
    Our Kids in the 21st Century

    The survey puts the smackdown on all those who think there’s any controversy regarding evolution and intelligent design in the scientific community.

    8)

  220. RaiulBaztepo

    Hello!
    Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
    PS: Sorry for my bad english, I’v just started to learn this language ;)
    See you!
    Your, Raiul Baztepo

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »