Texas March madness

By Phil Plait | March 17, 2009 4:44 pm

Over at Skepchick, Sam — a triple threat of good looks, intelligence/skepticism, and writing skills — has a complete breakdown of the situation in Texas where Constitution-shredding creationists are trying to indoctrinate kids into their own little bubble of antireality.

In a week, the Texas State Board of Education will vote on the final standards to be adopted for science education in their state. Remember, Texas is a huge state, and they drive the textbook publishers’ business. If Texas decides that evolution is wrong, or they push their phony "academic freedom" nonsense (as long as that freedom doesn’t extend to things they don’t like, such as science) , then textbook publishers will roll over and make their books to follow suit. Those books will then get sold all over the country.

So this is not a joke. This is serious.

Sam has clear instructions in his post on what you can do to save the Lone Star State, and save the rest of the country. If you live in Texas, please go take a look, and then take action.

Comments (413)

  1. TheBlackCat

    as long as that freedom doesn’t extend to things they don’t like, such as science

    Or any other religious beliefs but their own.

  2. José

    Should we set up and office pool?

  3. Mark Wilcox

    It’s time to change how to fight this. As long as funding for schools is controlled by politicians – you will always have crap like this.

    The answer isn’t to get in front of school boards. It’s to get choice for parents. That way they can choose to send their kids to schools based on their preferences. Because while I agree this is shameful, on the other hand parents shouldn’t be forced to sending their kids to schools they feel are too secular.

  4. Wendy

    Omg, that cartoon is hilarious!

    “Academic freedom” = another Flying Spaghetti Monster fiasco. I say, bring it on!!! Only then will the anti-science creationists (redundant, I know) have any chance of realizing how ridiculous they’re actually being. (I said CHANCE… off chance…)

  5. José

    OK, I have Texas beating Florida and Louisiana beating Kansas in the final four.

    In the final, Louisiana will beat Texas.

    Bobby (Kenneth from 30 Rock) Jindal will be tournament MVP.

  6. Aren’t there at least some districts that do a reverse Texas? It seems to me that either New York city or New York state demands good coverage of evolution in their textbooks.

    Obviously we have to fight the imposition of theology as science anywhere, and even more so in Texas because of its effects on the nation’s textbooks.

    Yet it seems to me that if we could get more districts to demand good texts, the ill effects of Texas pseudoscience could be muted whatever the outcome. We certainly can’t expect Texas to always go for science, and against poof-theories.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

  7. Why is any of this surprising? After all, Texas gave us George W. Bush.

  8. José

    Why is any of this surprising? After all, Texas gave us George W. Bush.

    Although, he was born in Connecticut and went to High School in Massachusetts. Dirty liberal states are to blame for GW!

  9. EPIC FAIL….. When do the advanced aliens show up, and ask if anyone wants to leave the panet? :P

  10. José

    My god, I can’t believe how many people have posted on the BABlog contest thread! I had no idea there were so many people potentially reading my stupid comments. It’s like thinking you’re zipper was down during a Thanksgiving toast in front of your family, and finding out you’re actually naked at midfield of a World Cup final.

  11. @ José:

    Yeah. One of the bastards will probably win my book, too!

  12. IVAN3MAN

    @ José,

    My thoughts, exactly! I’m gonna have to raise my standards — I have a reputation to maintain! :P

  13. Davidlpf

    @Ivan3man at least your starting from the right place.

  14. IVAN3MAN

    @ kuhnigget,

    Yeah, and that bastard will be me! :P

  15. Gonzo

    Yeah! Down with AIG! Oh wait . . . wrong blog.

  16. David D

    @IVAN3MAN–

    So–a guy who has a PhD in applied physics from Stanford, and served as physics chair at USC–that’s your idea of a witch doctor?

  17. IVAN3MAN

    @ Davidlpf,

    Yes, and Phil Plait is crazy kind enough to let me post cartoons on his blog. ;-)

  18. Open letter posted on my blog. Anyone who wants to use it as a template is welcome, though it’s really just a distillation of the information at the Skepchick link.

    http://tiptoptreetop.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-texas-state-board-of.html

  19. Davidlpf

    @David D
    If he sings the following then yes.
    I told the witch doctor
    I was in love with you
    I told the witch doctor
    I was in love with you
    And then the witch doctor
    He told me what to do

    He said that

    Ooo eee,ooo ah ah ting tang
    Walla walla, bing bang
    Ooo eee ooo ah ah ting tang
    Walla walla bing bang…
    Ooo eee ,ooo ah ah ting tang
    Walla walla ,bing bang
    Ooo eee ooo ah ah ting tang
    Walla walla bing bang

    I told the witch doctor
    You didn’t love me true
    I told the witch doctor
    You didn’t love me nice
    And then the witch doctor
    He game me this advice

    He said that

    refrain repeat x4

    You’ve been keeping love from me
    Just like you were a miser
    And I’ll admit I wasn’t very smart
    So I went out and found myself
    A guy that’s so much wiser
    And he taught me the way to win your heart.

    My friend the witch doctor
    He taught me what to say
    My friend the witch doctor
    He taught me what to do
    I know that you’ll be mine
    When I say this to you

    refrain

    You’ve been keeping love from me
    Just like you were a miser
    And I’ll admit I wasn’t very smart
    So I went out and found myself
    A guy that’s so much wiser
    And he taught me the way to win your heart.

    My friend the witch doctor
    He taught me what to say
    My friend the witch doctor
    He taught me what to do
    I know that you’ll be mine
    When I say this to you, oh baby

    by David Seville

  20. Randy T

    So your opinion is fact? The era of ridicule has passed so it’s time to formulate an argument based on something other than ridicule and alarm about another opinion.

    Lets see if I understand your position…you can’t comprehend that the universe could be created by a supreme intelligence…so it’s not possible. Its no logical leap, then, to assume that you believe everything that exists does so at your bidding; you must comprehend it or it’s not possible. I suppose you also hold the opinion that people with faith in a Creator to be arrogant.

    For the record, science has fed my family for 35 years, and I devour everything I can find about it: the revealing of God’s brilliant design. There is no conflict between creation theory and evolution theory except that created by people who must have an argument to have a conversation.

    Peace.

  21. José

    Its no logical leap, then, to assume that you believe everything that exists does so at your bidding

    Yes, Randy T! Do my bidding. I command you to think before you make illogical logical leaps!

  22. Dan

    @ RandyT

    But religion has NO PLACE in a science class. Secondly, creationist do NOT want to teach “harmony” between creationism and evolution. They want to teach creationism as an ALTERNATIVE to evolution.

    Many, many Christians can reconcile evolution and God. But these people are so insecure in their FAITH that they refuse to treat it as faith and rather feel a rabid need to tear down everything that they can’t reconcile in an effort to make themselves feel better.

    It’s disgusting, its unconstitutional, its UNCHRISTIAN, and its dishonest.

  23. Stark

    This worries me, I’m moving to Austin in August.

  24. José

    @Randy T

    And for the record, I don’t think there’s anyone who can’t comprehend a universe created by a supreme intelligence, but there are people who don’t see any reason to believe the universe was created by a supreme intelligence.

  25. JB of Brisbane

    “Lets see if I understand your position… you can’t comprehend that the universe could be created by a supreme intelligence…so it’s not possible.”

    Is that what’s called a Straw Man Argument?

  26. @RandyT,

    UNTIL you can produce and verifiable and testable EVIDENCE to support your bronze age assertion, it is only thirdhand heresay at best. And to be honest, it’s the LYING and DISHONEST intelligent design proponents that are manufacturing the controversey. THERE IS NO CONTROVERSEY in the REAL WORLD…

  27. chuck

    what are you people so afraid of? if the creationist viewpoint is so easily refuted, why not expose it as so? you also act as if there are NO scientists who believe in creation or intelligent design. they also have degrees and doctorates in their respective fields. are they stupid just because they disagree with you? have you even ever read a book defending creation or intelligent design, ones written by scientists. For those of you who followed debates between evolutionist and creationists, the evol boys regularly got their asses kicked. thats why they no longer want a debate. just ridicule and make a law to make it the only theory taught. wow, what a strong position to be in. If you watched the end of “expelled” by ben stein, you’ll hear your hero Dawkins say, “we dont know how it happened, but it MUST have been….” Really? if you dont know how it happeded, how do you know it MUST anything? He eventually falls back on “maybe an alien race..blah blah blah..” Is that the best your camp can over.lol

  28. chuck

    sorry for my use of a….s, i meant butts. nonetheless, its true. why cant people be exposed to more than one opinion? there are highly educated, doctorate receipients who believe in creation and or id. theyve written books. have you read one? if evol is the truth, why the fear of defending it or contrasting with another view. again, why the FEAR? im sorry, calling someone stupid, primitive, an idiot, etc. does not qualify as a defense. if you believe so much in science as the final answer, go back every 25 years in science history to find out what WRONG ideas you would have believed in. its the ability to question that leads to new discoveries.

  29. @ Davidlpf,

    Thanks for responding on my behalf to David D. Internet Explorer 7 was having ‘one of its turns’, so I had to reboot my computer, and also I needed to stop for some refreshment!

    David D:

    So–a guy who has a PhD in applied physics from Stanford, and served as physics chair at USC–that’s your idea of a witch doctor?

    Well, he may have a Ph.D, but that does not stop a man from selling out to the piper (George W. Bush) who calls the tune.

    Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #98: Every man has his price.

    Furthermore, according to the article “The New Science Wars” at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry on March 15, 2004:

    When a leading psychologist like Harvard’s Howard Gardner calls the president’s science adviser a “prostitute”, it’s a safe bet that all is not well in the realm of government science policy. Indeed, in the past month, the United States has been engulfed by a kind of “science war”, one pitting much of the nation’s scientific community against the current administration. Led by twenty Nobel laureates, the scientists say Bush’s government has systematically distorted and undermined scientific information in pursuit of political objectives. Examples include the suppression and censorship of reports on subjects like climate change and mercury pollution, the stacking of scientific advisory panels, and the suspicious removal of scientific information from government Web-sites.
    […]

    Click on my name to continue reading the article.

  30. Grr… the first “and” should be “any”…

    UNTIL you can produce any verifiable and testable EVIDENCE to support your bronze age assertion, it is only thirdhand heresay at best.

  31. MadScientist

    DOOMED! DOOMED! The Lone Star State becomes the Looney Starsigns State! Let’s get a posse together and collectively pee on the walls of the Alamo.

    You’d better start looking into importing textbooks from the UK – but be careful, trash isn’t unique to any one place on the planet.

    @IVAN3MAN: Long before the Ferengi Rule of Acquisition, Tom Lehrer wrote something like:

    It’s good to have integrity, it’s very nice, ’cause if you’ve got integrity that means your price is very high.

  32. IVAN3MAN

    ERRATUM: At the third paragraph, in my post above, it should read: Well, he may have a Ph.D, but that does not stop a man from selling out; because he (George W. Bush) who pays the piper, calls the tune.

    Man, I need to get some sleep!

  33. IVAN3MAN

    @ MadScientist,

    Indeed! :-)

  34. Chuck, it is beholden on YOU to produce the evidence. YOU make the claim. Until such time as you produce evidence, the bronze age fairy tales have no place in the classroom. Or should we also teach the stork theory of reproduction, the FSM origins, The Hindu origins, etc.

    I didn’t want to but, I just gotta show how badly your ignorance is showing: When we say we don’t know how, but we know it did. You know what proof we have? The universe and everything we have touched, recorded, and thought about. You must be watching very specific and edited footage, and only allowing things you already believe in to enter your world to think that ID proponents are “beating” those who support evolution. Sad, sad, sad…

    We don’t fear it at all. We are saddened by the willful ignorance and embrace of poor logic that tries to circumvent the CONSTITUTION.

  35. @ chuck:

    its the ability to question that leads to new discoveries.

    Hm…do creationists “question” the creation story in Genesis? Didn’t think so.

    No self-respecting scientist is afraid of creationism. What they are afraid of, is kids being taught nonsense instead of science because a group of people want to pass their religious mythology off as Truth.

    Scroll through every article on this topic Dr. BA has ever posted. You will see carefully laid out refutations of every creationist “argument” ever presented. No fear.

    You should be asking why the creationists don’t actually have, oh, I don’t know…an actual theory that can be supported by verifiable data?

    And no, verses from religious stories don’t count.

  36. MadScientist

    Oh, I forgot to ask: Who or what is Skepchick Sam a triple threat to?

    I’m avoiding Colorado around Halloween if the kids run around howling “Trick or Threat!”

  37. MadScientist

    @Dan:

    I disagree – the creationists don’t want to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution, they want to teach creationism as The Truth and that the horrible science stuff is the work of the devil.

  38. MadScientist

    @Stark: Don’t worry – there are many intelligent Texans as well – it’s just incredibly rare that you see one on TV because normal people are – well, too normal to be of interest to the hype machine. TV News just can’t get enough of the kooks.

  39. José

    @Chuck
    you also act as if there are NO scientists who believe in creation or intelligent design. they also have degrees and doctorates in their respective fields.

    Why can’t any of these scientists manage to do ANY actual science in support of intelligent design. All they do is intentionally misrepresent evolution in an attempt to discredit it. Is that what you expect from scientists?

  40. IVAN3MAN

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

  41. MadScientist

    Hey BA, here’s an idea:

    You had a previous post about coercing US scientists to publish with the traditional dead-tree publishers due to the waning subscriptions which in turn are due to high quality free electronic publications.

    Let’s do the same for textbooks. I’ve grumbled and whined for decades about how expensive textbooks are and more recently I’ve been howling about how expensive a 3-piece set of Calculus books were (they’re the best calculus texts on the planet though) even though both authors have been dead for a few years. With collaborative efforts at elementary, high school, and university texts, there is an opportunity to come up with excellent books. Any nonsense would quickly be spotted by appropriate experts and given a good old fashion poo-pooing. Most kids have laptop computers so hey, let’s go for it. Of course we need to ensure that all kids do have a computer and that it is in good working order, but what’s $400 for a computer every 2 or 3 years? Books even in high school can easily exceed the $800 mark.

  42. Dear Creationists,

    Please stop spreading your blasphemy here.

    First Commandment – Thou shall worship nothing before God.

    You blasphemers worship a Book before God. You claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient, but somehow His power is limited by Genesis. Is He so foolish that he did not see that trap you Satan worshipers laid for him? How can He be omnipotent if He is incapable of creating evolution.

    There is abundant evidence that evolution is the most accurate description of how we got here. Evolution is continually being improved. That is the way science works. Creationism is not even good religion. Repent blasphemers.

    Nobody is afraid to debate Creationists. The problem is that when Creationists do not understand the conversation, they think they have won an argument. They have only demonstrated ignorance.

    Having a scientist, or even a dozen scientists, believe in Creationism is no proof of anything, except that some scientists have a screw, or two dozen screws, loose. Bad science is bad science. In this case, bad science is also bad religion.

    Look up at the stars. Some of the galaxies are millions of light years away, but the light has traveled for millions of years to arrive at our eyes. Clearly the universe is not less than 10,000 years old. The universe is billions of years old.

    The Bible also says that pi equals 3, should we be teaching that also? Would you throw away a computer that gave you the correct answer, just because you believe that God is not capable of metaphor? Metaphor that is scattered throughout the Bible. Metaphor that was created by God, but the complexity of simple metaphor escapes you, so you deny God is capable of this. The sulfur exudes from your printed blasphemous words.

  43. @chuck,

    Religious scholars have a conclusion and build the evidence up to support it. Science has the evidence and builds a conclusion out of it. Then (and this is the important part), scientists do everything they can to try to disprove the conclusion. I have yet to meet a physicist who wouldn’t love to be the one to show that Einstein or Hawkins’ theories were garbage and here is the correct model. I have yet to meet a christian theologist who wanted to show that those Moses and Jebus guys didn’t know what they were talking about and here is the correct theology.

    And the frustrating thing about debating creationists is that they take the monkey flinging poo approach. Throw enough rediculous poo around, and some of it will make the scientists stink. As is typical of creationist thought patterns, they even approach a debate in a backwards manner.

    You know, I would feel rather safe in saying that the theory of evolution, as you understand it, is total bunk. My bet is that you don’t even understand the theory that you rail against.

  44. Zechariah 12:4 In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.

    Deuteronomy 28:28 The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart:
    28:29 And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee.

  45. Mark Hansen

    Man, am I glad I drive instead of riding a horse.

  46. ChrisW

    Chuck,

    Many things are easily refuted. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to teach children that the Earth really is flat and carried on the back of a giant star turtle.

    It’s good to learn about creation myths. Mythology is interesting. We should encounter all manner of mythology in school. But mythology is not a model of the way the world actually works, and to present it as such would be dishonest.

  47. Darth Robo

    Chucky, opinions are fine, but only SCIENTIFIC opinions are allowed in science class if they are to be put forward as any kind of “alternative”.

    >>>”have you even ever read a book defending creation or intelligent design, ones written by scientists.”

    Thank you once again for confirming for us that ID is about religion. Another fundie who didn’t get the DI’s memo that said that “ID is about SCIENCE, not about religion! No-sireebob!”

    Have you read any books by Francis Collins? A Christian scientist who believes in God, accepts evolution and doesn’t subscribe to ID?

    Creationist prediction: More will come and ignore what people have posted, and lay it on thick with the fundie martyr complex saying “Those mean old Darwinist scientists aren’t taking my religion seriously! Boo hoo!”

    Hint: This is a SCIENCE blog. Public school science classes are for SCIENCE.

  48. David D.

    @IVAN–

    So Marburger was a sell-out?

    Did you read your own referenced article?

    “I don’t think Marburger is a total sellout. I think it’s more likely that the physicist and former Brookhaven National Laboratory director simply finds himself in a tough position: forced to defend his current boss against grave criticisms from his former scientific peers and colleagues. To make things even more difficult, Marburger happens to be a self-described Democrat.”

  49. MartinM

    Randy T said:

    There is no conflict between creation theory and evolution…

    This is, of course, precisely what the creationists Phil is talking about deny. Randy, if you accept evolution, you’re on our side. The people you should be voicing disagreement with are the ones who insist that evolution is wrong because they can’t reconcile it with their religious beliefs.

  50. So, take a double-edged approach people. Tell Texas that they’re slipping into the swamps of creationist/unintelligible design nonsense, and then tell the textbook producers that you will encourage your state’s school districts to boycott their books. That’ll serve ‘em right for hitching their wagons to a state where such idiocy holds sway.

    To the Creationists/ID pushers who come here to act like intolerant extortionists, you’re free to “believe” what you want. You’re just not free to foist that nonsense off on the rest of us. You can argue from now until the cows come home that creationism/ID is scientific, but you’ll be wrong. You can quote all kinds of nonsensical and unqualified authorities about creationism/ID is the way to go, and you’ll still be wrong. So will your “authorities.”

    There’s no scientific backing for creationism/ID>More to the point, it’s not scientific in and of itself. Science is not a system of beliefs. That’s why i can tell you that you can believe this tripe if you wish, but what you’re believing in with all your heart and soul and hoping is true is NOT science-based. It is, to misquote Groucho Marx, Mythos — a small town on the edge of Wishful Thinking.

  51. Petrolonfire

    IVAN3MAN said

    “Examples include the suppression and censorship of reports on subjects like climate change and mercury pollution,”

    Mrercury pollution!? Whaddya mean Mertcvury pollution???
    We’ve never landed on that planet! *

    We can’t have polluted the planet Mercury – yet! ;-)

    —-

    * Yeah, Mariner something & MESSENGER (not shouting its an acroynymmn -how rude of them!) have flown past our Sun’s planet no. 1 (or 9-8-15 whatever ..) but they didn’t pollute it by landing so ..

    .. No dice. ;-)

    PS. Oh did you mean pollution by the element symbolised ‘Hg'; mined from
    cinnabar ore, also known as quicksilver, the causative agent of Minamata disease and the probable cause of Tycho Brahe’s poisoning by Johannes Kepler did you? Well why
    didn’t you say so! ;-)

    PPS. Great cartoon! THX! :-D

    – Bein’Silly & drunk
    (Ja, vot else ist new? Vot, St Pats day ist nein German? Vot??!) )

  52. Petrolonfire

    Creakationism … Blerrghh!

    Isn’t this crudd disppearing yet?

    Doe sanyone still think ther could possibly be anything scientific to the bronze age dogma of folksthast wnat totake us back at leat tomedievieal times .. SheesH! :roll:

    Stop the planet, I wanna get off! ;-)

    (Yeah, you heard me.)

  53. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    @ Randy:

    Lets see if I understand your position…you can’t comprehend that the universe could be created by a supreme intelligence…so it’s not possible.

    No, that is not it at all! Anything is a priori possible, and moreover empirical methods acknowledges and uses uncertainty. It is simply that after thousands of years the social construct that is religion has failed in its empirical predictions.

    Take your hypotheses that a ready-made intelligence created the universe. We can then make two testable hypotheses: 1. Intelligences starts out fully formed. 2. Processes in the universe relies on intelligence.

    But it is trivial to test this en masse on the multitude of intelligences and processes we observe, and they both fail: 1. Intelligences (or really any adaptive system) starts out simple, and build complexity by learning when interacting with a substrate environment. (For example, from child to adult knowledge.) 2. Natural processes consists of mindless processes, and build complexity on emergence of simple rules when interacting with a substrate environment. (For example, when chemistry emerges out of cooling big bang elementary particles.)

    So while it is still possible (please show us the evidence, we want dearly to know!) it is a failed hypotheses that thousands of year old fairy tales got intelligence and processes correctly. And if it wasn’t, it is still merely begging the question – which supreme intelligence created the supreme intelligence who created the universe – and so trivially unusable in understanding anything anyway.

    Now, scientists are putting this in their own terms, as debunking superstition is (or should be) a passed state in building human knowledge and there is little concerted effort at this time. You can for example see much the same argument in Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, but he is bending over backwards to be readable by religious people, which is perhaps why he is merely claiming that it is an improbable explanation. I believe for example Victor Stenger in God – the failed hypotheses is taking the religious ideas to their unavoidable destiny when confronted with observable facts. A confrontation most religions seems eager to make, from the catholic church leader to individuals commenting on science blogs.

    There is no conflict between creation theory and evolution theory except that created by people who must have an argument to have a conversation.

    You wishing it doesn’t make it so. Again, it is a trivial fact that creation ideas (there is no unfalsified theory, but feel free to state it here, eager minds wants to learn new things!) and a natural process like evolution is incompatible. Simple testing shows that observations are predicted by evolution theory based on observed mechanisms, while no creation events (however they are defined – without a theory there is no telling, actually) are ever seen.

    For an especially stupid and pernicious example, take the pseudoscience apologist idea that is “theistic evolution”, which is peddled by major religions and even supported by scientists that should know better.

    Either you draw some predictions from it that are different from the scientific theory, and you can test it. Or you don’t, in which case it is isomorphic to the same, i.e. for scientific purposes it is the same theory. The game here is called bait-and-switch, in that apologists tries to have it both ways to avoid either testing or abandonment, but they really can’t.

  54. Petrolonfire

    Too drunk to type so I’ll sayyit agen for clarity :

    Does anyone still think ther could possibly be anything scientific to the bronze age dogma of folks that want to take us back at least to medieveal (spelling?) times .. Sheesh! :roll:

    Hey I may be drunk but even I know ID~iotism, Creakationism, whatever they’re gunna call it next is rubbish! ;-)

    Why the blazes is anyone dumb enough to be taken in by such a load of … [Insert obscenity]! :roll:

    No, really, why? :-(

  55. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    it is the same theory

    To avoid future misunderstanding, perhaps I should note that the theory in its basic form is utterly devoid of creators and use only natural mechanisms. Adding creators while keeping isomorphism is then a statement that “creators” are simply natural processes. (For example, when studying artificial selection evolution theory remains the same – it is the same selective mechanisms acting, whether extraneous adaptive systems are involved in the larger adaptive system that is evolution acting on populations or not. With an ironic twist in this context, as the adaptive beings doing artificial selection to create a desired trait are themselves products of evolution.)

  56. Spectroscope

    @ Torbjorn Larsson, OM (Sorry can’t do the symbols over letter ‘o’ .)

    (For example, when chemistry emerges out of cooling big bang elementary particles.)

    Being horribly pedantic here I’m afraid, but the Big Bang only created a mere handful of the elements – specifically hydrogen, helium and lithium. (Maybe some Beryllium too but I’m not sure myself on that one ..)

    The rest of the elements from carbon to praseodyium* come thanks to stellar nuculeosynthesis in the supermassive (we think) population III stars (ie the earliest generation of stars in our cosmos) and then subsequent stellar generations, esp. massive stars, too …

    As Carl Sagain famously said : “We are Stardust.”

    Of course; as we know from good evidence, such as the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, HST’s ultra-deep-fields & uranium dating, etc .. all this did happen around 13-15 billion years ago meaning the Creationists / ID mob are only out by, oh, astronomical orders of magnitude in their dates! ;-)

    6,000 years “argued” by the IDiots versus 13 plus billion years reliably & repeatedly scientifically demonstrated!

    Creationism / Intellugent Design – Hah! :-P
    _____

    * Excluding only those few “artificial” elements which us clever apes have made in our laboratories; ie. Americum, Californium, Einsteinium, etc .. ;-)

  57. Spectroscope

    PS. Would I be the only one here to think its really pretty cool that there are these elements that we’ve actually made called Americum, Californium & Einsteinum … ;-)

    … And then also rather sad that some fools still fail to value all the science and great thinking that made creating such whole new substances possible? :-(

  58. cameron

    Maybe we can allow ID to be taught in schools in Texas… as long as they let us teach evolutionary biology, the scientific method, and basic critical thinking in their churches on Sundays. And yes, there will be tests.

  59. Bein'Silly

    @ MadScientist :
    DOOMED! DOOMED! The Lone Star State becomes the Looney Starsigns State! Let’s get a posse together and collectively pee on the walls of the Alamo.

    Count me in! ;-) :-P

  60. Bein'Silly

    @ MadScientist (again!) :

    I’m avoiding Colorado around Halloween if the kids run around howling “Trick or Threat!”

    I’m not. I’ll just say “trick please!” ;-)

    … Anyway, Colorado? I thought we were dissin’ Texas here? ;-)

  61. !astralProjectile

    IVAN3MAN’s science adviser can get a job in Gambia

  62. Bein'Silly

    @ Rogue Medic :

    The Bible also says that pi equals 3, should we be teaching that also?

    Don’t give them any ideas! ;-)

    Please don’t give them any ideas …

    .. Orwe’ll all end up being taught Platonic philosophy inplaceof y;’knoiw actual science as happened in a Stephen Baxter novel .. (called ‘Titan’
    I think.) :-(

    *Shudder*

  63. IVAN3MAN

    @ David D,

    To quote from the article, “I don’t think Marburger is a total sellout” either. However, although Marburger found “himself in a tough position”, I do not, think that he was “forced to defend his current boss against grave criticisms from his former scientific peers and colleagues”.

    Marburger was working for President George W. Bush of the USA, a democratic(!) country, not for Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union — where Marburger would have found himself working in the Uranium mines if he did not do as he was told! In the USA, Marburger had a choice: either take the money — Rule of Acquisition #98 — and work for Dubya, or resign and find another job — with a bloody Ph.D, I don’t think that Marburger would have had much trouble finding one suitable!

  64. RSPCA-er

    @ Rev. I. P. Freeley

    Zechariah 12:4 In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.

    Poor horses! What did the horses ever do to deserve such cruel punishment! Their riders bein’ idjits ain’t their fault! :-O

    @ Larian Le Quella :

    You know, I would feel rather safe in saying that the theory of evolution, as you understand it, is total bunk. My bet is that you don’t even understand the theory that you rail against.

    (Emphasis original.) Yup.

    Methinks the only thing them ID-iots get out of evolution is the idea
    (adopt Cletus from Simpsons voice here) :

    “Hey Brandine, them, nasty evil-ution-ast dudes them all sez ma granpaw wuz ‘a mon-key!”

    Sadly in some cases I’m almost convinced in their
    partic’lar case they wuz rart .. (Sorry its catching!)

    It might explain a lot – like how they could be so stupid to belive that in the first place! ;-)

  65. chuck

    wow, just the answers i expected. talk of slinging poo. i ask, have you read a book? your answers, “have you read a book? great, didnt think you had, and yes, i did, and do. one of several books i have on the creation/evol debate is written from the evolutionary perspective. i understand their viewpoints, i just dont agree with everything they say. as i said last night, science is a very fluid discipline. oh, scientists often act like they’ve got it all figured out, but to be honest, they dont. remember einstein, and steady state? fudged his figures to arrive there? called it the “worst mistake of his life? so now were all on the big bang bandwagon. oopps. not all. some scientist are heading back to steady state, because big bang leaves too many unanswered questions. one of you referred to testing and proving theories. looks like the big bang aint making it. if you look at many of the great minds of science, many were christians or theists,agassia, albright, bacon,boyle, carver,ramsey,pasteur, pascal,newton,morse,mendel,maxwell,kepler,kelvin,etc etc etc. these men believed in God, a creator, and didnt find Him to interfere with their studies, HE was the reason they researched. are these guys idiots? why cant students learn the role that faith played in and with their science? be honest now, did you know that any of these gentlemen were christian or “id”(and no, they are not identical. some id’s are christian, but many ive read are no more than deists, if even that. many just believe there is design in the universe, and leave the question open). and for those who think ive only seen edited bits, come on people, you havent even seen a debate. admit it. if you have, i challenge any of you to name the debate and who took part in it. there, i thought so. as to my why the fear question, sorry, saying fear of “stupidity, or religious cave people, or duuuhhhhh” isnt an answer. the fear is, if there is a God, then you may just have the obligation to interact with or respond to Him, which means someone other than you may be God. Will He restrict my freedom, keep me from having fun, doing whatever i want. Sorry if thats your concept of christianity. I wont say we dont deserve the bad press, but if you really want to know Him, just ask Him. thanks for listening(reading).

  66. Compromise: creationists get to teach Biblical mythology in science classes, scientists get to teach evolutionary biology in churches, and English teachers get to teach punctuation and grammar wherever Chuck happens to be.

  67. Todd W.

    @chuck

    many just believe there is design in the universe, and leave the question open

    See, there’s the problem with the ID/creationism bunch. They believe, without evidence, and just leave the question open, rather than trying to answer it. If they actually tried to investigate, they may either a) find evidence that validates their belief or b) find evidence that calls their belief into question, leading to their reevaluating their presuppositions (one can hope). So, if you think that there is actually something to creationism or ID (variations on the same theme), then please, present us with it. Include citations where appropriate.

    the fear is, if there is a God, then you may just have the obligation to interact with or respond to Him

    If evidence of God’s (or any other deity) existence is presented, then scientists will alter their views of how things work to incorporate this new data. That’s how science works. There is no fear that there is a god. There is no fear that the theory of evolution might be wrong. If you think that there is, then you do not understand how science works.

    i challenge any of you to name the debate and who took part in it

    Right back at you. You made the initial claim; you provide the debate, who participated and where we can find video or a transcript of this debate to evaluate who “got their butt kicked”.

    And, let me just clear up a misconception under which you seem to be operating. Those of us who understand that evolution occurs and that the theory of evolution explains the processes at work have no beef with Christians (or anyone of any other religion) who refrain from presenting their religious beliefs as scientific fact. There are a number of scientists of various faiths who understand and accept the theory of evolution. The issue at hand is those people who are trying to assert religious beliefs as scientific fact, without any valid evidence to back up their assertions. They are taking a religious idea (creation) and trying to get it inserted into science curriculum, despite the fact that it is not science.

  68. TheBlackCat

    If you watched the end of “expelled” by ben stein, you’ll hear your hero Dawkins say, “we dont know how it happened, but it MUST have been….” Really? if you dont know how it happeded, how do you know it MUST anything? He eventually falls back on “maybe an alien race..blah blah blah..” Is that the best your camp can over.lol

    I see you haven’t actually done any research on the Expelled movie, or else you would know that scene is purely the result of clever (i.e. dishonest) editing on the part of Stein. The interviewer (who was not Ben Stein) asked Dawkins for a way that ID could be considered scientific. Dawkins presented such a situation. Then they edited to make it look like it was a belief he held rather than a hypothetical scenario they asked him for.

  69. Todd W.

    @TheBlackCat

    I meant to address the Expelled bit. Thanks.

    Chuck, you may wish to take a look at the Expelled Exposed web site: www (dot) expelledexposed (dot) com

  70. IVAN3MAN

    @ Todd W.,

    Err… you neglected to add the ” / ” in front of the first closing “blockquote”. :P

  71. cameron

    Chuck, your point seems to be that science doesn’t have it all figured out. Well, you get the blue ribbon: science isn’t ‘finished’. That, really, is the key difference between science and religion: science is still trying to find the answers. And it *works*. Religion just shuts down the question with a pat answer.

    The computer you are writing this on is a product of science. The electricity that runs it is a product of science. People created these things using the same process of inquiry and testing that the religious would like to see suppressed. While science is doing things like allowing the blind to see again and creating working force-feedback replacement limbs for people who have had their arms amputated, religion gives us nothing but hand-waving and platitudes.

    How many communications satellites have been prayed into orbit?

  72. Todd W.

    @IVAN3MAN

    Yeah, I caught that after I hit submit, but I was hoping no one would notice. The relative spacing worked out okay, though.

  73. How many communications satellites have been prayed into orbit?

    :)

  74. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    @ Spectroscope:

    Then I can be terribly pedantic right back, and point out that I didn’t say “all of” chemistry. ;-)

    Point taken that the totality of chemistry emerged out of a lot of cosmological (and biological, and technical) intermediary processes. But it doesn’t really bear on my emergence argument either, again nitpicking of course. :-)

    6,000 years “argued” by the IDiots versus 13 plus billion years reliably & repeatedly scientifically demonstrated!

    So they hope they got 0.05 % of reality right at best, while we know that it is actually 0 %!

    PS. HTML code for “ö” is “& # 169 ;” or “& ouml ;” (remove spaces), in case you are sitting with an umlaut-free keyboard. (On an ordinary web-site, that is – seems this sites will replace isolated ö’s with emoticons, for fun.) I can’t for my life understand why, though. :-o

  75. @chuck, I read the bable if that is the book you are refering to, and let’s just say that confirmed for me even more that the whole thing is a giant con job. I would bet that in any debate, most atheists could probably quote more and give the current thinking and historical thinking on the bable than most christians…

    And for the love of FSM, go to school and at least learn grammar… Let’s just say that your presentation of yourself is less than flattering.

  76. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    @ chuck:

    While I’m at it, I note that the following is a bald-faced antiscience lie:

    some scientist are heading back to steady state, because big bang leaves too many unanswered questions. one of you referred to testing and proving theories. looks like the big bang aint making it.

    This is claimed, then the fact AFAIU is that the current standard cosmology (a big bang cosmology) passed the usual quantitative test criterion on a validated physical theory (3 sigma) with the enhanced WMAP observations 2006 (I believe). Google it up, if you will.

    Admittedly not on all parts, say inflation which is still short a few percent on such a criteria, but is steadily working its way there. The Planck probe, if it is successfully launched later this year, will AFAIU settle the matter for good in three years. (Even better, while WMAP started to constrain inflation models, another criteria on a workable theory, Planck will do much more in that regard.)

    So much for the fully unscientific criteria of “too many questions” and “looks like”.

    Your effort to dig up scientists that predate the theory itself, or even the latest tests, it is sorry to say stupid irrelevancy, considering that you take an asked for assessment of your ideas (tacitly by posting claims on science at a science site) to be “slinging poo”. You could as well wave a wand over a boiling kettle while mumbling names on magical ingredients for your love potion. (Yes, even that isn’t slinging pew-pew-pew, in a context of magical, unprovable, or already falsified claims made.)

  77. I would bet that in any debate, most atheists could probably quote more and give the current thinking and historical thinking on the bable (sic!) than most christians…

    Indeed. I would recommend, Who Wrote the Bible?, by Richard Elliott Friedman, When Jesus Became God, by Richard E. Rubenstein, Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman, anything by Elaine Pagels or Karen Armstrong, and Unearthing the Bible, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, all of which reside on my shelf.

    The latter, in particular, is an excellent example of how the science of archaeology, combined with the snippets of history in the book itself and other historical sources, lay out exactly when the various parts of the Old Testament were written, who wrote them, and why.

    Fine reading for a Sunday (or Saturday) afternoon.

  78. Gary Ansorge

    Dang! I get really tired of trying to teach pigs to sing,,,and I am beginning to feel sorry for the pigs,,,

    Prayers, worship, sacrifice of virgins,er, I mean critters, to the invisible sky fairy have NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY affected reality in ANY FRAKING WAY.

    Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and,,,expecting different results and yet never seeing any,,,

    I must be nuts. I keep trying and failing, to educate a bunch of naked apes who happen to LOOK human.
    I guess Heinlien was right: Just because it can talk doesn’t mean it’s human,,,

    GAry 7

  79. José

    @chuck

    wow, just the answers i expected. talk of slinging poo. i ask, have you read a book? your answers, “have you read a book?

    Who cares if we haven’t read a book or seen a debates you haven’t even bothered to name. We know the arguments for ID/Creationism, and they’re all easily refutable. If you have specific claims you want addressed, tell us what they are. If not, go away. Don’t make us play stupid guessing games.

    remember einstein, and steady state? fudged his figures to arrive there?

    He made an educated guess that turned out to be wrong. He fudged because his theories predicted the universe should be expanding or contracting, but to his knowledge the universe was doing neither. Later, when it was learned the universe was expanding, the prediction his theories made turned out to be correct, so there was no longer any need to fudge. That’s what happens sometimes when you do science. Science doesn’t lock you down into a predetermined set of beliefs. It’s based on evidence.

    if you look at many of the great minds of science, many were christians or theists,agassia, albright, bacon,boyle, carver,ramsey,pasteur, pascal,newton,morse,mendel,maxwell,kepler,kelvin,etc etc etc. these men believed in God, a creator, and didnt find Him to interfere with their studies, HE was the reason they researched. are these guys idiots?

    If any of these people believed evolution to be wrong based on what a blatantly self-contradictory bronze age fairy tale says, then yes, they would be idiots as far as evolution is concerned. If they believed evolution to be wrong based on scientific evidence, they wouldn’t be idiots. In this respect, they’re no different from anyone else.

    the fear is, if there is a God, then you may just have the obligation to interact with or respond to Him, which means someone other than you may be God.

    I think it would be cool to interact with a God. Do I think it’s likely to happen? No. One thing I’m sure of is that if there is a God, he believes in evolution, and he knows that the stories told at the beginning of Genesis are malarkey.

  80. @ kuhnigget, that (sic) was 100% intentional. ;) :P

  81. Pieter Kok

    Chuck, while you are trying to find the path back to the high road, may I suggest a topic for introspection along the way: Could it be that your understanding of modern evolution theory, cosmology, and science in general is somewhat limited? There are a lot of experts in various scientific disciplines commenting on this blog, and rather than berating them, perhaps you should choose to learn new things.

  82. @ Larian LeQ:

    Heh heh…I figured.

    BTW, any bets on whether or not the Chuckster will come back with answers to everyone’s questions? No need to reply. Everyone here knows the drill…

    Chuckeeeeeeee?????????

  83. @ José:

    I think it would be cool to interact with a God.

    Well, I met Bruce Lee once. Does that count?

  84. Darth Robo

    chuck, can you point to us which part about God or religion is scientific? No?

    Pretty good prediction I made then, wasn’t it?

  85. QUASAR

    Ignorance will one day bite you back!

  86. José

    @kuhnigget
    Well, I met Bruce Lee once. Does that count?

    It depends. Did you meet him ofter doubting his resurrection and demanding proof? Are you Doubting Kuhnigget?

  87. Don’t mock The Master, José…. :(

    ;)

  88. Torbjörn Larsson (name copied & pasted):

    P.S. HTML code for “ö” is “& # 169 ;” or “& ouml ;” (remove spaces)…

    Actually, Torbjörn, “&_#_169_;” is the XML/HTML code for the “copyright” symbol: © ; the correct coding for “ö” is “&_#_246_;” (N.B. minus the underscores and quotation marks).

    Click on my name for a comprehensive list of XML/HTML character entity references.

  89. Wayne
  90. @Bein’Silly,

    “The Bible also says that pi equals 3, should we be teaching that also?”

    Don’t give them any ideas! ;-)

    Please don’t give them any ideas …

    This has already been done. Fortunately, there seems to be some limit to stupidity. Buildings fall down – assuming they ever get above the ground, engines don’t work, . . . . Even politicians would have a hard time with that.

  91. IVAN3MAN

    Gary Ansorge:

    Dang! I get really tired of trying to teach pigs to sing,,,and I am beginning to feel sorry for the pigs,,,

    Ditto , Gary 7. However, the point of the ‘discussion’ on this and other threads is not to “teach pigs to sing”, but to inform third party readers of this blog not to wallow in the mud of ignorance with the bloody pigs.

  92. chuck,

    There is no evidence that God did not create evolution. All of the evidence is that evolution is the way life came about. If you deny God’s role in this, then you are the one denying His glory.

    And your writing is pathetic. How do you not insult Him by claiming to represent Him with this run on foolishness? You deny the greatest work of God – the evolution that produced all of life and all sentient creatures. Blasphemer.

  93. IVAN3MAN

    @ chuck,

    St. Augustine OF Hippo:

    It not infrequently happens that something about the Earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the Sun and Moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

    De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]

  94. chuck

    well, well, gentlemen, good to see your paying attention. and please, stuff the commentary about punctuation and the like. im trying to get you to see some light, not teach you grammar. so forget that scenario, if thats all you have. as to debates, again, i love your answers. you have none, so you just toss the challenge back, kind of a “nanny nanny boo boo” response. the group at Creation Research Society has had numerous debates with evolutionists. go do as you told me to do, look it up yourself. you wont, because you have already decided your right, and who would dare to contradict you. one of you claimed to have read the “bable” (twice). excellent argument. you have completely disproved it by misspelling it. how can i counter that??!! to those who would call the scientists i listed(at least i bothered to actually list something), if your arrogance allows you to call greater minds than yourself “idiots” because they had the audacity to not believe what you believe, well shame on them. what fools they must have been. i keep on hearing about this “proof of evolution”. please, deign to tell me about it. i hunger for this revelation. if you can give me an established fact, i shall devour it as if starved. if you think the bible is a con job, tell me why. you know, all of you that approached it with an open mind, and bothered to study it grammatically, historically, culturally, etc. tell me what there is about it that is a con. ill except your challenge. give me a question and/or your fact, and ill take it from there. as to “science doesnt lock you down into a set of predetermined beliefs”, you are joking, arent you. and as to the one who thought i wouldnt be here again, well, Im baaaaaacccccckkkk. I promise i wont run. give me your best shot. start with one claim or issue, then you will see that some christians can defend themselves. as to the big bang, try the meta research people. they list ten problems with the big band. if you have the answers to them, im sure they would love to have them. and about the big banger, if true, where did the original matter come from? oh, its always been there? too easy. try something else. I will, with humility, and the excitement of a kid waiting for an ice cream cone, await your responses. God bless.

  95. chuck

    also, as to the expelled movie (did you know stein had to cancel a commencement address because of emails about his defense of id. kind of proves the point of the movie, doesnt it?),let Dawkins take his own beating, wont you please. No one said it was his actual belief, obviously it was an alternative possibilty, but the point remains. He states that, perhaps, there could have been an alien race(which of course!!!! had to evolve according to Darwinian methods), that seeded the earth. Why is it not okay to believe that God, or a designer, started life on this planet, but it is okay to conceive of an alien race doing it. My only answer would be to him, apparently it doesnt matter who or what it was, as long as it isnt a personal God. Much the same point Stein made. But we all know Dawkins was drugged, hypnotized, made to say what he said, then the film was edited to make him look stupid. Sorry, he did that quite well all by him wittle self. as to the challenge to prove that God or religion is scientific, narrow it down for me, if you think it isnt, point me to an issue so i can deal with it specifically. thanks again for listening (and mocking)

  96. Decent Weasel

    @ or RE Chuck:
    I know I’m probably a little late but I think it’s worth pointing out another problem. Chuck points out we may be “obligated” to worship God. He also goes on about “fear.”
    Am I the only person who reads this and thinks that religious fundamentalism poisons even the search for God? That religion turns the origins of the universe from a thing to investigate into a thing of frantic, buzzing terror, something we *have* to know or we fail and get cast into the magma pit?
    This, to me, is a large part of why fundamentalism is such a failure. Behind all of the rhetoric, it’s just fear. You have to believe the same thing I do, or you suffer. Bottom line.
    I know plenty of religious or spiritual folks who’re bigger than this kind of pettiness, and a lot of the folks here seem that way too. Shame it can’t be more widespread!

  97. @ chuck:

    i keep on hearing about this “proof of evolution”. please, deign to tell me about it. i hunger for this revelation.

    No you don’t. You don’t want to know anything that contradicts your religion.

    If you’d bother to pick up any decent biology text you’d have all kinds of proof. But you won’t. You’ll fall back on the same sources your fundy friends shove at you and take it at that.

    Go to a library. Ask the reference librarian for a good book on basic biology. It’s okay, she won’t have an agenda. Librarians just want people to read.

    Go ahead, visit a library. We’ll wait.

    By the way, when the dead got up and walked around after Jesus was crucified, who put them back in the ground? Or did they stay on their feet?

  98. José

    and please, stuff the commentary about punctuation and the like. im trying to get you to see some light, not teach you grammar.

    Believe it or not, good grammar and punctuation is actually easier to read and understand. If you’re really trying to get us to see the light, please take that into consideration.

    go do as you told me to do, look it up yourself. you wont, because you have already decided your right, and who would dare to contradict you.

    So your argument for ID boils down to saying that you’ve seen ID proponents win debates against evolutionists? Again, we know all the tired ID arguments. If there’s some new and compelling argument for ID, just tell us what it is for Gods sake. I thought you were trying to get us to see the light?

    if your arrogance allows you to call greater minds than yourself “idiots” because they had the audacity to not believe what you believe, well shame on them.

    Nobody called them idiots for believing in God. You can believe in God and not be an idiot. But with all the evidence we have today, if a scientist doesn’t believe in evolution because of what the Bible says, then they’re an idiot.

    if you think the bible is a con job, tell me why.

    Read the two contradictory stories of creation. They can’t both be right. This means the Bible is not infallible. If the Bible is not infallible, there’s no reason to accept either creation story, especially when there are mountains of evidence against it.

    By the way, I don’t think the Bible’s a con job, but it certainly got the origins of our universe wrong. And how anyone can see that thing called “God” in the Old Testament as anything other than an evil monster is beyond me.

    as to “science doesnt lock you down into a set of predetermined beliefs”, you are joking, arent you.

    Nope. But you were already kind enough to prove this for us in your previous post, where you talked about science’s views on the universe changing over time. Thanks for that.

    and about the big banger, if true, where did the original matter come from?

    We don’t know, but just because science doesn’t have a definite answer for something is no reason to invoke God. Even if you do invoke God, you then have to ask yourself where did God come from? Or do you fall back on the “he’s always been there” argument you just derided?

    There you go. I’ve answered some of your questions. Now please answer mine. Specifically, what evidence for ID are you aware of that you believe is hard to disprove. I really, really want to hear it.

  99. chuck

    again, must i emphasize, no arguement, no proofs. go pick up a biology textbook, and voila, its all there. here, let me make it easy for you guys, seeing as how all you do is avoid the questions and ramble on about fear, blah blah. isnt it you who seem to fear another viewpoint. seems to be. the reason you wont offer a question or fact, is because you probably dont really have one. its you who is bathed in fear. you cant argue rationally, so you just turn to name calling, insults, and the like. so ill help this along by getting specific myself. first question, where is your transitional fossil(or creature), you know, where without a doubt this mammal or amphibian or whatever is in the process of becoming another species entirely. dont throw in the old bird, that one evolutionist cant even agree about. just give me that one fossil that shows the leap. the bible seems pretty accurate to me on that one. it says things reproduce after “their own kind”, in other words,no amphibian momma lays egg which hatches into amphibamammal, or whatever. until you can prove that creatures produced offspring of another kind, evolution just tells me what i already know, that animals can lay claim to incredible variety within their species, of size, color, physical size and attributes, but until you can show the proverbial amphibian turning into a mammal, ya aint got much proof. please grow up and dont just insult the question, or me. just give me an example. as to the question about the dead rising, im not sure what youre asking. if they were resurrected back to life, then i assume they lived on for awhile. these were people who specifically, acc. to the text, had believed in Christ. did they stay on their feet? is that a question or just another snide comment? i believe they were brought back to life as an additional witness, another “infallible proof” as the book of Acts calls them. Many people of that day could easily dismiss Christs ressurection if they were not witness to it, attributing it, as the guards at the tomb were told to lie, to His followers stealing the body. However, if uncle Bob, who had died a year earlier, showed up at the relatives front door, it would be pretty hard to discount that one. how long they lived after, i have no clue. we arent told. and by the way, it is not MY religion. It is a choice to believe that a man called Jesus lived(hard to find even the skeptics that still try to pass that one on), and that He died. He said it was for my sins(missing the mark, in the original). If I believe this, then salvation is a gift from God to me(and you, if you choose to believe it). thats it. i realize that there are those claiming to be christian who are fearful of any challenge, but i have found in my 57 years that that particular personality trait is not confined to religious people, but to all of us. we all believe in something, and once we are comfortable in it, we dont like the pot to be stirred. if my faith cant stand the tests, then it has no power to save. so challenges dont frighten me. i know i will never have all the answers, but i love the search for them. the theory of evolution contains many valid points, and interesting observations, but also includes many leaps of logic, and if you were honest, a great degree of faith. perhaps as a starting point, you should grab the book “Darwins black box”, written by a not-religious scientist. his arguments are far more cogent than mine. i was raised to believe there is often more than one side to a story, so i have often discovered different thoughts and opinions that i have incorporated into my philosophy and life. Science fascinates me, and if you care to believe it, i constantly read mags and books on science topics, both christian and secular. I believe science can observe and explain things, now with great accuracy, but back then, with more severe limitations. When i was in school, our biggest scientific fear was the coming ICE AGE. Now its global warming, oops, climate ccchhhhaaaannnggge. when i was a kid, steady state was THE scientific mantra re the universe. now its the big bang. science changes because we dont know everything, cant see everywhere, and are fallible. the bible is not a science or history book, but i believe it is accurate when it speaks on those topics(when understood in context, both grammatically and culturally). i gave you guys a challenge. feel free to throw a specific one back at me. God bless.

  100. Autumn

    Chuck,
    At the risk of really repeating what has been already been said on this topic, the point isn’t whether or not some kind of God may have had a hand in creation or evoloution or whatever else, the point is that science does not care. God may exist as a personal deity, but all science cares about are the regularities in the data and how to explain those regularities in a way that allows us to predict more of them. The instant that science starts to dismiss data as “unexplained to date, probably due to God, no need to investigate further”, it is broken and useless.
    Also, public debates are not a very good way to examine complex ideas. Technically demanding articles in peer-reviewed journals are. In this area, even you must acknowledge the paucity of support for ID.

  101. IVAN3MAN

    Bah! My “comment is awaiting moderation”! I hope Phil Plait hasn’t gone to bed yet!

  102. Elwood

    @chuck:

    perhaps as a starting point, you should grab the book “Darwins black box”, written by a not-religious scientist. his arguments are far more cogent than mine

    (a) Michael Behe is not“not-religious”. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
    (b) Perhaps they are more cogent. That is, perhaps his ideas are expressed more clearly. But they’ve been defeated. Comprehensively.

    PS – first attempt at HTML, took agesso I hope it works out… :)

  103. Elwood

    crap.

    missed a couple of tiny spaces… :|

  104. Chuck The Blasphemer,

    Stop preaching your mindless hatred of God.

    You are a worthless troll only trying to start arguments. Repent for your sinful ways. Stop blaspheming.

    How can you claim that God is capable of everything, but then turn around and claim that He is not capable of creating evolution? You are an embarrassment to religious people everywhere. Stop trying to dictate to God what may and may not be done.

    Intelligent Design was not designed by God. Intelligent Design was design by people. Probably to make up for their inability to understand truly large numbers, the concept of infinity, which should be familiar to those who believe in an all knowing, all powerful God. You preach about some silly sorcerer’s apprentice, by comparison.

    Evolution is the method God used to create us. If you are too dim to grasp that, that is because you refuse to listen.

    If you wish to communicate, you make some attempts to assist the reader in understanding your points. You do not. You are just a worthless troll. Repent.

  105. IVAN3MAN

    NUTS! It’s been over an hour, and my comment with links is still “awaiting moderation”! Sometimes I wonder why the bloody hell do I bother!

  106. TheBlackCat

    @ Chuck: you want proof of evolution? Try googling “nylonase”. That is a good start.

  107. TheBlackCat

    @ IVAN3MAN: I recommend you always make sure your links are in a separate post. That seems to be the most effective strategy.

  108. @ chuck:

    This one is rich:

    when i was a kid, steady state was THE scientific mantra re the universe.

    Good grief, chuck! You are that old?

    And yet again you prove you do not understand the basic fundamentals of the scientific method. The steady state theory was not a mantra. It was a proposed explanation for what was observed–what could be observed–at the time. It had many passionate backers. But like many theories, it didn’t pan out. Better observations, more data, more observations backing up the new data, and behold! A theory that explains those observations moves to the forefront…where it has been for a long, long time now because it’s very good at explaining the observable universe.

    Ditto with natural selection and evolution. If you’d ever bother to read one of those biology books you scorn (and no, I’m not going to read it for you…that’s why god gave you a brain.) you’d learn all about it.

    Honestly, the reason some of us make snarky comments at you is because of things like this. You claim to “believe” in science, yet you do not fathom its most basic principles. Worse, you do not seem to try, or even want to try.

    All you want to do is proselytize.

    But this is a science blog, so go preach somewhere else.

    Oh, and by the way, the question about the dead walking around? Matthew 27:53. Dead people rising up and walking around the city. Pretty significant event, wouldn’t you say? Odd how it’s not mentioned in the other three gospels. You had asked about inconsistencies in your mythology. That one popped instantly to mind. Do you really need lists of others? Because if you’ve read the book as many times as you claim I’m sure you’ve noticed them.

    As noted above, the very story of creation is different the two times it’s related. Want to know why? Because the two stories aren’t original to the bible. They’re two different rifs on the same creation mythologies that weren’t put together until the pentateuch was finally put together in the time of King Josiah of Jerusalem.

    See, if you’d actually study the bible…not just read it…you’d know stuff like that. And you know what else you might figure out? You’d realize what a really terrific piece of metaphoric literature the old and new testaments are, how they are filled with lots of very good imagery and powerful parables that can help you be a good person and lead a good life….if you don’t take it literally, if you use it instead as a crutch so you don’t have to think for yourself…and, god forbid, read a different book.

  109. And yes, Rogue Medic, he is a troll, and I am guilty of feeding him. Silly kuhnigget!

    Still, one is always hopeful the trolls might someday come out from under their bridges and see the light, as it were.

  110. While my comment with links is “awaiting moderation”, I’ll throw this into this so-called ‘debate':

    Claim: Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils — creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

    Response: Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see “The Mammals That Conquered the Seas”, by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans

    Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds — it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

    The Tiktaalik is one good example of a transistional fossil — click on my name for the link (that is, chuck, if you can bloody bother to do so) to the Wikipedia article.

  111. IVAN3MAN

    @ TheBlackCat,

    Thanks for the advice, but my “comment awaiting moderation” above consists mostly of links in fancy blue font. :-)

  112. chuck

    to rogue medic: what are you on? are you supposed to be funny? Let me know, and maybe ill laugh. to autumn: you’d read more id articles if the non-id disciples who control the journals would print them. if science “doesnt care”, then why the fear. you presume there is no God, then use your presumption as a basis for excluding Him. doesnt seem very scientific to me. i am not saying science shouldnt investigate, but that it should be open to alternative avenues. the dictum that everything must be understood via science is nauseating. to Jose: so youre not calling them idiots for believing in God, theyre just idiots for not believing in evol. thanks, clears it up for me. This may come as a shock to you, but many scientists who are also christian, and even many non-christian id scientists dont accept evolution primarily because of the absence of scientific proof.And Jose, if youre having trouble reading my posts, well, dont strain your brain. Just move on. Oh, and i would love to see your text messages. Not a letter or mark left out there i suppose. My pointing out that science changes over time is still valid. The boys who moved from steady state to big bang faced one hell of an uphill battle to be heard. Eventually they were, but the predetermination mindset of the steady staters made it a battle. Its the difficulty of entering new and different ideas that makes my point, as do all of your remarks. You may not have to invoke God because you cant explain where the original matter came from, but neither should you arbitrarily exclude Him from the debate. By the way, He calls Himself the ETERNAL God, so yes, He’s always been there. Its late, so i will return tomorrow hopefully with some id indicators. There are many, and i promise ill bring some back to you. And no, you didnt answer my questions, like the transitional fossil, or missing link, or whatever you want to call the thing no one can find. Im not sure i get your point of the supposed contradictory creation stories. If they were identical, would it make any difference to you. Would you suddenly think the bible is a dependable and accurate book. What is it about the accounts that deems them contradictory? Ill see if i can clear it up for you. Good morning all, and God bless. Sincerely, he who searches for the transitional proof.

  113. José

    @chuck

    first question, where is your transitional fossil(or creature), you know, where without a doubt this mammal or amphibian or whatever is in the process of becoming another species entirely.

    The fossil records are spotty in some places, but that’s only because dead animals rarely fossilize. Nevertheless modern mammals don’t just appear in the fossil record. Look up synapsids. Can you guess why these animals are often called “mammal like reptiles” or “proto-mammals”?

    The sad part is, it doesn’t matter how good the fossil record is for some people. Evolution predicted we should find fossils of whales with legs. That we didn’t have any for a long while made creationists jump for joy. Then we found one. They then said “where’s a fossil whale with bigger or smaller legs.” To a creationist, every discovery just creates 2 more gaps they can point at.

    And Darwin’s Black Box? You mean the 15 year old, thoroughly discredited book by Michael “Astrology is Science” Behe. Nobody here is familiar with that work.

  114. chuck

    to ivan3 man. sorry, just saw your post. will be back to you tomorrow or Fri. at the latest. i promise. just have to go to bed and get up in a few hours. thank you very much, though, for your response. finally, someone actually tried to answer my question. and yes, i will bother. tell me though, why do all the responses have to include some sort accusation, namecalling, insinuations, etc. even yours. are any of you able to have a civil debate? if you cant resist, though, ill endure. good night.

  115. chuck

    to kughnigget. darn it, i just saw your post. sigh. i got to go to bed. but quickly, if all of the gospels said the same thing, you’d accuse them of colusion. i have read the bible, i have studied it, and thats why i know that the authors of the gospels each had a different audience and theme, and purpose, in mind when writing. if they all said the same thing, we would only need one. as to my usage of the word mantra, your response is disingenuous at best. im sure you knew what i meant, and it wasnt that steady staters walked around chanting the word. it was THE belief back then(yes, i am that old). and woe to those who went contrary to it. and your argument about the bible just recycling older creation motifs, that is definitely a “tired old” explanation. and its been thoroughly rebuffed. and how is my proselytizing any different from yours? all of you are just here on line sharing your faith with one another. thought i would too. My faith is in a personal God. Yours is in a mega-farting bowling ball that, over billions and biilllliiooonns of years, just randomly formed the universe and all thats in it. Oh, i know, there are some natural laws and all that (dont get too close to an id). then there was a comet, or lightning, or aliens, or something that started life, which, after being asexual for awhile, decided to split up and have sex(which is far more fun, except for the socially inept), then became little fishes, who wanted to check out the shore, so they grew legs to walk, then they became mammals(no proof), who gave us apes, or ugly men, and here we are. wow, no faith there, you know, with all the proof and such. Lets see: frog plus princess begats man=fairy tale. Frog plus millions of years begats man=science. Gosh, have i joined the club yet. back at ya. later.

  116. José

    @chuck

    Jose: so youre not calling them idiots for believing in God, theyre just idiots for not believing in evol. thanks, clears it up for me.

    No. Any scientist with all the information we have available today who doesn’t believe in evolution is an idiot. Whether they believe in God or not is irrelevant.

    My pointing out that science changes over time is still valid. The boys who moved from steady state to big bang faced one hell of an uphill battle to be heard. Eventually they were, but the predetermination mindset of the steady staters made it a battle.

    And in this case, creationism was the predetermined mindset that evolution had to overthrow. You’re just a remnant of that antiquated predetermined mindset.

    You may not have to invoke God because you cant explain where the original matter came from, but neither should you arbitrarily exclude Him from the debate.

    I’m not arbitrarily exclude God. I’m excluding God because there’s evidence to support God. That’s the opposite of arbitrary.

    And no, you didnt answer my questions, like the transitional fossil, or missing link, or whatever you want to call the thing no one can find.

    Do you think maybe that could have been because you hadn’t asked the question yet? Anyway, I responded in the post above.

    By the way, He calls Himself the ETERNAL God, so yes, He’s always been there.

    Well, I’m saying I’ve always been here. You know those footprints in the sand? That was me.

    Im not sure i get your point of the supposed contradictory creation stories.

    Most people that believe in the Biblical creation story, do so because they believe the Bible is the word of God and therefore infallible. If the Bible makes contradictory statements, it can’t be infallible and there’s no longer any reason to believe the creation story is to be taken literally. The many Christians who believe in evolution have already figured this out.

    If they were identical, would it make any difference to you. Would you suddenly think the bible is a dependable and accurate book.

    No. There are too many other examples. I just picked this one because it’s directly relevant to the conversation.

  117. @kuhnigget,

    And yes, Rogue Medic, he is a troll, and I am guilty of feeding him. Silly kuhnigget!

    Still, one is always hopeful the trolls might someday come out from under their bridges and see the light, as it were.

    Nothing wrong with being an optimist, even in the face of such a sad misuse of the keyboard. At least archy was amusing. And logical. Two strikes there for the blasphemer, who controls God’s behavior. The hubris.

    How long until these pseudo-Christian extremists begin to imitate the pseudo-Muslim extremists? Ban education for women? Considering their approach to education, that might not be a bad thing.

    chuck could be an English professor with his, unfortunately not inimitable, return to the Dark Ages style.

  118. chuck,

    Today is one year from the observation of light from GRB 080319B. the farthest back we have been able to look, with the naked eye, in recorded history. 7 1/2 billion years.

    Take your 6,000 year old Creation story, add 25% and multiply by one million – that’s million, with an M, not billion with a B. Don’t start doing your Dr. Evil schtick. Look on the bright side, you probably can’t even differentiate between a million and a billion, so you can tell yourself that you were close. Only 125 million percent off. Wait, we’re not done yet, because that isn’t even the first thing God did in creating the universe, so the error is much larger. But you were oh so close!

  119. Pieter Kok

    Has somebody mentioned Poe yet?

  120. IVAN3MAN

    @ kuhnigget:

    Oh, and by the way, the question about the dead walking around? Matthew 27:53. Dead people rising up and walking around the city. Pretty significant event, wouldn’t you say?

    Matthew 27:52-53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
    And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

  121. We’ve got more Poe than Vincent Price played in the movies.

    ;)

    J/P=?

  122. Lawrence

    @Chuck –

    I’d like to see you respond to the various links to scientific evidence listed above.

    And belief in God (or Gods, or what-have-you) has no effect on the hard, physical evidence of the nature of the Universe, physical laws, genetics, etc.

    If the Bible said that we (meaning normal people) couldn’t do something, yet Science proved that we could – what does that mean to you?

    Technically, we can create life (through artificial insemination, animal cloning, etc) outside of what was considered to be the “only” way to pro-create. So, what does that mean?

    Seriously, religion is a belief system – not an insight into the way the natural world actually works.

  123. IVAN3MAN

    @ chuck:

    [T]ell me though, why do all the responses have to include some sort accusation, name-calling, insinuations, etc. even yours. are any of you able to have a civil debate?

    Maybe it’s because of your ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude problem towards those of us who do not share a belief in your ‘god’ — I choose not to capitalize that noun, thank you very much!

    Most of the regular commenters here have seen your type before, on numerous occasions, who come onto this blog uninvited and threaten “hell and damnation” and/or “fire and brimstone” to non-believers of their ‘god'; therefore, it should come as no surprise to you that, quite frankly, the regulars here are somewhat pissed-off with arrogant creationists and “Intelligent Design” proponents.

    Furthermore, it’s not just the arrogant attitude problem of ‘believers’, but also that of UFO believers and “Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology” proponents that annoys regulars here and ‘gets them started’.

    So, chuck, drop the condescending tone in your posts, if you want to be treated with respect — Bad Astronomy people are not to be trifled with!

  124. Darth Robo

    chuck, can you point to us which part about God or religion is scientific?

    And also why do you put it in opposition to evolution?

    And could you please leave the religious martyr complex behind on your next post?

    Thanks very much.

  125. Todd W.

    @chuck

    I don’t think that my posts have contained insults, and yet you have ignored them and not answered any of the questions I posed to you. Still waiting for the example of a reputable publication (and a list to the hundreds of others), as well as the link to the thousands of scientists you mentioned.

    I would also pose some questions to you.

    * If the theory of evolution is wrong, then what scientific evidence do you propose as an explanation of how the diversity of life came about.

    * If you support the idea of Intelligent Design as a theory, then perhaps you can explain to us all what that theory is. What does it predict? What evidence does it have? How can it be falsified? We have been asking these questions ever since ID came on the scene and have yet to get any answers.

    * You brought up Stein being removed as a speaker due to his support of ID, thereby proving the premise behind Expelled. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but PZ Myers, an evolutionary biologist, was expelled from a screening of the movie to which he obtained tickets through the same methods as everyone else in that line. Other evolutionary biologists were likewise denied entrance to screenings of the film. For something decrying the suppression of dissent, why then be guilty of the same crime? Also, are you aware of how the cases presented in the movie were not only incomplete but, in some cases, outright lies? Again, I direct you to www (dot) expelledexposed (dot) com for a more complete picture of that movie.

    * You keep saying that evolution is incomplete, that it requires leaps of logic and faith. Can you please provide an example of where you see this occurring?

    * Finally, you call for clear examples of animals producing different animals that are substantively different from their parents. Well, you won’t ever find them. Furthermore, evolutionary theory does not claim that this occurs. While speciation can occur “rapidly” relative to the age of the planet, in human terms it takes a very, very long time. So, you will never see a dog give birth to a duck. Nor will you see a normal dog of today give birth to a feathered dog. That isn’t how evolution works, and if you think that’s what it is saying, then you do not understand what you are arguing against.

  126. Chuck needs his sleep, let him be.

  127. TheBlackCat

    you’d read more id articles if the non-id disciples who control the journals would print them.

    Wrong. The ID proponents themselves have admitted that they have not even tried to get work published in scientific journals. There is no conspiracy to keep them out of journals, they never did the research in the first place and they admit it. They claim they are in the process of doing research, secret research at top-secret ID facilities by unnamed researchers, but so far nothing has come of this. Your excuse is a common one, but it is a myth perpetuated by people who don’t want to accept that the ID community has nothing to offer science.

    if science “doesnt care”, then why the fear.

    The only fear amongst scientists is that students will be taught lies in science classrooms that will leave them unable to understand science, what it does, or how it works. If the ID community would present a real, testable hypothesis and/or evidence to back up their claims, then scientists would accept them with open arms. Scientists have been begging them for these things for decades. They have steadfastly refused to do so. The ID community is the side that is really afraid, they are afraid to let their cherished beliefs be exposed to scrutiny.

    you presume there is no God, then use your presumption as a basis for excluding Him. doesnt seem very scientific to me.

    No, we exclude gods, and the supernatural in general, because they are not testable. In those cases where testable predictions have been made, they have turned out to be false.

    This may come as a shock to you, but many scientists who are also christian, and even many non-christian id scientists dont accept evolution primarily because of the absence of scientific proof.

    Really? Which non-Christian ID scientists are those? Have any names for us?

    My pointing out that science changes over time is still valid. The boys who moved from steady state to big bang faced one hell of an uphill battle to be heard. Eventually they were, but the predetermination mindset of the steady staters made it a battle.

    There is a big difference between the big bang theory and ID. The big bang theory made specific, testable predictions regarding evidence that should be found if their ideas were correct, evidence that should not be found if the steady-state theory was correct. They provided a specific, detailed description of their hypothesis, its implications, how it worked, and how that should impact what we see today. They convinced the rest of the scientific community by showing that those predictions were right, and the predictions of the steady-state model. Even the staunchest opponents of the big bang ultimately relented in the face of evidence. There was no conspiracy to suppress papers on the big bang, and there was no effort by proponents of the big bang to bypass the scientific process by putting their ideas in public schools before they had collected even the slightest bit of evidence to back up their claims. They worked within the scientific process, and they prevailed based on one thing and one thing alone: the evidence.

    The same is true for every other once unpopular scientific idea. They all convinced scientists by making testable predictions and then testing those predictions themselves. Not one has tried to get their ideas taught in public school science classrooms before doing any new research on the subject. Their proponents all recognized that the debate should be carried out amongst scientists first, no matter how hard that might have been for them. They recognized that public school science classrooms and televised debates were not the way to do science. It is how politics works, not science.

    Contrast this with ID. They have provided no hypothesis of any kind, no descriptions of the specific implications of their hypothesis, and no specific predictions of the evidence that should be found that would allow scientists to distinguish between ID and evolution being correct. Instead, they have completely bypasses the scientific process and went straight to teaching their unfounded claims in public schools. The very first work on ID was not a journal article, or a presentation or poster at a conference, a reference book for scientists, or even a scientific book for lay audiences. It was a grade school textbook. That alone should show to you that they have not intention of doing real science.

    What is it about the accounts that deems them contradictory? Ill see if i can clear it up for you.

    Then answer me this: who was present when Jesus left the tomb after the resurrection? Look at all four of the gospels, then tell me.

    and how is my proselytizing any different from yours?

    The difference is that we have evidence to back up our claims, and we have presented some of that evidence. You have presented nothing despite repeated requests for your to do so.

    Yours is in a mega-farting bowling ball that, over billions and biilllliiooonns of years, just randomly formed the universe and all thats in it. Oh, i know, there are some natural laws and all that (dont get too close to an id). then there was a comet, or lightning, or aliens, or something that started life, which, after being asexual for awhile, decided to split up and have sex(which is far more fun, except for the socially inept), then became little fishes, who wanted to check out the shore, so they grew legs to walk, then they became mammals(no proof), who gave us apes, or ugly men, and here we are. wow, no faith there, you know, with all the proof and such.

    Wow, there is not a single thing you said in that entire screed that is even remotely similar to what scientists actually think. Can you say “strawman”?

    As an example, we actually have a very complete record of the transition from fish to amphibians to mammal-like reptiles (synapsids) to mammals. We have numerous transitional forms in this lineage, some of which have already been pointed out to you.

  128. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    @ Ivan3man:

    Thanks for the correction. I believe I messed up a cut-and-paste.

  129. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    No retraction of lies or mistakes means either denialist or poe. But my guess it’s a poe (or possibly someone who is so messed up he or she can’t keep track of the denialist viewpoint):

    then there was a comet, or lightning, or aliens, or something that started life,

    “Aliens” is what creationists push as an example of “design”.

  130. chuck

    darn, so much to read and respond to, but a hot date with the wife beckons. will get back to you all tomorrow. thanks Todd, for your detailed response. sorry if i missed any priors. will respond soon. as for rogue medic, you may just be the most fearful evol ive ever seen. and why would you think i believed in a 6000 year old creation. great display of math skills though. should be proud of yourself. ivan, i dont recall any hellfire and damnation blogging from myself, or do those things flash before your eyes every time you read or hear the word GOD(and i chose TO capitilize that noun, thank you very much). and rogue, might need to lighten up on the meds dude. anyway, i take being called a troll by an orc a compliment. ill be bbbaaacccckkkk.

  131. IVAN3MAN

    Torbjörn Larsson:

    Thanks for the correction. I believe I messed up a cut-and-paste.

    No problem. I trust that you’ll correct me when I slip-up? :-)

  132. @chuck,

    Fearful?

    No. I just don’t like hypocrites.

    You are a hypocrite.

  133. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    Ivan3man:

    Sure! … if I’ll ever see you do that. ;-)

  134. José

    What happened Chuck? That must have been some date. Congratulations!

  135. IVAN3MAN

    I think he chuck(ed) in the towel!

  136. Maybe he’s boning up on another subject.

  137. chuck

    oh, are you guys naughty, or what? love the humor though. thanks. it was a good date, now, saturday, im removing wallpaper. rather be blogging with my bff’s, but sundays comin’. Rogue, i must have hit a nerve with my “orc” comment. Unfortunately, i was returning an insult with an insult, which, you are correct, is hypocritical. Hard to show the love of God while your insulting someone. So, my sincere apologies. I will do it no more. You may continue, however, if it gives you pleasure. Anyway, i have some non-id scientists quotes i found interesting, and do intend to respond to your fossil evidence, and i will check out the links. Just keep in mind, theres one of me, and several of you, so i may be overwhelmed at times trying to respond to everything. ill do my best, and i sincerely wish you all a good weekend.
    p.s. and Rogue, the good news for you and I is that
    Gods loves all his creatures, including trolls and orcs.lol. be back soon.

  138. José

    That can’t be the real Chuck! The real Chuck only capitalizes words like “God” and ”Bible”. The beginnings of sentences aren’t important enough to get the uppercase treatment. And I happen to know for a fact that the real Chuck’s date did not go well, and he ended up sleeping on the couch that night.

  139. IVAN3MAN

    I have often noticed that Christian fundamentalists come in two types: (a) mild-mannered ones that cannot be bothered to capitalize the words at the beginning of sentences nor the names of an object or people, even when referring to themselves in their post, but always capitalize their ‘god’ or their ‘holy’ book; (b) hot-headed ones that capitalize almost every goddamn word in their post, and ending their sentences with multiple exclamation marks with a sprinkling of 1’s.

  140. IVAN3MAN

    ADDENDUM: (b) hot-headed ones that capitalize almost every goddamn letter of words in their post, and ending their sentences with multiple exclamation marks with a sprinkling of 1’s.

  141. p.s. and Rogue, the good news for you and I is that
    Gods loves all his creatures,

    Chuck’s gone polytheistic on us! Aieeeeeeee!

  142. Darth Robo

    >>>”i have some non-id scientists quotes i found interesting”

    What’s an ID “scientist”?

    (shrug)

  143. chuck,

    What is an orc and why would that bother me?

    The hypocrisy I was referring to is the way you use the Bible to preach your deformed God, incapable of creating the universe and evolution. You preach God as a mere servant of your interpretation of the Bible. Yours is just one interpretation, but it is not logically consistent and your interpretation is blasphemous.

  144. StevoR

    @ kuhnigget : (March 21st, 2009 at 3:22 pm)


    p.s. and Rogue, the good news for you and I is that
    Gods loves all his creatures,

    Chuck’s gone polytheistic on us! Aieeeeeeee!

    Yes! Bring back Aphrodite! Now there’s a goddess I can worship happily! :heart: :-D

    Come to think of it bring back Dionysus too! :-D

    (We’ll forget about those nasty Maenads though…King pentuhus (?) ref. ‘The Bacchae?’)

    Plus the Naiads, dryads and water nymphs! :-)

    Oh & lets enjoy the Muses return too esp. Urania, the Muse of Astronomy and Erato, muse of romantic poetry, & Terpsichore, Muse of dance – think I’ve got thsoe right … ;-)

    Ah yes, Greek mythology my favourite religion o/s of Pastafarianism! ;-)

  145. StevoR

    Incidentally, didn’t the hebrew tribes war god Yahwah that later became Allah, Jehovah, & well ‘God’ generally actually admit the existence of other dieties besdie himself in the Biblical line :

    “I am a jealous god?”

    That that (literally!) fundies. :-P

    PS. One other contradiction in the Bible (was that this thread?) that I’ve found mildly amusing in a black humour sorta way :

    Commandment : Thou Shalt NOT kill. (Hm .. exemption there for abortoion doctors & non-christians?)

    Vs

    Thou shalt NOt suffer a witch to live.

    So “God” says on the one hand you’ve got a kill a witch but then OTOH you’re not allowed to kill. Hmm …

  146. StevoR- Correcting

    Take that (literally ) fundies is what I meant ..

    Oh for the ability to edit these… Sigh. :-(

  147. Spectroscope

    @ Torbjörn Larsson, OM :(March 18th, 2009 at 11:53 am)

    @ Spectroscope:- Then I can be terribly pedantic right back, and point out that I didn’t say “all of” chemistry.

    Point taken that the totality of chemistry emerged out of a lot of cosmological (and biological, and technical) intermediary processes. But it doesn’t really bear on my emergence argument either, again nitpicking of course.

    No worries.

    6,000 years “argued” by the IDiots versus 13 plus billion years reliably & repeatedly scientifically demonstrated!

    So they hope they got 0.05 % of reality right at best, while we know that it is actually 0 %!

    PS. HTML code for “ö” is “& # 169 ;” or “& ouml ;” (remove spaces), in case you are sitting with an umlaut-free keyboard. (On an ordinary web-site, that is – seems this sites will replace isolated ö’s with emoticons, for fun.) I can’t for my life understand why, though.

    Thanks. :-)

    I can’t guarantee I’ll remeber all that though .. Cut & paste nowe that I should’ve thought of earlier! ;-)

    @ Chuck – For pity’s sake, even if you can’t be bothered with capitalising words could you atleats adopt theparagparh & having your posts spaced abit better .. Just look at how other people here post – most you’ll note use grammar, many have the odd typo but try to keep them toa mininimum, some correct such typos afterwards.

    Most of all, almost *all* theposters here use paragpraph and line spacing and having that bit of “white space” makes quite a lot of difference in how pleasant to read posts are. Chuck you hurt your own cause by your “No paragraphs, no lines, no space” style. Its annoying and unpleasant to read. :-(

    Not that your posts wouldn’t be bad enough anyway .. Please, do yourself a favour – if you are serious rather than satirical – and try looking at the alternative side of this issue by researching and reading and listening to those you disagree with who have already (in this here thread alone) provided a solar mass-worth of material contradicting “Intelligent Design theory” / polemic. :-(

    @Rogue medic : What is an orc and why would that bother me?

    Haven’t you read / seen the Lord of the Rings yet? ;-)

    I shoul

  148. Spectroscope

    Typos. They always happen when I’m tiyred.

    Correction from post above :

    —-

    @ Chuck – For pity’s sake, even if you can’t be bothered with capitalising words could you at least adopt the paragraph & have your posts spaced out a lot more? Just look at how other people here post; most, you’ll notice, use grammar. Many have the odd typo (few of us are perfect, myself included!) but we try to keep them to a mininimum and get our spelling & punctuation reasonably correct. Some people here even sometimes correct such typos through an extra post afterwards.

    ——–

    Like this. Not that it was intentional done … ;-(

    But can’t you see how that seems better & easier to follow now?


    PS. Yes, such ‘correction’ posts can get annoying too but unfortunately there’s not too many ways to correct typos otherwise since we can’t edit here.

  149. Spectroscope,

    “What is an orc and why would that bother me?”

    Haven’t you read / seen the Lord of the Rings yet? ;-)

    I read The Hobbit long ago, but did not read the rest of the series. I saw the first of the recent movies, but it did not capture my attention. If they mentioned orcs, I did not notice.

    I figured chuck was using an acronym. Why expect any differentiation between upper and lower case to facilitate communication. It would be a surprise from someone who seems to revel in misunderstanding.

  150. chuck

    it’s good to know the mice still play when the cat’s away. sorry if my non-capitilisation bothers you, but i assumed everyone knew that a period usually ends the sentence. I’ve been doing penance for accidently typing Gods instead of God. Had to destroy all the idols in my den. Well, i can guarantee you i’m back on the old mono-theistic bandwagon again. No more straying for me.

    Wow, though I still regret snipping at Rogue, it did hurt a bit to discover my silver bullet was wasted. I’ll just keep my gun holstered from now on. Tell you what Roguey, you be Gandalf the Gray, and i’ll be one of the Hobbits, and you can mentor me in the ways of your magic, so that i may, ahem, evolve to a being of higher misunderstanding.

    As to the solar mass of evidence, you must be in one of the many multi-universes, for I haven’t read a single thing that would disqualify id theory (actually, more of a model, as is evol.) Rogue likes to joke about not allowing God to have used evolution to bring all this about. I could care less if God used evolution or not. I’ve got no cards in that hand. However, that would, by logic, give us a designer, if only a “beginner, or starter” designer.

    No, the commandment, in the Hebrew, is “Thou shalt not MURDER”. Killing someone in self-defense, or capitol crime, is not considered murder in a biblical sense. Witchcraft was considered idolatry, and God(who also said “Thou are no other gods besides me” which does not mean that people don’t think there are other gods), who was making a people for Himself, could not brook such a practice in Israel. I guess God could have just said “I’m jealous”, but He was contrasting His nature with that of other supposed gods.

    Rogue, I’m still somewhat puzzled by your “you’re a hypocrite ” remark. I’m not sure what it is that you think I’m being hypocritical about. If you can explain, please do. If it was just about pleasure, don’t bother.

    Jose, was that you peeking in my window. Had to be. How else could you have known?

    It’s late, i must go. But I am preparing replies for the multitude of questions, proofs, and links, and I will be back. Hope I was an easier read this time. Don’t thank me, though, or I’ll think you actually like me. And you know how everyone here hates hypocrites. Later.

  151. IVAN3MAN

    Chuck, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

  152. chuck,

    for I haven’t read a single thing that would disqualify id theory (actually, more of a model, as is evol.)

    Evolution is what science shows us about the development of life. The details are being refined as with any other science, but the evidence makes it clear, evolution is the way we came about. Any claim that is contrary to the evidence, is not science. What initiated evolution is where atheism and religion disagree.

    Intelligent Design is not about a designer, but a particular recipe. Intelligent Design is the literal misinterpretation of Genesis. Intelligent Design is anti-science. There is no science to support Intelligent Design, only rhetoric.

    I could care less if God used evolution or not.

    Then you are not supporting Intelligent Design as it is being proposed for use in the science classroom. If you accept that God created us by means of evolution, then you do not oppose evolution. Yet, you seem to have written quite a bit about your opposition to evolution.

    Rogue, I’m still somewhat puzzled by your “you’re a hypocrite ” remark. I’m not sure what it is that you think I’m being hypocritical about. If you can explain, please do.

    Claiming to believe in an all powerful God, while restricting that God to what is written in a book, as if it is a rule book for the Game of Religion and being interpreted by a zebra. If God were to do something that is not in the rule book, this would be cheating. This is not the God of the Bible, but the minor deity of the rule book, as interpreted by some referee. In other words, the referee tells God what the rules are and God complies.

    Science is the way we learn about the world. Not science as modified by followers of the referee, who tells God how to behave.

  153. chuck

    Rogue, I agree that science is A way we learn about the world, just not the only way. Science is no more than conjecture when it comes to the very beginning. This is one reason, I believe, that the bible was given to us, to take us back to the point we are unable to get to. Again, I personally don’t care if God had chosen evolution as His method of bringing about life on earth. He is capable of doing it in whatever manner He so choses. However, evolution is not the method described in the bible, so until i see absolute proof for it, I can’t adhere to that belief system.If you’re referring to evolution simply as “change over time”, then I have no beef with that. Most everything changes over time.Even Darwins “descent with modification” doesn’t strike me as controversial, if used in a strict limited sense. All of these things happen, though, within the existing species. As I pointed out before, the bible refers to this as reproducing “after their own kind”. On this point evolution and the bible are in agreement. Its the inter-species evolution that leaves me wanting. And the dearth of information regarding beginnings. I quote Harvard biologist Marc Kirshner and Berkeley biologist John Gerhart “everything about evolution before the bacteria-like life forms is sheer conjecture”. Rogue, if you actually want me to believe that God used evolution to get us started and to this point, then that would make you a creationist. Are you one? Even Darwin didnt go to absolute beginnings other than to once say that life may have “started in some warm little pond”. Although he did not believe the universe started as blind chance, he did not believe there was any evidence of any specific design, though he did believe in the involvement of designed laws, but the results thereof were because of, for lack of a better word, chance.

    Even super-evol Dawkins has said that biology “is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed” although he goes on to reject design. But if a committed evol such as Dawkins admits there is an appearance of design, why the scorn and contempt for scientists who believe there is design, and with it, a designer. If we wipe ourselves out on this planet, and the Klingons discover earth a million years from now, and with it what we built and manufactered, will they too be idiots if they conclude someone designed the buildings, cars, computers, etc.? So if a scientist sees what he believes to be design in nature, why is he an idiot for rejecting blind chance, no special meaning, evolution? Again, Darwin on life having possibly “been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one”. This quote allows the possibility of a Designer.

    Intelligent design does not equal biblical creationist. While creationists agree with id in reference to design, id and creationism often disagree in certain areas. Many id scientist believe in a very old earth, and allow for certain attributes of evolutionary theory in their thinking, such as variation and natural selection. While all creationists believe in the biblical portrayal of God as creator, many id proponents have no belief in a personal God, for example, prominent atheist Antony Flew.

    A previous reference was made to the whale with legs. I assume you are refering to Ambulocetus natans, or swimming walking whale, or to the slightly younger fossil discovered in Pakistan that had some features intermediate between Ambulocetus and modern whales. Gould called this “the sweetest series of transitional fossils and evolutionist could ever hope to find”. Berkeley paleontologist Kevin Padian notes, however, that all of the fossil whales have “distinguishing characteristics, which they would have to lose in order to be considered direct ancestors of other known forms”. I think these fossils would be better descibed as terminal side branches on the “whales tree of life”. I believe most Darwinists would acknowledge that none of these fossils would be in a lineage leading to modern whales. Fossil expert Gareth Nelson, of the American Museum of Natural History wrote “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion”. Though written in the eighties, i think it still applies in principal today.

    You know, proof can be an illusive thing. Maybe this may seem like a vindictive example, but I know you are famaliar with Haeckel’s drawings. They have been reprinted in millions of biology textbooks, even recently, but we now know there were faked. Richardson wrote in Science that “It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology”. His faking similiarities, leaving out orders of mammals, omitting two classes of vertebrates, and the order of amphibians that includes frogs, is a perfect example of trying to squeeze the “evidence” into the theory. Faking it made it all the easier. Yet for more than a century those drawings were (and still are) used as proof of evolution. Even Darwin relied on these drawings in later editions of The Origin of the Species and in the Descent of Man.

    It should move us toward humility when we are tempted to exalt men or their theories or models above what is plain to our sight, from the smallest known creatures and their complexity to incredible narrow range of factors that enable us to be here, design is seen everywhere. The debate here is over whether this apparent design is just an illusion, or forbodes something I believe is obvious…there is design, and there is a designer.

    Enough for now. Thanks for listening. Will be back later with more. The chuck.

  154. IVAN3MAN

    NO SANTA; NO GOD.

    CHUCK, THERE’S NO DESIGNER.

  155. Creation, as in God creating the original substance of the universe that would progress to an Earth on which life would evolve. that is a form of Creationism. however it is directly opposed to the Creationism that is being suggested for inclusion in the science classroom. The idea that man did not evolve from other species, all with a single celled ancestor? That idea has no scientific support. You point out hat science has people, who make mistakes or commit fraud. This is true. This will always be true, but science is self-correcting.

    Science allows us to confirm/refute previous research. Errors do not last. Fraud does not last.

    Science is what should be taught in the science classroom. Religion should not be taught in a science classroom. Teaching religion in a science classroom may seem like a victory, when Christianity is the major religion in the country, but things change. Teaching Genesis in the science classroom is not even teaching Christianity, but just a very vocal opinion held by those who seem to not understand what is possible, when very large numbers are involved. Creationists offer all sorts of arguments as to why evolution could not happen, but they demonstrate an ignorance of science, not a devotion to God.

    For example, the constant reference to entropy as a law that forbids evolution. Entropy is physics, not biology. Biology is full of self-organizing activity, not entropy. This is just one example of the lack of understanding of science, by those who try to teach religion in the science classroom.

    To be fair, should we have science taught in the religion classroom? This would only affect private schools, but it does not make any sense, either.

    For transitional creatures, do you need to see some horribly deformed creature, similar to a monster in a science fiction movie mutating at an incredibly fast rate? No. There are plenty of species that have separated from their original species. they will have other species further separate from them. Sometimes changes are gradual, but there are often changes that are large jumps. There is no speed limit on rate of change. Almost all growth has slow periods, interrupted by periods of rapid change. Evolution is no different.

    Unlike Genesis, evolution provides evidence. This is what matters.

  156. chuck

    Rogue, your argument about rapid change brings back memories of the days when slow, slow, change was the way evolution had to have occured. When obvious examples of rapid change seemed to have occurred, the old method was chucked, shall we say. I know, this is just sciences’ way of correcting itself. But I would argue that a discipline that must undergo constant “corrections”(corrections made because those who went against the mainstream pointed out the need for them), should maintain a very open mind and extra dose of humility. When will science learn that mocking or ostracizing a different point will as often as not lead to future embarrassment. I could care less if creationism is taught in the classroom. You’re right there, creationism belongs outside the realm of science, as science shouldn’t enter the classroom of origins. It is the incessant identifying of id with creationism that is irritating to me.

    “The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation….his religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority, that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection”.

    “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron….the remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”.

    A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blinds forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak;, as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries”

    Quotes from the Creation Research Society? No, they would be Einstein, Hawkings, Sir Fred Hoyle, and Robert Jastrow. You can study the evidence of design without teaching the bible, or any religion whatsoever. Just where evolution suggests chance, let evidence that points to design be compared to it. It is not that this is impossible to do, but the fear that proof of design might move some to ask, “Well, who did it”. Science should answer that it does not know, whether from an evolutionary or id perspective. Evols believe that life just happened to spring up from some combination of proteins and lightning or cooling pool, or whatever, but when Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculated the odds that all the functional proteins neccessary for life might form in one place by random events, they came up with 10 to the 40,000th. With estimates of the entire visible universe having only about 10 to the eightieth subatomic particles, if the whole universe was organic soup it still adds up to a numerical impossibility. Tell me it doesn’t take faith to believe in evol. Hoyle did not believe in God, so he was forced, he felt, by these numbers to adopt a panspermia answer, whether by alien life or comet or whatever. Still, that just begs the question to another level.

    And no, there are not plenty of species that have seperated from their original species. There have been many changes and variations, but they still sit within their original species. Maybe those changes did happen rapidly, but by accident or design? Or is it just variation or subtle adaptations to enviroment?

    Thanks for your response. The to and fro is challenging and exhilarating. We aren’t changing each others minds, I’m sure, but we are finally communicating. Got to hit the sack. Back soon.

    Up next…..could science have predicted anything from information in the bible?

  157. @chuck
    Your incessantly continue to quote mine. For example the quotes from Kevin Padian and Gareth Nelson are both taken out of context. Padian, for example, was an expert witness in Kitzmiller v. Dover case and testified for the victorious plaintiffs in a decision that went against ID if I am not mistaken. Nelson is a professor of botany and is an evolutionist. His quote was from 1978 and was in regards to discussions on the classifications of organisms.

  158. could science have predicted anything from information in the bible?
    Who knows? Doubt it. The science of archaeology is doing a wonderful job of disproving much of the bible though.

  159. As a matter of interest Padian’s testimony at Kitzmiller v. Dover is actually a good read…

    http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html

  160. @ Shane:

    The science of archaeology is doing a wonderful job of disproving much of the bible though.

    Slight correction: Archaeology (and philology) is discovering quite a lot about how the bible (old testament, in particular) came to be compiled from the original sources, and the reasons why it was compiled.

    One can no more “disprove” the bible than one can “disprove” Moby Dick, or Matthew Looney’s Voyage to the Earth. One doesn’t disprove works of fiction, even those peppered historical characters, events, and places, as are the stories of the OT.

  161. Sigh. Preview, o FSM, preview! Ramen!

    One can no more “disprove” the bible than one can “disprove” Moby Dick, or Matthew Looney’s Voyage to the Earth. One doesn’t disprove works of fiction, even those peppered with historical characters, events, and places, as are the stories of the OT.

  162. @kunigget
    Point taken. Except. Moby Dick is fiction? ;-)

  163. chuck

    shane, you must be totally out of touch with archaeology if you think it has disproven the bible. Give me one single example if you can.Archaeologist and historians have made claims against the bibles’ accuracy again and again only to have a new dig confirm references from scripture. If you need refs, i can get them for you. Will still be waiting for your proof.

    Are you all missing the entire point of my quotes. By quoting a scientist i am not implying that he is a creationist or id. Quite the contrary, I think my argument is made stronger by quoting those who are NOT id, but whose statements buttress certain arguments i am making. The bible a work of fiction? LOL. Certainly no more blind faith than believing in impossible odds for spontaneous life, and imaginary quantum leaps to explain gaps in the fossil record. The bible is not a history or science textbook, but it is accurate when referring to either, if you bother to understand the original languages and cultural backgrounds. For example, for quite a while archeologists and skeptics used the bible reference to Hittites as proof that the bible contained errors. But guess what happened? Youre right, we now know about the Hittites. William Albright is a good example of someone who believed that much in the bible was of a legendary nature. The bible, in Genesis 14, refers to a military campaign during Abrahams’ time. Experts had written that the area described had never even been inhabited at all. Yet Albright ended up excavating a line of mounds(bronze age) which turned out to be cities, just as described in Genesis 14, though later they were not inhabited (Iron Age).Bronze age inscriptions were found bearing the name “Arriyuk”, the name of a participant mentioned in the campaign in Gen.14, plus specific names such as Abraham, Eber, Laban, and others. Starting as a skeptic, Albright eventually wrote “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition”. I have a brochure that lists over 50 archaeological finds that confirm names, cities, peoples, etc. mentioned in Scriture. There are many more.

    Shane, you’ve got to do better than that. Did you read that somewhere, or hear it from a professor(hopefully not of archaeology). You wouldnt have to dig deep to disprove your own claim.

    Again, i am trying to use info or quotes from non-christian or non-id scientists when possible, so you all can’t claim their findings are “tainted” by religious beliefs. So my quotes of Nelson et al are not meant to mean they support id, but that even though they don’t, here is what they have said. Clear? And there’s much more to be predicted from the bible. Just hold on, itsa comin.

  164. Chuck, as I agreed with kuhnigget one can not “disprove” the bible. So it was an unfortunate piece of wording on my behalf.
    Having said that there is scant physical evidence out side of the bible for much of what “happened”. Some examples:
    Nazareth – may not have existed in the 1st century
    David
    Moses – most of Genesis in fact – particularly no evidence of the world wide flood
    Jericho – little evidence of the walls having come down

    William Albright appears to be, as it says in the wiki, the leading theorist and practitioner of biblical archaeology. Not exactly an atheist and he is from an evangelical background.

    The claim that skeptics used the Hittites to claim that the bible contains errors seems to come from Christians. I can’t find anything about that from independent sources. The historicity of the Hittites has been around for some time – the 19th Century in fact.

    However, I suppose it is a bit like the Iliad. Just because Troy was found doesn’t validate Homer’s stories. Moby Dick was fictional but Nantucket certainly existed. Still does.

    BTW, using quotes out of context because they buttress your argument smacks a little of dishonesty.

  165. chuck,

    Just where evolution suggests chance, let evidence that points to design be compared to it. It is not that this is impossible to do, but the fear that proof of design might move some to ask, “Well, who did it”.

    The only place that I see design entering the picture is in the very beginning. There is not any evidence of impossibility of evolution. As we learn more, the evidence for evolution increases.

    when Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculated the odds that all the functional proteins neccessary for life might form in one place by random events, they came up with 10 to the 40,000th. With estimates of the entire visible universe having only about 10 to the eightieth subatomic particles, if the whole universe was organic soup it still adds up to a numerical impossibility.

    If the odds were as you state, that does not mean that we would have to wait until the end 10 to the 40,000 power events for the right conditions to occur. If a casino has a contest with odds of one in a million, a person walks in the first day and wins on the first attempt, does that mean that the odds were wrong? It would get the casino complaining that something wasn’t right, but the casino has an obvious bias.

    And no, there are not plenty of species that have seperated from their original species. There have been many changes and variations, but they still sit within their original species. Maybe those changes did happen rapidly, but by accident or design? Or is it just variation or subtle adaptations to enviroment?

    Those changes did happen from one species to the next.

    If the changes were not from one species to the next, why would any explanation – accident or design – be worth mentioning?

    Tell me it doesn’t take faith to believe in evol.

    Science does require some faith. not the kind of faith that religion does. David Hume discussed this problems of induction and cause and effect hundreds of years ago. We do require some faith that the repetition of an event indicates a greater likelihood that it will occur again. some faith that the repetition of a well controlled experiment provides us with information about causation. While this does require some faith, the alternative is to reject knowledge. The bit of knowledge that we have developed, we have developed because of science. without science, we would not survive. Even seeking shelter is a primitive form of science. Repeated observations of the difference between exposure to elements and protection from the elements.

    It is through a progress from that very primitive science, that is not limited to humans, that we have arrived at a science so advanced, that we can type messages to each other with no significant limitations. In a few decades, in many scientific fields, this level of progress will be viewed as primitive. That our knowledge expands so rapidly, is evidence to support the validity of science.

    Our knowledge of evolution will also expand. I expect that the result will only make it more clear that evolution is the process that brought about life on Earth.

    Intelligent Design is a suggestion that we should have high school students defer science education to have religious debates in the science classroom. Most high school science teachers and most high school science students are not going to be able to provide any reasoned debate on this. This will only serve to interfere with science education. That does nothing to help our high school students.

    The place for such a debate is at the college/university level, and possibly not until after a couple of courses on evolution. One needs to understand the science to be able to debate the science. Claiming that a theory is the same, regardless if it is a scientific theory or a hunch, is sophistry. The theory of evolution is supported by evidence. New evidence consistently confirms this theory. That is a scientific theory.

    Intelligent Design is a way of trying to teach religion in the classroom. It is a recent idea. It changes so that its proponents can claim that it is not religion, but science. Intelligent Design is more of a legal theory. Similar to the small print on a sub-prime mortgage, it is designed to create doubt. Similar to the lawyer asking, Isn’t it possible that my client only had the weapon in his hands and spatter marks from the victims blood because of ridiculously improbable event X? Ridiculously improbable is not the same as impossible, so the witnesses answer is, Yes. This is just a legal form of deception.

    Intelligent Design is just a legal form of deception.

    Intelligent Design does not raise any valid scientific questions.

  166. Shane,

    @kunigget
    Point taken. Except. Moby Dick is fiction? ;-)

    It is inspired by the events of the whaling ship Essex. An early example of what could be said to be based on a true story. while the true events are interesting, it was the fictional Moby Dick that was much more memorable.

  167. That should read, so the witness’s answer is, Yes. :-(

  168. Rev. I. P. Freeley

    @ chuck

    Genesis 14:7 And they returned, and came to Enmishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezontamar.

    “They… smote all the country of the Amalekites.”
    The Amalekites were smitten before Amalek (from whom they descended) was born. Amalek was the grandson of Esau (Genesis 36:12). :lol:

    Genesis 36:12 And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau’s wife.

    “She bare to Eliphaz Amalek.”
    Amalek was born many years after his descendants were “smitten” (Genesis 14:7). :lol:

  169. Todd W.

    @chuck

    However, evolution is not the method described in the bible, so until i see absolute proof for it, I can’t adhere to that belief system.

    So, why do you adhere to the belief system that is ID? Where is the absolute proof? The Bible is not absolute proof, not being a scientific piece at all. The appearance or seeming of design is not proof. After all, based solely on appearances, many acids look like water, but certainly are not water.

    Intelligent design does not equal biblical creationist.

    You must not be familiar with the infamous Wedge Document, in which the Discovery Institute powers that be state pretty plainly that the whole point of ID is to get biblical creationism into the science classroom.

    let evidence that points to design be compared to it.

    Where is this evidence of design? Scientists have been asking for this for a very long time, yet the ID proponents keep saying “Well, we don’t have anything yet, but we’re working on it.” And yet, despite this lack of evidence, they want it taught as science. Rather than go through the normal scientific processes of study, publishing, peer review, etc., they take a political road and feel that public, popular opinion should be enough. And this actually ties into my earlier questions for you, which you still have not answered. Where are the “thousands” of scientists and “hundreds” of reputable publications supporting ID?

    Finally, regarding your quotations, yes, taken out of context they appear to support the arguments of ID, but when the rest of the quotations’ contexts are known, the words do not support ID. So, please, if you are going to quote someone, don’t just quote the little bit that supports your stance. Include the context (or at the very least a link to the surrounding text). To do otherwise is dishonest at best.

  170. @ chuck, not that he will listen:

    shane, you must be totally out of touch with archaeology if you think it has disproven the bible. Give me one single example if you can

    There’s a whole bunch of examples in one handy book: read The Bible Unearthed by Neil Silberman and Israel Finkelstein, for an up to date and in-depth survey of current archaeological research on the subject.

    The bible is a much more interesting document when you understand how it came to be compiled, and archaeologists are doing just that.

    Again, science is not disproving the bible as a whole, merely revealing how and why it came to be, and sifting the real (though typically mythologized for very specific reasons) historical events and personages from the purely fictional tales that often predate them by centuries.

    So much more interesting than “believing” it to be literal truth.

  171. Kuhnigget, I have The Bible Unearthed about 2 metres from where I’m sitting and I didn’t think to mention it. I’m glad you did, thanks.

  172. José

    @Chuck

    I’m behind, so forgive me if someone has covered this.

    So if a scientist sees what he believes to be design in nature, why is he an idiot for rejecting blind chance, no special meaning, evolution?

    Because he doesn’t understand evolution. Evolution isn’t random, blind chance. And if there are so many scientists see design in nature, why can’t a single one come up with an example of a feature in nature that can’t be explained by evolution?

    I quote Harvard biologist Marc Kirshner and Berkeley biologist John Gerhart “everything about evolution before the bacteria-like life forms is sheer conjecture”.

    So what. That doesn’t mean there’s any reason to insert God. You can’t tell for sure I’m a human typing on a keyboard, therefore, I must be God trying to knock some sense into you.

    Even super-evol Dawkins has said that biology “is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed” although he goes on to reject design.

    He rejects it because evolution explains why this is the case. Evolution makes things that can look designed at first glance. They aren’t.

    Intelligent design does not equal biblical creationist. While creationists agree with id in reference to design, id and creationism often disagree in certain areas. Many id scientist believe in a very old earth, and allow for certain attributes of evolutionary theory in their thinking, such as variation and natural selection.

    ID only exists for legal reasons. In function, ID and creationism are identical forms of non-science.
    There are even people who call themselves old earth creationists. If religion were not barred from our science classes, there would be no ID.

    Maybe this may seem like a vindictive example, but I know you are famaliar with Haeckel’s drawings.

    It’s not vindictive, it’s irrelevant. There are no tenets of evolution which are reliant on the work of one individual.

    When will science learn that mocking or ostracizing a different point will as often as not lead to future embarrassment.

    For the most part, science ignores religion. When religion starts masquerading as science, we have problems.

    When obvious examples of rapid change seemed to have occurred, the old method was chucked, shall we say. I know, this is just sciences’ way of correcting itself. But I would argue that a discipline that must undergo constant “corrections”(corrections made because those who went against the mainstream pointed out the need for them), should maintain a very open mind and extra dose of humility.

    Science is self correcting. Science also keeps an open mind. What it can’t do is accept non scientific things like ID. If IDer’s do some actual science, and gather some evidence, it will be considered. The “keep an open mind” shtick is a common theme for all pseudoscience, from ID to Bigfoot. Every scientist would love to make some crazy find that would rock the foundations of everything we know, but pseudoscienctists just love to pretend that all science wants to do is preserve the status quo. It’s a ridiculous idea.

  173. @ José:

    You missed an easy one:

    chuckie said:

    When obvious examples of rapid change seemed to have occurred, the old method was chucked, shall we say. I know, this is just sciences’ way of correcting itself. But I would argue that a discipline that must undergo constant “corrections”(corrections made because those who went against the mainstream pointed out the need for them), should maintain a very open mind and extra dose of humility.

    Wrong. Rapid change does not replace gradual change. The former simply supplements the latter. Stephen J. Gould wrote about this most eloquently in his books on the Burgess shale fossils.

    Once again, the Chuckster expounds on a subject he so clearly knows nothing about. Like all creationists (insert: /UFO nuts), he picks up a few words and expressions from real science and tosses them around as if they mean something to him, but in the end his lack of understanding reveals itself via his unsubstantiated statements and unsupported conclusions.

  174. chuck

    Wow, i’m outnumbered, so it’s hard to keep up, but i’ll try.

    First, archeaology. Nazareth, located in the southern hills of lower Galilee. Currently a bustling Arab-Jewish city built atop and around the ancient village. Nearby the church of St. Gabriel stands over the city’s ancient well.

    David-In 1993 and 1994 an archaeologist working at OT site of the city of Dan found three pieces of an inscribed stone referring to David. Inscribed in Aramaic, it refers to the “house of David” and refers also to King Davids’ descendants, mentioning a “king of Israel” and a king of the “house of David”, possibly Ahaziah of Judah.

    Jericho- The jury is still out on whether the wall of Jericho has even been found. Massive erosion has removed much of the remains of that period, the walls having been made of mud brick. Nonetheless, Jericho has been found.

    Moses- true, no grave site has been found, lol. But if the bible can be found reliable in references to ancient history and people, then that should lend some credence to his story.

    Other biblical cities, peoples, and events discovered by archaeologists.

    1)The flood story. Most famous, outside the bible, is the Gilgamesh epic. Some would argue that the bible rehashes that story, but arguing from the simpler and plain, to complicated and embellished, it seems its the other way around. To the previous blog about the flood, funny, I was watching the discover channel last night about evidence of massive flooding off the coast of Long Island, probably from the Great Lakes when glaciers melted. Also purportedly involved was a “cataclysmic event”, magma coming up from the earth, and event described as “affecting the entire earth”. About 6 months ago this same channel had a special on evidence of cataclysmic flooding in Mediterranean area, probably coming down from what is now northern Turkey, I think the Black sea area, if I remember correctly. All over the world geologist find evidences of massive flooding, ancient rising of water levels, earth shaking eruptions from the crust of the earth.It is a shame that the Genesis story is called “the flood”. It would be more accurately called “the cataclysim”. The bible refers not only to rain, but the “opening up of the deep”, refering not only to the opening of underground waters, but also to the breaking up of the earths’ crust. All over the world there is evidence of this, sea fossils thousands of feet above sea level, tropics now frozen, evidences of sea beds now dry(rising of the crust?). The only thing is no one wants to put all of this together. If you took an earth map, and circled areas where all these things once took place, you’d be hard pressed to find any part of earth uncircled. Of course, none of this means anything to the skeptics without a photo of the event, but I list it anyway.

    2).Discovery of Ur, Abrahams hometown.

    3). Beni Hasan tomb painting showing a caravan of people from palestine carrying merchandise for trade in Egypt. Dated to 1900 B.C., shows semetic peoples, their dress, and weapons.

    4) Law code of Hammurapi, shows commonality between babylonian and hebrew laws, even the way they were written.

    5). Hittite capital, Boghazkoy. Critics of the bible, up until @ 75-100 years ago believed them to be a part of biblical legend. Nope, they were real.

    6) Nuzi tablets- over 20,000 baked tablets. while not referring to Israel, showed the many customs and practices of the Hebrews were similiar to cultures around them.

    7). Haran, city where Abrahams father moved to from Ur. Nearby are villages that still bear the names of Abrahams great-grandfather and grandfather,Serug and Nahor.(Gen.11:22-26)

    8).Shechem, along with remains of fortress-temple of Baal from the story of Abimelech.

    9). Pithom and Raamses, store cities of Pharaoh. According to Ex. 1, the hebrews were slaves in these cities before the exodus.

    10). horned altars-spoken of in the OT at least 20 times, found at places like Dan and Beersheba.

    11). Merneptah Stele(also called The Israel Stele), whose hieroglyphic text describes victories of Merneptah around 1230 bc over the Libyans and people of Palestine. The stele contains the earliest extrabiblical mention of the name of “Israel” thus far known. In addition, a picture is found on a wall of the Karnak(not Johnny Carson) temple detailing this victory.

    12). Jericho

    13).Philistines-mentioned over 200 times in the OT, earliest known mention found carved on wall of an ancient Egyptian temple at Thebes, dated 1175-1150 BC.

    14). Canaanite gods and goddesses, spec. those found on clay tablets among the ruins of ancient city of Ugarit, in modern Syria. OT often refers to these gods worshipped by Canaanites, and warns people of Israel not to worship them.

    15). Dan, Israels’ northernmost city(Judges 20:1).Originally a canaanite stronghold, conquered by the tribe of Dan.

    Okay, enough for now. Will gladly list dozens more for your viewing pleasure. good morning.

  175. José

    All over the world there is evidence of this, sea fossils thousands of feet above sea level, tropics now frozen, evidences of sea beds now dry(rising of the crust?). The only thing is no one wants to put all of this together.

    You’ve got the history of Geology backwards just like you have evolution backward. Scientists used to believe in a young earth that was in step with what in the Bible says. The notion that the earth was millions or billions of years old was considered laughable. But because science is evidence based and has an open mind, that old view was thrown out. You’re the one who’s refusing to accept new ideas.

    Of course, none of this means anything to the skeptics without a photo of the event, but I list it anyway.

    This is your argument for not believing evolution. We can show you all the evidence in the world and you’ll continue to say you want proof. All the while, you still haven’t even presented any evidence for ID. You’ve just taken quotes out of context in an attempt to throw doubt on evolution. You talk about all the scientists who believe in ID and all the books you’ve read on ID, but you’ve showed us nothing. What’s the hold up?

  176. @ Chuck:

    What’s your point? Nobody has stated that the ancient lands of the Levant were not populated, and that the myths compiled into the Old Testament do not reference actual places…albeit in the context of religious mythology. The tall tales of Paul Bunyan are set in real locations of the American Midwest, West, and the Piedmont. Do folklore fans claim the Grand Canyon was really dug up by Paul and his giant blue ox?

    And you do need some more library time on Egyptian archaeology. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence for any Egyptian city constructed by slave labor. To the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that large Egyptian building projects were managed by well-cared for and well trained teams of skilled workers, along with laborers drawn from the local populations, most likely during the season of the Nile’s annual flooding (Ooo! A flood story!) when vast numbers of men were available. Records of this type of work arrangement are well known from Giza, Karnak, the Valley of the Kings, Tanis, and on and on, all the way back to the earliest dynastic times.

    Furthermore, it is also well established that the so-called “exodus” from Egypt was in fact the final chapter in a long historical saga involving the migration of semitic tribes into lower Egypt following unrest and possible climate change in the Levant. The “Hyksos,” as the native Egyptians called these people, came to dominate the Nile Delta, becoming so powerful that they ruled nearly all of northern Egypt and even some of Middle Egypt. Hardly slaves! It wasn’t until the strong Thutmosid dynasty (unproven, but possibly an ironic origin of “Moses” is the pharaoh Ahmose I, who delivered the coup de grace to the Hyksos) arose that Upper Egypt gained enough strength to forcefully drive the hated Hyksos out of Egypt all together, sending them back to the Levant, where they continued to be a thorn in the side of the pharaohs for centuries. Pharaohs that followed the Thutmosids linked themselves to their military victories for generations in records that mark monuments all over Egypt.

    Bottom line: the “exodus” was a mythologized story compiled from various semi-legendary records of that long period of infiltration and eventual expulsion by military force. King Josiah of the formerly two-bit kingdom of Jerusalem, taking advantage of the power vacuum left when the Babylonians carted off his rivals from the northern kingdom of Israel centuries after the Hyksos were kicked out of Egypt, used the ancient memories of that event to unite the straggling tribes that had been left in place by the Babylonians, and thus extend his hold on the entire region. It was a masterful bit of propaganda, and it worked….and still works to this day.

    One more thing. About this comment: Wow, i’m outnumbered, so it’s hard to keep up, but i’ll try.

    You are aware, are you not, that this is a classic crank attitude. The poor defender of truth, outnumbered by the bad ol’ others, but gamely pushing on in the name of all the great martyrs of the past. Honestly, Chuck, you are no different from every other crank that has graced Dr. BA’s comments section. And your “arguments” are no less weak, unsupported, and unconvincing.

    Believe whatever you want, but your beliefs do not translate to truth.

    Have a nice day.

  177. Todd W.

    @chuck

    Your commenting on archaeological finds (if they do, indeed, exist and are accurate) that support places and people mentioned in the Bible serves only to show that certain places and people in the book were real. It does not bolster any argument that the events took place exactly as described, nor does it bolster any creationist (old Earth or young Earth variety) or ID explanation for life.

    Using the same logic, The Dante Club depicts an actual serial murder case, since the town of Cambridge, MA is in evidence to have existed (and still exist) and the main characters (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes and James Russell Lowell) all existed and are mentioned in other extant, unrelated documents. So, Matthew Pearl’s book is every bit as accurate as the Bible.

    And, actually, the description of Nazareth in “Luke” does not match up with the geography of what is traditionally held to be the town of Nazareth. A more likely candidate is a site known as Har Nitai, close to the Sea of Galilee and Capernaum. Nazareth is described as being built on a hill (the traditional Nazareth is not on a hill) with a cliff (no cliffs near the traditional site). However, Har Nitai has ruins of a city and a cliff, and is nearer to Capernaum, which seems to fit a bit better with what is in the Bible. So, assuming that the account in “Luke” is based on a real location and reflects real events, then what is traditionally held as Nazareth today probably is not the real deal.

  178. @ chuck

    Genesis 11:22 And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:
    11:23 And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. (Serug was 230 years old when he begat sons and daughters???!!! Did they have Viagra back then?) :lol:
    11:24 And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:
    11:25 And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters. (Nahor was 148 years old when he begat sons and daughters???!!!) :lol:
    11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

  179. chuck

    Oh goodness, I see how it works now. Whatever you guys say is incredibly bright, and absolutely true, and whatever you opponents says is asinine and probably false. No wonder you think you’ve never lost a debate. You guys throw something out, I respond to it, and you say “nanny nanny boo boo”, you’re an idiot (we know, because we set the standard for intelligence), and besides, we don’t really care what you say, because we’ll distort it(but mostly just ignore it).

    I gave numerous examples of archaelogical finds that confirm people, places, and events. Rather than acknowledge it, you pick out debate over the Nazareth site and voila, you ignore or think you’ve relegated everything to the irrelevant heap. Admit it, you are totally disinterested in anything that goes contrary to what you learned in the classroom. For spite i’ll continue to list other finds ad nauseum, and maybe it will eventually dawn on you that you’ve put yourself on a mighty high throne when you, and only you, get to decide when something is right or relevant. There are hundreds of finds that confirm the accuracy of the bible. Those that haven’t been found yet will, in time, show up. Yet that’s not really the issue, is it? You know, I can read evolution literature without developing some sort of distaste for those who write it. I am sure they are sincere in their viewpoints, and are actually excited when they think they discover something that validates their beliefs. But for those who hold opposing viewpoints, why, they’re just hypocritical idiots. There can be no basis for objective investigation for them, how can there be, you guys have used it all up for yourselves.

    I give you over a dozen (and as I said, I’m going to give you dozens more) and rather than, like someone with an atom of humility or objectivity, acknowledging “well, yes, you’re right, there sure are many examples of accurate references to real people and places in the bible” you give a “well, Nazareth isn’t really settled yet”, or, “ok, the referencs are accurate, but there’s alot of mythology built up around it”. No proof offered. But then again, you dont need any, do you?

    Very interesting comment on slavery. Well, excuse me. So they were well fed. Am I to assume that you are expositing that the Egyptians conquered other peoples, but never used any of them for forced labor? You bring up irrelevant references to skilled labors and part time workers. No one denies that is true, but you might be somewhat oblivious to human nature and the customs of ancient civilizations. Gosh, let’s see. The bible is right about the Egyptians, and accurate about Palestinian people being in Egypt and assimilating with them, but how dare it suggest the Hebrews eventually became a people relegated to forced labor. They weren’t when they first arrived, but 400 years passed from the end of Genesis to the beginning of the book of Exodus. I am so sorry, I mean, how could i have suggested that any ancient culture used forced labor. Oh wait, the Hebrews may have been fed and had clothes. Wow, use that same logic with slaves at the time of the Civil War.

    Rogus, you’re reference to the casino and the million to one odds, while noble in it’s offering, has missed my point. We’re not talking about million to one odds here. We’re talking 10 to the 40,000th power. I play the Mega Millions lottery occasionally, with odds of about 175 million to one. Though those are seemingly insurmountable odds, I do see that someone wins every now and then.If I was told, however, that there was a lottery in which everyone who had ever lived on earth was entering a chance every second, and had been doing so for the entire existence of the universe (we’ll use 15 billion years), and that every second for that 15 billion years a drawing was held, and no one had yet won, do you think I’d bother entering. My example gets much closer to what those odds mean. If you believe that life has arisen in spite of those odds against it, then you may be a believer in the miraculous.

    As to Serug and his age, I’m sure you already know that had there been Viagra back then, only his penis might have been lengthened, not his life (especially if he had blood pressure problems). Some scholars feel these ages are exaggerated. Maybe they are. Certainly the bible is not the only manuscript of antiquity to give long life spans to individuals, but it tends to be the most conservative among those that do. Not believing that we evolved from some slobbering ape-like ancestor (ever notice how darn smart these ancient peoples were, all things considered), and believing that we were created with some incredible abilities with death becoming a reality only because of disobedience to the rules set forth to maintain long life, I allow for the possibility that long life spans were the norm.

    Todd, your reference to archaeological finds, and “if they do exist, and indeed are accurate”,seems a bit disingenous. If you are knowledgable about this topic, then you are well aware that they are accurate and that they exist. I say that because the only one of those I offered that still is debated is indeed the location of Nazareth. So the attempt to cast doubt on the others smacks of dishonesty.

    Kughnugget, do I detect a hint of anti-semitism there. And there never has been a kingdom of Jerusalem, but I’m sure that was a typo, wasn’t it. I’m sure you meant either Judah or Israel, but then I’d have to give you the benefit of the doubt, wouldn’t I. Do yall know what that means?

    My comment about being outnumbered isn’t a “crank” complaint. You must spend a lot of time scaring little children if you think you frighten me in some way. You are right, though, I’m probably not any different than any other crank currently blogging on this site, yourselves included. Do you think your points made are new? I’ve heard many of these points and explanations made again and again for over 35 years, and just like you, I’ve come to realize that it seldom boils down to truth and facts. Both sides of this debate have much invested in it, and few on either side have the slightest interest in whether the facts bear them out or not. Both sides have been programmed with info, and the belief itself becomes way more important than the truth of it.

    I am sure you have encountered creationists whose final argument is “hellfire and damnation” and who may come across as “holier than thou”. I must give most(not all) of you some credit, though, for I have seldom encountered a more “holier (knowledgeable) than thou”attitude than I have on this site. I could overwhelm with 50 proofs, and your response is more often than not name-calling or arrogant patronizing. Save it for someone who is easily impressed. I was touched, however, that none of you dared to mock, much less respond, to the quotes from Einstein, Hawkings, et al. No, it doesn’t prove they believe in id, it was never intended to. But it does show that some scientists, in spite of their intelligence and ability to go, in the mind, where few have gone before, still have a semblance of humility and open-mindedness when it comes to origins. If you think the snide comments and insults have given me a martyr complex, then your a victim of your own fantasy(oooohhhhhh, doesn’t that just reek of arrogance).

    If you think your comparisons of biblical stories paralleling stories of Paul bunyan or the Dante club actually hold a drop of water, you need to bone up a bit on debating. Talk of straw men. I asked for an archaeological find that has DISPROVED the accuracy of the bible, and received not one. Not a single one. I give you numerous examples of some that did, to some degree, verify the accuracy of the bible, and you respond to none(except Nazareth, as noted). Apparently, if I gave you a hundred, you would focus on the one that’s debatable, and think to yourself you’ve disqualified all the others. You adhere to a faith based belief system with odds so far against it that the human mind cannot comprehend it, but I can give you a book that even skeptics admit is at least mostly reliable, and you reject it out of hand. I can only assume that you have read little or no mythology if you think the bible is a book of mythology. Yes, there are things in it worthy of debate, or a closer look. Or even a big dose of skepticism. But to make sweeping statements about its authenticity smacks of intellectual laziness.

    I am attempting to look up or answer everyone of your objections or points. My plea for patience is based on the fact that I have a life, a family, and a job. And yes, I am outnumbered. But I don’t feel like I’m surrounded by big bullies who may have mercy if i beg for it. I am surrounded by, whether they know it or not, individuals who are in just as much need as I am of the truth. The only difference seems to be, judging by their comments, that they think they’ve already arrived, or even if they haven’t, that they are far ahead of the rest of us.

    So drop the crappy attitudes, the patronizing and insults, the arrogance. Try to show some willingness to step beyond bounds set for you by others. Trust me when I say that if you don’t, or can’t, the only ones you’re impressing is each other.

  180. chuck

    My wife says I shouldn’t have used penis ’cause it seems a bit crude. I apologize. what I meant to say was “that certain part of the male anatomy”. Thanks so much for your forgiveness. If my tone seemed a bit strident, I felt it necessary. Sometimes the only recourse left towards intellectual bullies is to push back. I was NOT, however, refering to all of you. Those guilty know who they are. To those of you who offer reasoned arguments minus the insults, I respect you for that. It makes your point so much more palatable. Even if I dont agree (yet or ever), I sincerely appreciate someone who will take the time but not act like it’s some terrible inconvenience to communicate with me. I do listen, and I do check it out. It just takes time. No one here is obligated to chat with me, and certainly not obligated to do it with ‘tude. So if you think I’m an idiot, or beyond hope, don’t bother. But if you have a valid point, all I ask is that you be willing to listen as much as you would like me to. HMMMMM..seems familiar. Oh yea….”do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Maybe that’s just a mythological credo, but it’s a good one.
    Again, I apologize. I just get irritated when I’m trying to have a sincere conversation and all this static noise is interfering. I’m sure you would feel the same way too. If you find me disinteresting, don’t chat. I’d like to continue, though, with those willing to make their points in a calm, mature manner. I imagine some of you will interpret this explanation and request as some sort of sign of weakness. Can’t help that. But those of you who love to learn and like to be challenged will recognize it for what it is….a request for civility. If you see it as whining or weakness, well,…..that explains that.

  181. chuck

    A further response to the “slavery” issue. If you object to the term “slave” in reference to the Hebrews, substitute whatever pleases you. As I point out, the Hebrews had migrated to Egypt, possibly inorder to survive during, what the book of genesis discusses, a period of famine. Whatever the reason, we find 400 years later that they had grown to quite a sizable group, enough so to worry Pharoah. In response to their request to be allowed to leave for a short period of time, Pharoah ordered their building materials to be diminished or diluted, and He did not initially allow them to leave. Doesn’t sound much different from slavery to me, but be that as it may. He eventually, after prodding by the differnt plagues, let them go, but then pursued them to bring them back. Again, doesnt sound like contractual labor to me. Seems like an issue of semantics. Whatever the case may be, the initial point remains, and my response was to the statement that “archaeology has disproved the bible.” I believe that argument to be without merit, and will patiently await examples of how it has, if it has.
    And Todd, you may be correct. What is claimed to be the site of Nazareth today may not be the actual ancient site. Still, Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus, for he was called Jesus of Nazareth, and the religious authorities of His day tried to insult him with “can anything good(or significant) come out of Nazareth”. Would seem to be a weird statement if it didnt exist. Seems like they would have said instead,”Jesus of where?”

    The reference certainly wasn’t offered as a “proof” of id or creation or whatever.

    Jose, my reference to “floods” was not an attempt to give a history of geology, as you know by reading my blog. It was a reference to “current” geological studies that evidence areas of past cataclysmic flooding and geological upheaveal. I am merely pointing out what is being reported NOW. If that makes geology backwards from what it should be, then blame those at fault,i.e., current geologists, not me. No, they are not endorsing the biblical flood story (altho occasionally they will state that it is an exaggeration based on a local actual event). My point is that if current geologists can locate many areas worldwide that evidence these events, why is it an unreasonable to believe that a flood(or floods) and cataclysmic unheavals (their words) occured worldwide. Do the research. Geology teaches that our land masses were once connected (though uniformitarianism requires millions of years) but have since seperated into the current plates. The bible states that the deep(a word used in reference to both under the water and under the land) was convulsed, and lifted up. The real difference here is how long it took. I have no set belief in how old the world is. I really don’t care. I just think the knee-jerk reaction to discount anything in the bible as mythology or exaggeration without really looking into what it actually says is unfair, and unproductive. You want a 15 billion old (for now) universe and a 4 billion old earth, then feel free. The bible gives no dates or years re this. Everything therefore would be conjecture. Ultimately, the real issue usually becomes God. If we could just get Him out of the picture, then many skeptics would be more amenable to objective reading of the bible.

    I am not trying to prove to you that God exists. That’s beyond my perview. I’m only trying to examine the evidence, for or against. We all know that eventually it will boil down to faith (altho Romans 1 states that no one is with excuse, for creation itself gives evidence of this). And by George, that’s what it all boils down to. Just get rid of God, or relegate Him to observer status at best, and we can all get along just fine.

    As I said before, God has my permission(lol) to have used evolution as His vehicle for bringing about life as we see it today. I really don’t care. The problem is, i don’t have the revelation that that is true, and believe the evidences presented are far from overwhelming. But I am open to it. I just won’t be easy.

  182. José

    @Chuck
    I was touched, however, that none of you dared to mock, much less respond, to the quotes from Einstein, Hawkings, et al.

    I didn’t respond to the quotes other than to say they were irrelevant and/or taken out of context. That still stands.

    But it does show that some scientists, in spite of their intelligence and ability to go, in the mind, where few have gone before, still have a semblance of humility and open-mindedness when it comes to origins.

    If ID is a science, and there is evidence to support it, lets hear it. If you have some good evidence, plenty of people will be open minded to it. Don’t come hear and make arrogant, false, proclamations and then complain about a lack of humility from us. Enough of the “I’m taking the high road” crap. Reread your first post and then tell me I’m wrong.

    You adhere to a faith based belief system with odds so far against it that the human mind cannot comprehend it

    No, we don’t.

    but I can give you a book that even skeptics admit is at least mostly reliable, and you reject it out of hand.

    Some of the places and a few of the people mentioned in the Bible are verifiable. That’s it. I can’t fathom how anyone could turn that into evidence that the events describe in the Bible are real. I also can’t understand how anyone could think that the god described in Old Testament deserves anything more than contempt.

    So drop the crappy attitudes, the patronizing and insults, the arrogance. Try to show some willingness to step beyond bounds set for you by others.

    We’re not bound to believe anything.

    My point is that if current geologists can locate many areas worldwide that evidence these events, why is it an unreasonable to believe that a flood(or floods) and cataclysmic unheavals (their words) occured worldwide. Do the research.

    I know my geology, and yes it is unreasonable to believe that anything remotely like the Biblical flood happened. Floods leave evidence. If there were such a flood, we could dig anywhere on earth and find a nice layer of sediment that was left behind. There is no worldwide layer.

    Something like the flooding of the Black Sea would certainly have been locally catastrophic, but it can hardly be considered worldwide. The waters wouldn’t have even risen fast enough that people couldn’t have just walked away. And while there are certainly other great floods that have occurred in the past in other parts of the world, they occurred at very different times. Trying to use all these separate events in an attempt to show evidence of a Biblical flood is intellectually dishonest.

    I just think the knee-jerk reaction to discount anything in the bible as mythology or exaggeration without really looking into what it actually says is unfair, and unproductive.

    I was raised in a Christian household. I read the entire Bible for the first time when I was 11. That was 22 years ago. Do you really think discounting the stories in the Bible as myth is knee-jerk reaction for me?

    We all know that eventually it will boil down to faith (altho Romans 1 states that no one is with excuse, for creation itself gives evidence of this).

    It boils down to faith for you, not us. You say our position relies on faith in order to justify your own faith based arguments. It’s total BS. Stop making this argument. Our position is based on evidence. That’s it. If you can’t see this, then there really is no point in continuing.

  183. Rev. I. P. Freeley

    chuck:

    Whatever the reason, we find 400 years later that they had grown to quite a sizable group, enough so to worry Pharoah.

    Exodus 1:5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.

    Exodus 1:7 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.

    Exodus 12:37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.

    Exodus 38:26 A bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for every one that went to be numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty men.

    “What ever the reason”, they sure bred like goddamn rabbits! :lol:

  184. Todd W.

    @chuck

    Todd, your reference to archaeological finds, and “if they do exist, and indeed are accurate”,seems a bit disingenous. If you are knowledgable about this topic, then you are well aware that they are accurate and that they exist. I say that because the only one of those I offered that still is debated is indeed the location of Nazareth. So the attempt to cast doubt on the others smacks of dishonesty.

    Actually, I am not very well versed in archaeology, hence my comment. So, no dishonesty there. And my criticism of your list of finds still stands. You have only shown that some of the places and people in the Bible are evidenced in archaeological findings, not that the events actually took place. My comparison to The Dante Club is also valid. You are citing archaeological evidence of people and places to validate that events took place. I presented info about places and people in Pearl’s book and, using the same logic you did, state that the events in that book must have taken place. My point was to show that your line of argumentation is flawed, by using the same flawed argument myself.

    But really, that is all beside the point and irrelevant to the questions at hand. You are arguing (if I remember correctly…there’s been a lot of intervening posts) that ID should be considered at the same level as evolution. The problem is that you have no evidence that shows evolution is wrong and no evidence that ID is right…or even that ID is science. We have asked, and continue to ask, for scientific evidence of anything that ID claims, and still receive none. So, drop the tangents and answer the pertinent questions:

    What makes ID/creationism science? What predictions does it make? What are its hypotheses? Where are the studies that have tested these hypotheses? What were the results? How has ID/creationism altered in light of the evidence from these studies? How is ID/creationism falsified? How many of the studies have been replicated?

    Just answer those questions. Oh, and I’m still waiting for that list of thousands of scientists and hundreds of reputable publications that you claim support ID/creationism. This is, what, the fourth time I’ve asked you to present those lists? I’ve lost count.

  185. Todd W.

    oops…missed closing a bold tag. Should stopped after “none” and opened again for “thousands”

  186. Darth Robo

    >>>”What makes ID/creationism science? What predictions does it make? What are its hypotheses? Where are the studies that have tested these hypotheses? What were the results? How has ID/creationism altered in light of the evidence from these studies? How is ID/creationism falsified? How many of the studies have been replicated?

    Just answer those questions. Oh, and I’m still waiting for that list of thousands of scientists and hundreds of reputable publications that you claim support ID/creationism. This is, what, the fourth time I’ve asked you to present those lists? I’ve lost count.”

    Meh, I’ve asked that for years.

    Did anyone know that there’s about 118 pyramids that have been discovered?

    All hail Ra.

  187. IVAN3MAN

    Todd W.:

    oops…missed closing a bold tag. Should stopped after “none” and opened again for “thousands”

    It’s fine as it is; those questions demanded bloody bold emphasis!

  188. IVAN3MAN

    Darth Robo:

    Did anyone know that there’s about 118 pyramids that have been discovered?

    Yeah, me. However, what I don’t know is: why the bloody hell is there no mention of even one damn pyramid in the bloody Bible, i.e., the Old Testament? You would have thought that the Hebrews — after being in alleged bondage for over 400 years under the Egyptians — would have at least noticed those big structures, if not working (allegedly) their asses off, for the Egyptians, building the bloody things!

    So, since chuck has made himself the expert(!) here on all matters biblical, maybe he can enlighten us?

  189. IVAN3MAN

    A question just occurred to me: is chuck the same Chuck Missler who made that absurd “jar of Peanut Butter” analogy as ‘proof’ against evolution?

  190. @ chuck:

    Okay, I’ll ignore the pot calling the kettle black comments (I specifically did reply to your list of archaeology “hits” from the bible), and just go for the points you bring up:

    Kughnugget, do I detect a hint of anti-semitism there. And there never has been a kingdom of Jerusalem, but I’m sure that was a typo, wasn’t it. I’m sure you meant either Judah or Israel, but then I’d have to give you the benefit of the doubt, wouldn’t I. Do yall know what that means?

    No Chuck, no anti-semitism from me, and please stop with the classic crank tactic of resorting to that sort of name calling. Please read my comment again, as you obviously missed it. There was a kingdom of Jerusalem (aka “Judah”), but it was not always the unified kingdom that ruled the entire Levant, nor even the area we now know as “Israel”. Historical records and archaeological records clearly show that the kingdom of Jerusalem was a minor state in a region dominated by the larger and more powerful kingdom of Israel, which lay to the north. It wasn’t until the Babylonians took out Israel that Jerusalem was able to assert its dominance over the region, and, by the way, spread its own culture of temple-based Yaweh worship and forcibly “unify” the Yaweh worshipping tribes, as up until that time, Yaweh was frequently worshipped on mountaintop shrines…some of which have been found by archaeologists. Archaeology has confirmed this. Do y’all know what that means?

    Am I to assume that you are expositing that the Egyptians conquered other peoples, but never used any of them for forced labor?

    The typical Egyptian way to treat a captured enemy was to slaughter him. There are numerous, and sometimes graphic, accounts of this. The carved reliefs in the temple of Seti at Abydos stand out rather strikingly. Pharaoh liked to have a handy way to reference how many dead he scored, hence the practice of hacking off penises and stacking them up for easy counting. But maybe that’s just an extreme form of circumcision, eh?

    You bring up irrelevant references to skilled labors and part time workers.

    No, it is not irrelevant. It is to the point, exactly. There are very clear records of who built Egyptian structures and how they did it. Mass enslavement of the Hyksos is not included. How much more to the point could one get, Chuck? Sorry, if it proves your pet theory wrong, but that’s that.

    Gosh, let’s see. The bible is right about the Egyptians, and accurate about Palestinian people being in Egypt and assimilating with them, but how dare it suggest the Hebrews eventually became a people relegated to forced labor.

    The bible is right about the Egyptians…uh, how? Please provide evidence for that.

    And the Hyksos did not “assimilate” with the native Egyptians, they completely took over Lower Egypt and had to be removed by military force. Again, this is clearly and accurately recorded on numerous Egyptian monuments from many different eras.

    Oh wait, the Hebrews may have been fed and had clothes. Wow, use that same logic with slaves at the time of the Civil War.

    Now you are just being stupid. And you complain about straw men?

    A further response to the “slavery” issue. If you object to the term “slave” in reference to the Hebrews, substitute whatever pleases you.

    I do not “object” to the term slave, I simply point out that it is inaccurate and does not reflect the historical reality, which is confirmed by numerous archaeological and historical sources. The Hyksos were not enslaved in Egypt, in point of fact they came to rule all of Lower Egypt and parts of Middle Egypt.

    In response to their request to be allowed to leave for a short period of time, Pharoah ordered their building materials to be diminished or diluted, and He did not initially allow them to leave.

    There is absolutely no evidence for this, and plenty of evidence to counter it. The southern pharaohs of Upper Egypt had no control over the Hyksos rulers of the north. That was why they hated them so much. (A fact mentioned repeatedly in pharaonic inscriptions prior to the Thutmosid dynasty.) At the time of the Hyksos ascendancy, the southern pharaohs were so weak they could barely hold on to the territory they had. Up until the Thutmosids came along, they were no threat to the Hyksos at all. The Hyksos dominated Lower Egypt, which encompasses all of the Nile delta. Plenty of mud and straw for brickmaking.

    He eventually, after prodding by the differnt plagues, let them go, but then pursued them to bring them back. Again, doesnt sound like contractual labor to me. Seems like an issue of semantics.

    Again, Chuck, you have no evidence for this, whereas there is ample historical and archaeological evidence that the pharaoh Ahmose I, founder of the Thutmosids dynasty, led a military expedition to the north and kicked the hated Hyksos out of the country, chasing them all the way back to the Levant. Records from subsequent dynasties, including the Ramesids (who didn’t come along for another several hundred years, long after the Hyksos had been removed) show continual fighting with the Hyksos armies (not tribes of wandering shepherds in the desert) in the region, as the two cultures continued to duke it out along the border. This is not semantics, Chuck. This is recorded history vs. mythologized tribal religion.

    Whatever the case may be, the initial point remains, and my response was to the statement that “archaeology has disproved the bible.” I believe that argument to be without merit, and will patiently await examples of how it has, if it has.

    Such examples have been given, and if you’d bother to investigate sources other than the book you’re trying to prove, you’d have come to a different conclusion. Eh, I take back that last statement. Evidence will never change your mind.

    If you think your comparisons of biblical stories paralleling stories of Paul bunyan or the Dante club actually hold a drop of water, you need to bone up a bit on debating. Talk of straw men. I asked for an archaeological find that has DISPROVED the accuracy of the bible, and received not one. Not a single one.

    Yes you did. You received several, and I’ve repeated a couple of them above. You are choosing to ignore them. The Paul Bunyan analogy stands.

    I am attempting to look up or answer everyone of your objections or points

    Try looking in a source other than your bible. Therein lies circular reasoning.

    @ Ivan3Man:

    A question just occurred to me: is chuck the same Chuck Missler who made that absurd “jar of Peanut Butter” analogy as ‘proof’ against evolution?

    Oh, lord (sic). Look at his website. That explains it. He makes money taking christians to Israel.

  191. Wow. Must have typed too much. “comment awaiting moderation”. I feel so dirty.

  192. Rogus, you’re reference to the casino and the million to one odds, while noble in it’s offering, has missed my point. We’re not talking about million to one odds here.

    True, but in an infinite universe, the difference is not significant.

    Infinite being slightly more than 10 to the 80th power particles, subatomic or otherwise.

    10 to the 40,000 also ignores the effect of selection, which is pretty clearly a part of evolution. It also ignores the steps of evolution to get to a protein, not a spontaneous generation of a perfect modern protein.

    Yes, these are really big numbers, but you are the one stating that God is incapable of performing this.

  193. IVAN3MAN

    Todd W. asked Chuck the following questions:

    What makes ID/creationism science? What predictions does it make? What are its hypotheses? Where are the studies that have tested these hypotheses? What were the results? How has ID/creationism altered in light of the evidence from these studies? How is ID/creationism falsified? How many of the studies have been replicated?

    Chuck‘s response:

    *Crickets* *Crickets* *Crickets*
  194. Well, it IS Sunday, after all.

    Even though Yaweh’s sabbath is on Saturday.

  195. Darth Robo

    >>>”Look at his website. That explains it. He makes money taking christians to Israel.”

    Oh noes! He’s trying to bring about teh apocalypse!!!

    :(

  196. chuck

    well, if you think I’m that chuck, go right on ahead. Would it make any difference if I was CHUCKIE?

    I’m looking over my posts, and I don’t see where I referred to “thousands of scientists and hundreds of publications”(i assume you are referring to magazines, books, or something). Try to refute what I actually said(though I guess it is easier to refute what I didn’t say.

    I’m sorry, where was that single reference to an archaeological find that disproves the bible. sorry I missed that one.

    And no, in an infinite universe(sorry, but remember the big bang? Is it infinite just because we haven’t seen it all yet? And whether it is or not, if you think one in a million is not significantly different from 10 to the 40,000th, well, good luck at that lottery)you do not increase the odds. And ppppllllleeeeaaaasssseeeee, stop repeating the mythological claim about steps of evolution to get to a protein(see state lottery odds above). Have you guys replicated that yet(you know, in a closed system with a designer at the helm)?

    And Rogue, let it go dude. Already answered your objection about whether God could use evolution. That horse has been beaten, killed, fossillized, and is currently being used by amateur geologists as proof of a straw man.

    And again, where in “hellfire and damnation” are you getting your info that the Hyksos are the Hebrew tribes of Israel(or what came to be)?

    And why ask me any questions about the bible. You already have claimed your right to pick and chose as you wish among real and supposed facts. Kind of like Einstein writing an autobiography, and your trying to find out something about him without reading it (or maybe he didn’t write it, huh?).

    So you want proof of intelligent design? Wow, got to let that one sink in. First, let me check. Are you guys blind, mute, and missing your appendages? No? Okay, there’s hope. Sure you don’t believe in the Big Bong? Do I really have to point you to design.
    Oh well, it won’t matter, but I’ll draw up a list for you, but you can start with the human eye if you’d like. Even Darwin was afeared of dat one. If you really believe the eye just kind of stumbled through zillions of variations or evolutionary steps before one lucky creature woke up singing “Everything is beautiful….”, well then, I see why you’re willing to believe in evolution.

    Oooh, ooh, wait. Another favorite of mine is the bombadier beetle. You know, those cute little terrorist creatures that blew the hell out of themselves for so many many years (ten, a million, maybe a kazillion, no real difference though) before Achmed got the chemical formulation right. Gotta love those guys. Talk about persistence.

    And no, there was NO kingdom of Jerusalem. A city, sure (remember Salem). But no, not a kingdom.

    Oh sorry, family medical emergency over the weekend. Sure missed you guys. Will be back with those ID refs you want.

    EEEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEE. Chuckie’s back.

  197. chuck

    Boy, am I ticked. Just typed a response and it wouldn’t load. Here goes again.

    Would it matter if I was CHUCKIE?

    No, there was no kingdom of Jerusalem. A city, maybe even one with a ruler at some point. But not a kingdom.

    If you don’t believe there’s a significance difference( nice try on the infinite universe, though) between one in a million and 10 to 40,000, then I’m running that lottery I mentioned before. Sign up NOW!!

    Still waiting for that single find that disproved the bible (heard it was offered, just can’t seem to find it)

    Proof of design? Okay, follow these directions. Put down the latest issue of “The Big Bong”, walk to the nearest mirror, and look yourself in the eyes. Keep looking……llllooookkkkiiinnngggg…..don’t give up yet. There!! Did you see it? Nope? Alright then, I’ll help a little. It’s called the EYE. Even Darwin was afeared of dat one. Explain how something as complex as the eye evolved. Did it pop up (or out) all at once? Did a species suddenly develop a part or two and say “looks weird, but maybe, just maybe, if I hold on to these two parts, some others will come along a turn this thing from an ugly protrusion into something that will keep me from bumping into stuff.”

    Ooohhh, oooohhhhh, I have another. You know those little terrorists of the insect kingdom, the bombadier beetle? Touchy thing, getting that explosive mixture just right without blowing themselves to smithereens. Great idea, though, to evolve seperate chambers. Now that was some smart beetle (I think his name was Paul). And persistent, too. Got to admire that, by George (sorry).

    Oh, sorry. Family medical emergency over the weekend. Otherwise I would have been sunning with you guys (hope you didn’t get too close or too far away).

    Had some car trouble, too. Part of my carbureator malfunctioned. Couldn’t figure out why it still wouldn’t work anyway. Why is everything so darned irreducibly complex these days?

    I’ll be back with more. For now, I bID you farewell.

  198. Todd W.

    @chuck

    Re: the thousands of scientists comment. My mistake, there was a different thread that I asked someone for that list. Apologies.

  199. Todd W.

    @chuck

    Explain how something as complex as the eye evolved.

    Here’s a link to information on the evolution of the eye: en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

    Summarizing: photosensitive cells (can sense presence of light) -> recessed photoreceptor (can sense direction of light) -> pinhole opening (greater directional sensitivity and start of imaging ability, i.e., detail) -> fluid-filled chamber (protects the photoreceptor and serves as waste management) -> development of lens (greater imaging/detail)

    And, what’s more, we have plenty of examples of the eye in a variety of stages of development.

  200. chuck,

    I am not advocating playing the lottery. It is a losers’ game. I am pointing out that in an infinite universe, finite may describe what we can see, but the universe is not limited by what we can see. In an infinite universe, there is no significant difference between an extraordinarily large number and a small number.

    Selection means that the modifications add up, so the odds against are really much smaller than Hoyle calculated.

    As mutations are selected out of existence, they do not contribute to the probability any more.

    Mutations do not occur only as solitary changes. Changes include significant jumps, not just small individual, one-at-a-time changes.

    The example of spontaneous generation of a modern protein is one chosen by Hoyle for his own personal reasons, not because it is relevant. The creation of proteins probably originated with much simpler bits, but the first proteins were certainly much more primitive than modern proteins. This is evolution, after all.

    As has been stated by many, On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Conversely, on a long enough timeline, starting with nothing, the possibility of life becomes inevitable.

  201. chuck

    cool. thanks for your responses. they were reasoned and not personal. much appreciated. I think I understand where you’re going with the infinite universe, but don’t buy that making it so somehow makes mathematically impossible odds less impossible.

    As to my Hyksos=Hebrew question, I should have asked WHY you believe that. I know it has been put forth by some, but I think further digging will show you that it’s been discredited, the chronology of that postulation one of several areas of weakness.

    Todd: apology not necessary, but accepted with grace. Just beginning to wonder if I was getting senile, lol.

    Rogue, I understand what you are saying about mutations and changes, and I realize that “quantum” leaps, if you will, are often offered as a bridge between gaps in the fossil records, et al. I do believe, however, that Hoyle and Wicks’ mathmatics were simply an attempt to calculate the possibility of the simplest parts of that small but irreducibly complex proteins. I don’t know that they had personal reasons other than to establish the likelyhood of it happening. They certainly weren’t approaching it from an ID (as we know it today) prejudice. I think the impossible numbers are what moved them to their panspermia offering. I mean, if for all intents and purposes something can’t happen, then you must offer alternative hypothosis. There was no grabbing at a God, in designer mode or not, though personally I think even that would be more rational than what was ultimately offered. That’s just me though.

    I have no doubt that someone said what you offer in in your last sentence, but it’s only a postulation, not a fact. No one of us having been here since the beginning (if there was one) and no one of us likely to carry on through the indefinite future, that statement smacks of interesting philosophy but not very good science. To state that with enough time, anything is possible, well, there’s just no basis in truth, or observation, to back that up. I could just as well say that if you throw all the parts of a car in a field, and have enough time, eventually it will become fully assembled and drive away (and of course, it would still beg the question of where the parts came from). You have the virtual certainty that they could not have just appeared there (I say virtual to appear open-minded), and the mathmatical impossibility that they could assemble, or be assembled, by random chance into a functioning vehicle. I realize that my usage of a car as an example seems too tilted in the direction of complexity, but even the simplest proteins are anything but simple. My reference to Hoyles’ numbers simply point out that a rational case( odds of an event occuring) are not improved by adding an irrational case (indefinite time period). The odds are the odds. One of you offered that you wouldn’t have to go through all 10 to 40,000th possibilities for the event to occur. Mathematically, you are correct. But the flip side would be that you may have to go through all 10 to 40,000 possibilities several times before the event occurs. I’m not sure adding indefinite time makes that any more likely. And so what if it did manage to happen. ONCE. I think, considering the hostile enviroment the earth had to offer when this event supposedly took place would pretty well demand this to be a repeat event. More than once, maybe thousands or even millions of times before this initial protein survived. Hopefully you see that were approaching numbers that the universe doesn’t even hold (remember 10 to 80 subatomic particles). Be that as it may, if you still believe in it, that’s cool. Just realize to do so demands so much more faith than to believe it was created. But i’m not mocking your belief, only saying it seems to fly in the face of reason and science. And requiring endless and impossible events to occur does not reduce the odds, but increases them.

    While we may have examples of eyes in different stages of developement, I assume they are still eyes, and serve a purpose. But are they really in different stages of developement, or are they just all eyes that function with slight differences from creature to creature. A non-funtional eye would serve its owner no purpose at all. So if there is no real benefit, why is it retained or passed on. An eye must be an eye, with all necessary parts in functional order, to serve any purpose for its’ owner. I find it easier, and more sensible, to believe it was created fully functional than to hold on to the idea that its’ incredible complexity is an accumalation of random add-ons that had no real benefit until fully assembled. Again, you too have faith, in what seems to me, just blind chance, with impossible odds. I see order and complexity, and conclude what I always conclude when I encounter order and complexity in my everyday life…someone designed it and/or built it. Again, even the simplest life forms are incredible complex, many, if not most, irreducibly so.

    Anyway, got company, have to go. Appreciate the exchange of info though. Later.

  202. chuck:

    Proof of design? Okay, follow these directions. Put down the latest issue of “The Big Bong”, walk to the nearest mirror, and look yourself in the eyes. Keep looking……llllooookkkkiiinnngggg…..don’t give up yet. There!! Did you see it? Nope? Alright then, I’ll help a little. It’s called the EYE. Even Darwin was afeared [sic] of dat [sic] one. Explain how something as complex as the eye evolved. Did it pop up (or out) all at once?

    Creationists/ID proponents always bring up that old chestnut!

    Well then, chuck, explain why the bloody hell would an ‘intelligent designer’ design an eye that is ‘imperfect’? Yes, chuck, the camera eyes of all vertebrates (including humans) is built backwards and upside down, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light-sensitive rods and cones that transform the light signal into neural impulses – which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns.

    Go outside on a bright cloudless day and stare at the blue sky. Within a few moments, you will notice white ‘dots’ dancing around your field of vision. Those ‘dots’ are white blood cells flowing around the blood vessels in front of the retina of your eye and interfering with your vision; however, you, chuck, and your ID proponents call this “Intelligent Design” — man does not make digital cameras with all the electrical connections to the CMOS/CCD detector via the front, but at the rear where it should be! So, how does “Intelligent Design” explain that SNAFU?!

    Furthermore, the camera eyes of cephalopods (such as octopuses), in contrast, are constructed the ‘right way out’, with the nerves attached to the rear of the retina. This means that they do not have a blind spot, and their vision is marginally clearer. This difference may be accounted for by the origin of eyes; in cephalopods they develop as an invagination of the head surface, whereas in vertebrates they originate as an extension of the brain which ‘pushes its way through’ to the outside world. So, why would an ‘intelligent designer’ favour octopuses over humans?

    Maybe the ‘intelligent designer’ is none other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, with his multiple appendages, and that would explain why he/she/it favours cephalopods over vertebrates. Hail the great Flying Spaghetti Monster! RAMEN!

    P.S. If you, chuck, can be bloody bothered to do so, click on my name for the link to the Wikipedia entry on Evolution of the Eye.

  203. IVAN3MAN

    chuck:

    I find it easier, and more sensible, to believe it was created fully functional […]. Again, you too have faith [Here we have the Pot calling the Kettle black! — Ivan3man], in what seems to me, just blind chance, with impossible odds. I see order and complexity, and conclude what I always conclude when I encounter order and complexity in my everyday life… someone designed it and/or built it. Again, even the simplest life forms are incredible complex, many, if not most, irreducibly so.

    So then, chuck, who the bloody hell designed the designer?!

  204. IVAN3MAN

    ERRATUM: At my previous post, third paragraph after block-quote, second and third line, it should read: Those ‘dots’ are white blood cells flowing through the blood vessels in front of the retina of your eye and interfering with your vision…

    Like all good scientists with their theories, I am self-correcting with my grammar!

  205. José

    @Chuck
    And why ask me any questions about the bible.

    You used the Bible as one of your reasons for believing in a designer.

    Still waiting for that single find that disproved the bible (heard it was offered, just can’t seem to find it)

    We gave that to you. It contradicts itself in its 2 creation stories. Therefore, it’s impossible for the Bible to be an accurate accounting of actual creation.

    My reference to Hoyles’ numbers simply point out that a rational case( odds of an event occuring) are not improved by adding an irrational case (indefinite time period).

    Hoyle’s numbers are meaningless because they don’t calculate the right thing. They calculate the likelihood that 2000 separate enzymes found in most life today could randomly assemble all at once in working order. This ignores the fact that the earliest organisms were probably far simpler than what’s around today and probably wouldn’t have required all of these working enzymes. And even in a much simpler organism, the enzymes wouldn’t need to assemble all at once in working order. Finally, Hoyle doesn’t show his work. We have no idea where he got the numbers he did.

  206. @Chuck
    I didn’t know much about bombardier beetles, but if you click on my name you’ll go to a page that describes how the beetles defense could have evolved. Just like the eye, it’s another case of many microevolutionary steps adding up to a macroevolution, not a case of irreducible complexity.

  207. @Chuck
    And here’s a link to a page I’ve found that’s a more thorough refutation of Hoyle’s math. The rest of the page is a good read as well, as it deals with plenty of other ID mathematical fallacies.

  208. @ chuck:

    As to my Hyksos=Hebrew question, I should have asked WHY you believe that. I know it has been put forth by some, but I think further digging will show you that it’s been discredited, the chronology of that postulation one of several areas of weakness.

    The chronology only has weakness if you are already assuming the bible story is correct, and are looking for candidate historical events to back it up. (Hint: there are none.)

    The chronology is out of sync if you believe the Hebrews were enslaved by the pharaoh Rameses II, or even more so, Rameses III….beliefs that have no evidence to support them, and plenty of evidence against. (See comments on how Egyptians built their monuments, above.)

    BTW, I do not believe the Hyksos were the Hebrews. What I do believe, and what I think the archaeological and historical records clearly show, is that the expulsion of the Hyksos by the Egyptians is the source of the Hebrew tale of exodus. The Hyksos were most likely a mixture of people, all originally from Canaan, who were sent packing back to their homeland by Egyptian military force…with the memory of their time in Egypt firmly in tow. Many of them undoubtedly came into contact with, if not became themselves, habiru, or nomadic tribes then wandering around the Levant (and frequently earning a living as mercenaries, including for Egypt), as well as the more settled people of the hill country…the future kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

    When King Josiah of Jerusalem came to power in the 7th century BC, this tale was codified, along with other folk tales and religious mythologies, in order to create a shared past for the disparate, though related cultures that were the Yahweh worshippers, people whom Josiah needed to unite if his kluged together little kingdom was going to make it. Note: these peoples had never been united under one monolithic culture. They shared a worship of the sky god, Yaweh, but their beliefs and practices varied tremendously. As I said above, numerous outdoor shrines dedicated to Yaweh have been found by archaeologists on hilltops throughout these lands. Temple worship of Yaweh was confined to Jerusalem, a fact the newly minted pentateuch needed to leverage in order to make Josiah’s city seem central to the new conglomerate kingdom. Thus Yaweh the sky god retroactively took up residence in the tabernacle, which then became associated specifically with the temple in Jerusalem. No more hilltop shrines. If you want Yaweh’s blessings, you have to come to the temple in…wait for it…Josiah’s capital. (BTW, isn’t their a line in the OT somewhere about all the hilltop shrines being laid waste? Yaweh in another of his bad moods, I seem to recall…)

    Still waiting for that single find that disproved the bible (heard it was offered, just can’t seem to find it)

    Then you are illiterate.

    BTW, where is the single find that proves it, since you are the one offering it up as literal truth, presumably the burden of proof is on you. And yes, the Moby Dick and Paul Bunyan analogies do fit yet, as fiction peppered with real characters and places does not equate to history.

    Oh, and nice try on the “eye” argument. Talk about outdated sources…you need to bone up on your creationism if that’s what you’re trying to pass for proof.

  209. Errant italics…. it’s late.

  210. What next, the “bananas fit perfectly in your hand” therefore god exists line?

  211. IVAN3MAN

    kuhnigget:

    BTW, isn’t their a line in the OT somewhere about all the hilltop shrines being laid waste? Yaweh in another of his bad moods, I seem to recall…

    Yep…

    2 Chronicles 14

    14:2 And Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God:
    14:3 For he took away the altars of the strange gods, and the high places, and brake down the images, and cut down the groves:
    14:4 And commanded Judah to seek the LORD God of their fathers, and to do the law and the commandment.
    14:5 Also he took away out of all the cities of Judah the high places and the images: and the kingdom was quiet before him.

  212. P.S. Click on my name for the link to an illustrated version of Asa the Intolerant.

  213. @ Ivan3Man:

    Thanks. Of course a little spin will allow the biblical literalists to say those images and strange gods were all non-Yaweh related, which the archaeological evidence does not support. There were many gods worshipped in Canaan, but the tribes of the high country worshipped Yaweh…frequently on top of hills.

    Note that the implication of 14:5 is that the removal of all non-temple worship (i.e. all worship except in Jerusalem) will make things peaceful and happy, which is exactly what the priestly class of Jerusalem would want to imply during the 4th-5th century, when a major regrouping was underway.

  214. Lego Old Testament! I love it!

  215. IVAN3MAN

    @ kuhnigget,

    You’re welcome. Also, I’m glad you love The Brick Testament! :-)

  216. IVAN3MAN

    kuhnigget:

    What next, the “bananas fit perfectly in your hand” therefore god exists line?

    *COUGH*

    youtube.com/watch?v=kJ3Fw3wZouM

    Gordon Bennett! :roll:

  217. Todd W.

    @kuhnigget and IVAN3MAN

    I prefer the pineapple argument. :)

  218. Pineapple??!! Oh, FSM, I don’t want to know.

  219. Todd W.

    @kuhnigget

    The pineapple is the response to the banana argument. You know, it proves that God exists because it is shaped to fit in the han….oh, wait, no. Well, it has this easy to open tab at the top…hmm…nope. Wrong there, too. :P

  220. Todd W.

    @kuhnigget

    Here’s the link for the pineapple bit: youtube.com/watch?v=4HW06Wz_R74

  221. chuck,

    I understand what you are saying about mutations and changes, and I realize that “quantum” leaps, if you will, are often offered as a bridge between gaps in the fossil records, et al.

    quantum?

    Life does not progress in smooth, predictable ways. There are small changes. There are large changes. There are not crocoducks, because crocodiles did not evolve into ducks and vice versa.

    I do believe, however, that Hoyle and Wicks’ mathmatics were simply an attempt to calculate the possibility of the simplest parts of that small but irreducibly complex proteins.

    Not at all irreducibly complex, as José explains.

    I don’t know that they had personal reasons other than to establish the likelyhood of it happening. They certainly weren’t approaching it from an ID (as we know it today) prejudice.

    I do not know what prejudices they had, but we all have them. Something caused them to use wrong numbers.

    Intelligent Design does not apply, since Intelligent Design is not about science. Intelligent Design is just a legal loophole to snaek Creationism into the science classroom.

    I think the impossible numbers are what moved them to their panspermia offering.

    The numbers are only impossible if you assume a lot.

    I mean, if for all intents and purposes something can’t happen, then you must offer alternative hypothosis.

    Clearly the universe is billions of years old.

    The fossil record is full of creatures that are only slightly different from humans.

    The DNA of living creatures have so much in common with human DNA that confirms the fossil evidence.

    Et cetera.

    On the other side of the debate. This one particular Bible is the scientific record of everything we must believe about Creation.

    Why?

    Because God wouldn’t do that?

    Because God is only capable of forming life in its final form, but cannot manage evolution?

    Science contradicts the literal interpretation that some claim is the only possible interpretation of Genesis.

    I mean, if for all scientific intents and purposes Genesis can’t happen, then you must offer an alternative hypothesis.

    That alternative explanation is science. The science is evolution.

    Science does not prove, or disprove God. Belief is based on faith.

    Faith has no place in the science classroom. Once you open the science classroom to religion, you cannot keep any religion out.

    Do you really want your children to learn religion from a bad science teacher?

    A good science teacher would not be teaching religion in a science classroom.

    I have no doubt that someone said what you offer in in your last sentence, but it’s only a postulation, not a fact.

    What I wrote was, As has been stated by many, On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

    That was the end of the quote. The next sentence was what was not part of the quote. Just my corrolary.

    Conversely, on a long enough timeline, starting with nothing, the possibility of life becomes inevitable.

    My reference to Hoyles’ numbers simply point out that a rational case( odds of an event occuring) are not improved by adding an irrational case (indefinite time period).

    Rational case? The odds of something occurring have a lot to do with the amount of time to make attempts at it.

    Indefinite time period, or do you mean Infinite time period?

    Do you think that God just appeared 6,000 years ago and decided to create the universe?

    The 6,000 year old universe, and other young earth time periods, are contrary to easily observable phenomena. The dating of the universe by the Begats requires a huge leap of interpretation and abandonment of logic. It is taking a human What if . . . ? idea and attributing it to God. A very silly and easily falsified idea.

    Or do you believe that God has always existed?

    If that is the case, why do you have such a problem with infinite time?

    The odds are the odds.

    I can make up any number I like and claim that, The odds are the odds. That does not make it so.

    Do others agree with their method of calculating these odds?

    That depends on whether you are asking if scientists accept this method of calculating the odds. Either they do, but disagree with the conclusion, or they do not agree with the odds. People looking for material to support their idea that, It’s just too big, are the ones who accept these odds.

    One of you offered that you wouldn’t have to go through all 10 to 40,000th possibilities for the event to occur. Mathematically, you are correct. But the flip side would be that you may have to go through all 10 to 40,000 possibilities several times before the event occurs.

    That would be correct in calculating the odds of something that has not happened. Once that event has occurred, the odds of the event happening no longer apply. If evolution is cumulative, and it is, the conditions of the surrounding environment are full of similar matter evolving to life forms. There is no Go to jail; Go directly to jail; Do not pass go; Do not collect $200, situation. evolution is cumulative. There are many similar mutations/changes happening at the same time. This is not a situation where only one lone item is making these changes.

    This is a Bayesian process. All prior information contributes to future changes. Mistaken information will temporarily mislead, but eventually that will not prosper.

    Hopefully you see that were approaching numbers that the universe doesn’t even hold (remember 10 to 80 subatomic particles).

    Remember that this was a calculation based on the size of the known universe. As I stated above, the odds are calculated in a way that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of evolution.

    Be that as it may, if you still believe in it, that’s cool. Just realize to do so demands so much more faith than to believe it was created. But i’m not mocking your belief, only saying it seems to fly in the face of reason and science. And requiring endless and impossible events to occur does not reduce the odds, but increases them.

    No, the science supports evolution. Yes, the numbers are large, but what are the odds that the universe was Created in exactly the method described in the Bible you use? There are many versions of the Bible, with some religions accepting what is apocrypha to others. What scientific, or mathematical, evidence supports the odds that you believe correctly?

    We classify many things as impossible, just because we do not understand it. Evolution is not easy to understand, but believing that some fringe scientists fitting selected evidence to support their copy of the Bible, while the rest of scientists do not use this subterfuge, that is illogical.

    Logic does not provide the answers to everything, but where do you draw the line when you start ignoring logic?

    Science provides us with the answers to many things, but when it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible that is only proposed by certain individuals, then we choose to ignore science and go with that anti-science interpretation?

    Do these misinterpreters reject other science? No. They only reject what is convenient. There are similar, but Bible-less, anti-science preachers rejecting science in other areas – vaccines, AIDS, alternative medicine, . . . . Some overlap occurs, but they all demonstrate a convenient misunderstanding of science. The science makes sense. The selective rejection of accepted science does not make sense.

    You already know my objections to the religious interpretation that only some sects preach, so I will not repeat that.

    Evolution is good science. Creationism and ID are not even bad science. They are anti-science.

  222. @ Todd:

    Bwah-ha-ha-haaaaa! That guy’s hysterical. I notice NotYouTube banned him, too.

  223. chuck

    Re:Hoyles’ calculations- stating that earliest organisms were “probably simpler” or “probably didn’t require” doesn’t make it so. How much simpler? One half as complex, 1,000 instead of 2,000, or two thirds, or one quarter? Well, we don’t know, and speculating that they were simpler (hidden code message- “much simpler”) is just that, speculation. Hoyle took what could be observed (sounds like good science) and went from there. Whatever the case, assume your best case scenario and you’re still talking about numbers way beyond mathematical possibility.

    Re: the eye. Thanks Ivan, for making my point. All that incredible complexity, and you think it just came all together through random chance over eons and eons until it resulted in a functional eye. I admire your faith. And do you really care how our visuals are processed? Do you know for sure it’s a mistake? I mean, last time I looked, everything seemed to be right side up. And what do I care about the crocs? I’m not one (nor are any of them my ancestors). They see okay with their eyes, I see okay with mine. This doesn’t nullify the incredible complexity, order, and information involved. Seems like a miracle that we see correctly. And you believe evolution did this? Why and how? Seems like if blind random chance through beneficial mutations was at work, this arrangement would have been trashed along the way.

    Re: who designed the designer? According to Him, no one. There are no other gods (in reality) besides Him. He calls Himself the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, i.e., He encapsulates all time. He is outside of it. It too is a creation of His. He calls Himself eternal. No one made Him. Feel free to reject this (based on your question I’m sure you do), but what kind of God would He be if He wasn’t eternal, wasn’t the creator? Just a second rank pretender. Another false god.

    Re: supposed contradictory creation accounts: They are not contradictory accounts because they are not both accounts. The first story lays out what God wants us to know about the order, the second that you reference to is just restating what God did (with no reference to timing or order)before going on to the more important issue of man interacting with that creation. Besides, this is not an example of an archaeological find, and does not disprove anything when read in context.

    Re: the odds. I think you are incorrect. Using the lottery as an example as before, just because there’s a winner doesn’t now mean the odds are better or irrelevant. Each chance is the same. Every drawing has the same odds. EVERY TIME. So whether the odds are 10 to 40,000 or more or less, each possibility of the event maintains the same odds. You also seem to be presuming it only had to happen once. I know that expedites things, but assuming (and it is a huge assumption) it happens, who’s to say this organism doesn’t immediately die. And even if it lives, how would it know to reproduce?(it’s never done it before, and being the first, it has no information passed on to it. I’m simplifying here, jumping ahead a few stages, but the argument about information would remain. Who’s to say that this incredible event wouldn’t have to occur hundreds or millions of times before life took a foothold here. And even in the simplest life forms there is complexity and information stored that boggles the mind. Where did this info come from? How does this “newly evolved” life form even know how to function or what to do? When and why does it “evolve” from a self-reproducing creature to one that “mates” with another? Even Dawkins admitted “we don’t know” to this one.

    Went to website on beetles. Interesting article. thanks for reference. Noticed, however, after listing steps on how it could have evolved, admitted it probably did not happen that way. At least he’s honest. It was not observing something and applying it to the bb, it was ASSUMING many things, many of which really had no explanation as to why they would have occured. And in all this is the hint, or assumption, that these creatures “evolve” certain features or traits to better survive. How would they do that? How would they know to do it? Even the author admits that “we cant read the beetles mind”. How would this or any other creature develop this ability? His argument as to why a designer would put this capability in the beetle at creation, when there had been no sin, misses the point.

  224. chuck

    Our dna holds incredible amounts of info that can produce numerous variations or changes within the species. An ability, though allowed for or possible at any time, may not evidence itself until an appropriate time, or even needful time. If God, knowing the fall would occur, put this possibility into the beetles arsenal for future use, then that only goes to show design and intent. The evol. alternative would be that either the beetle somehow developed this ability via random chance (how convenient) with slow gradual changes (didn’t help those dying all the while), or maybe just happened to have it all the while, and discovered it when attacked, or used it for other purposes before discovering its’ handiness when preyed on. Yes, I know that the blowing up part could be hyperbole, but still, to believe this creature could just develop or evolve these chemicals, and coincidently evolve a way to keep them seperated, and randomly evolve a way to excrete, or shoot, or mist them after “coming up” with the idea to mix them, I don’t know, it just leaves so much unexplained that it begs for the design approach. In addition, while I do believe that mans’ death occured only after the fall, I do not know whether there was dying in the animal kingdom. We are never told they too could live forever, or even a long time. I could be wrong about this, but I dont see that argument carrying much weight. The ability to defend may have been needed at the beginning. More later

  225. Hey, Chuck, must be a slow day at church, huh?

    Love this one:

    Re: the eye. Thanks Ivan, for making my point. All that incredible complexity, and you think it just came all together through random chance over eons and eons until it resulted in a functional eye.

    Once again, filo mou, your statement reveals a fundamental misperception about biology that (perhaps) is one of the reasons you don’t seem to understand the power of evolution.

    Apparently, you presume that only our eyes as they exist right now are “functional.” Presumably, and please correct me if this is not your belief, you don’t think an eye that is not the same as ours, or performs in a different manner, or with less efficiency, is “functional” at all. Or, to put it another way, you don’t see how an eye that is less efficient than ours would be of use to an animal, and hence of value.

    Honestly, this is such a hoary old misconception, I’m surprised you dredge it up. There exist today cave-dwelling salamanders and deep-sea fishes that cannot “see” as we do, yet have functioning light receptors (eyes, to them). These allow them to detect — and here’s the key: react to — very slight changes in light and shadow around them. They might not be able to “see” the details of what’s causing those shadows, but they don’t need to. The advance warning is enough to give them a chance to escape. Quite a useful function, wouldn’t you say? I imagine the fish think so.

    Likewise with early, “primitive” eyes. They functioned perfectly well, thank you very much. Even if they gave a creature a minute advantage over other animals, that’s enough in the long run to matter. And a creature’s whose primitive little cluster of light-detecting cells on its head worked just a little bit better had an even better chance. And on. And on. And on. That is the power of natural selection over millions of years and countless billions of generations.

    Honestly, when you type that “functioning eye” nonsense, do you have in your head images of eyeballs cut in half? Or quartered? Or helpless little amoebas with human corneas but no optic nerves?

    Once again, your grasp of simple biology is woefully insufficient for you to be carrying on this way.

    This one’s fun, too:

    And even if it lives, how would it know to reproduce?(it’s never done it before, and being the first, it has no information passed on to it.

    Does the earth “know” it’s rotating? Do the waters of the oceans “know” how to gather up beneath the moon’s pull of gravity? Does an atom of Potassium 40 “know” how to decay into Argon? Don’t these events–and trillions of others–just happen? Or is God behind them all, prodding them along? And if that’s the case, why couldn’t he prod a wee little molecule to split in two and recombine with a couple of other molecules floating about? Surely you’re not putting limits on God, are you?

    Honestly, Chuck, next weekend visit a library after church, okay?

    BTW, still waiting for the archaeological evidence of Yaweh, and no, not his worship by humans. We’ve been down that Bunyanesque road before.

  226. José

    @Chuck

    Hoyle took what could be observed (sounds like good science) and went from there.

    Hoyle looked at what we see alive today and calculated how likely it would be for it to randomly assemble with everything in working order. That’s not good science. That’s idiotic.

    Whatever the case, assume your best case scenario and you’re still talking about numbers way beyond mathematical possibility.

    No we’re not. Not every part needs to magically appear at once. It’s well within the realm of mathematical possibility.

    Re: the eye. Thanks Ivan, for making my point. All that incredible complexity, and you think it just came all together through random chance over eons and eons until it resulted in a functional eye.

    EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM CHANCE. Sorry for the all caps, but honestly, stop saying that. How many times do we have to tell you that. You’re just being a twit again.

    Re: supposed contradictory creation accounts: They are not contradictory accounts because they are not both accounts. The first story lays out what God wants us to know about the order, the second that you reference to is just restating what God did (with no reference to timing or order)before going on to the more important issue of man interacting with that creation.

    Come on. They’re two different accountings of the same events.

    Besides, this is not an example of an archaeological find, and does not disprove anything when read in context.

    Duh. In the context that the Bible is considered literal representation of creation, it’s an example of the Bible disproving itself. No digging required.

    Went to website on beetles. Interesting article. thanks for reference. Noticed, however, after listing steps on how it could have evolved, admitted it probably did not happen that way.

    Once again, duh. Your argument is that there’s is no way evolution could be responsible for these beetles. This demonstrates how it could have been possible. There’s no need to be able to say this is exactly how it happened.

    Yes, I know that the blowing up part could be hyperbole, but still, to believe this creature could just develop or evolve these chemicals, and coincidently evolve a way to keep them seperated, and randomly evolve a way to excrete, or shoot, or mist them after “coming up” with the idea to mix them, I don’t know, it just leaves so much unexplained that it begs for the design approach.

    You still don’t have a clue how evolution works. You started off by scolding us for not knowing how design works, when we know exactly why it doesn’t work, and you’re not even considerate enough to take the time to understand how evolution works. Go away, and come back when you understand what’s wrong with the statement above. We could tell you again, but it’s pretty clear you won’t listen.

  227. Todd W.

    Hmm…a watch (animal) is so mind-numbingly complex, that it must have been designed. So, who designed it? A human. But humans are so mind-numbingly complex, that they must have been designed. So, who designed them? God. But God is so mind-numbingly complex, irreducibly so, in fact, that He must have been designed. So, who designed Him? No one. He just exists. Ah, but isn’t that the same argument evolutionists use? It just exists; it just happens? Well, yes, but they’re wrong. Hmm…I see…

  228. Todd W.

    @Chuck

    By the way. Your comment about everything looking right-side up to you is because your brain flips the image around. When light reflects off of objects and passes through the lens, the light that comes from the top of the object hits the bottom of the rear of the eye. Thus, top becomes bottom and bottom becomes top, as far as the back of your eye is concerned. Your brain then has to work to flip that image right-side up again so that things look proper for you. Wouldn’t a better design be an eye that perceives things right-side up in the first place, so the brain doesn’t need to do any extra work?

    Oh, and what about that blind spot that the human eye has. Seems rather silly. I mean, we can create mechanical eyes that don’t have that problem, because, well, we put all the wires and workings behind the receptors, rather than in front, like the human eyes does. Octopus eyes do not have that deficiency, which suggests an improved design, which would also suggest that octopi are a higher life form than humans, from the design perspective, anyway.

    And, as others have already pointed out, the biological progression of the eye, from simple light-sensors to more complex camera eyes, all exist in nature right now. In the case of simpler eyes, there were no environmental forces driving selection of more complex forms. In other words, those animals with simpler eyes don’t need anything more complex.

    There are no other gods (in reality) besides Him.

    Where’d you get that? I know it’s not from the Bible, which acknowledges that other gods exist, instead just dictating that the Israelites shall not worship any of those other gods or place them higher than Yahweh.

    He calls Himself the Alpha and Omega…He calls Himself eternal

    I call myself sweet and innocent. Others say I’m the devil incarnate. Criminals say that they are not guilty. Heck, that guy in California said his last name was Rockefeller. Does the simple act of claiming it make any of those statements true? What other evidence is there, besides his word, that the character “God” from the Bible actually is eternal, the beginning and the end? Do you have evidence, other than his word, that he wasn’t designed?

  229. Todd W.

    d’oh…messed up the last blockquote tag.

  230. IVAN3MAN

    chuck:

    Re: the eye. Thanks Ivan, for making my point. All that incredible complexity, and you think it just came all together through random chance over eons and eons until it resulted in a functional eye.

    I never said “random chance” — WTF gave you that idea?! What I did say was: If you can be bloody bothered to do so, check out the link to the Wikipedia entry on Evolution of the Eye.

    Todd W. also advised you to do so. Obviously, you have not bothered! Because if you had done so, you would have got a detailed explanation of how the eye evolves in minute stages over eons through natural selection.

    I admire your faith. And do you really care how our visuals are processed? Do you know for sure it’s a mistake? I mean, last time I looked, everything seemed to be right side up.

    Err… the visual cortex at the rear of the brain turns the inverted image the right way up.

    And what do I care about the crocs? I’m not one (nor are any of them my ancestors). They see okay with their eyes, I see okay with mine.

    What bloody “crocs”? Actually, I mentioned octopuses, not crocodiles.

    This doesn’t nullify the incredible complexity, order, and information involved. Seems like a miracle that we see correctly. And you believe evolution did this? Why and how? Seems like if blind random chance through beneficial mutations was at work, this arrangement would have been trashed along the way.

    That is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). Also, the argument from personal incredulity is an assertion that just because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

    In an argument from personal incredulity or argument from ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as ‘evidence’ in favour of an alternative view of his or her choice; e.g., “Intelligent Design”, or “God did it”.

    The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following forms:

    * Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
    * Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

    Two common versions of the argument from personal incredulity are:

    * “I can’t believe this is possible, so it can’t be true.” (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is [or claims to be] unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.)
    * “That’s not what people say about this; people instead agree with what I am saying.” (Here the person is asserting that a proposition must be inaccurate because the opinion of “people in general” is claimed to agree with the speaker’s opinion, without offering specific evidence in support of the alternative view.) This is also called argumentum ad populum (argument from popular opinion).

    The quote from the man himself, Charles Darwin, on the Evolution of the Eye:

    To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.


    Re: who designed the designer? According to Him, no one. There are no other gods (in reality) besides Him.

    Not according to these verses:

    Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the Earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth.

    Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

    Genesis 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

    So, how many gods are there?

    He calls Himself the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, i.e., He encapsulates all time. He is outside of it. It too is a creation of His. He calls Himself eternal. No one made Him. Feel free to reject this (based on your question I’m sure you do), but what kind of God would He be if He wasn’t eternal, wasn’t the creator? Just a second rank pretender. Another false god.

    So, to the question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? According to you, Chuck, “He” is both the chicken and the egg! A MAGIC CHICKEN! :roll:
    Hey, wait a minute, Chuck… I thought you said that you were not a creationist? ;-)

    Re: supposed contradictory creation accounts: They are not contradictory accounts because they are not both accounts. The first story lays out what God wants us to know about the order, the second that you reference to is just restating what God did (with no reference to timing or order)before going on to the more important issue of man interacting with that creation.

    Contradictions in the Genesis on the creation of humans and animals:

    Genesis 1:25-27 And God made the beast of the Earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the Earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the Earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth.
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    So, both male and female humans were created after the other animals; however…

    Genesis 2:18-22 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
    And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
    And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
    And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

    Now, in this scenario, the man was created first, then the animals, and finally the woman from the man’s rib.

    Go figure!

    P.S. There’s more where that came from, Chuck, so don’t get me started!

  231. Todd W.

    @IVAN3MAN

    The pink comic sans…it burns mine een! Yet more proof of the poor design of the human eye.

  232. IVAN3MAN

    @ Todd W.,

    Yeah, I selected that font style and colour as the most appropriate for quoting Chuck’s rantings! :-)

  233. Daffy

    “If God, knowing the fall would occur, put this possibility into the beetles arsenal for future use, then that only goes to show design and intent.”

    So, knowing “the fall” would occur, God went ahead with His plans anyway.

    Sounds a lot like something Kim Jong Il would do.

  234. Todd W.

    @Daffy

    You bring up an interesting question: Why put the fruit of knowledge of good and evil and fruit of life in the garden at all?

  235. Daffy

    As far as I can tell, Todd, it was so God could spring out of the bushes and yell, “Gotcha!”

    I mean, really, if His divine self knew the fall would happen, shouldn’t He have used a slightly more intelligent design? He creates a world where a very select few will get to enjoy heaven, and the vast majority will be brutally tortured for all eternity. And His followers actually want me to worship this creature? Why would I?

  236. IVAN3MAN

    @ Todd W.,

    Yeah, and WTF was Yahweh thinking of when He pointed out the bloody Tree of Knowledge to Eve and told her not to eat from that tree? As Kojak would say, “He was talking to a broad!” He was supposed to be the all-knowing ‘god’, so he should have known that the surest way to get a woman to do something is to tell her not to do it. :roll:

  237. @ Ivan:

    The Christians claim that those “us” references in Genesis (which may just be a poor translation of the original Hebrew, anyway) are “in fact” references to the tripartite nature of this god thingamajig. There’s your Yaweh, there’s your Jeebus, there’s your holy spook.

    And yes, I’m being deliberately silly with the terminology, highlighting what, to me, is a perfect example of religious fancydancing to try and tie up the loose ends in their theology. A clever effort, but rather clumsy in the end.

  238. Todd W.

    @IVAN3MAN

    Adam and Eve are also his children, so to add to your comment, the surest way to get your child to do something is, also, to tell it not to do it, as many parents will attest.

  239. Todd W.

    @kuhnigget

    It could also be the royal “we”.

  240. José

    You bring up an interesting question: Why put the fruit of knowledge of good and evil and fruit of life in the garden at all?

    I love the way some Gnostic Christians dealt with this. They believed the Old Testament god was a demon who created the Garden of Eden in order to keep man from seeing their godliness. In their version of the fall, the snake was Jesus.

  241. IVAN3MAN

    @ kuhnigget,

    Yeah, but what about Satan/Beelzebub/Lucifer? He is supposed to be the Devil — the antithesis of God. Therefore, Satan must also be as powerful as God, otherwise God would have destroyed him. So, there must be at least two gods in a power struggle, then? Some Christians really get pissed-off when questioned about that!

  242. Todd W.

    @IVAN3MAN

    No, no, no. Satan/Beelzebub/Lucifer is an angel who was cast out of Heaven.

  243. IVAN3MAN

    @ Todd W.,

    According to Mark Twain’s Letters From The Earth, Satan was banished from heaven due to one too many sarcasms about God’s ‘Creation’. :-)
    Have you read it?

  244. Daffy

    Gods own words: “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

    So God himself says there are other gods. I always find it interesting that Christians find themselves contradicting their own god.

  245. Daffy

    …and don’t waste my time telling me that God meant imaginary gods. He didn’t qualify it in any way. What, omnipotent God can’t write a simple declarative sentence?

    It’s YOUR Bible; deal with it.

  246. Todd W.

    @IVAN3MAN

    I have it, but I’ve yet to read it through completely. I got sidetracked the first time. Will try it again.

  247. @ Ivan:

    Oh, come on! Everyone knows allowing evil and suffering and horrible pain is all part of the benevolent daddy’s plan!

    Get with the program!

  248. IVAN3MAN

    @ Todd W.,

    Well, in that case, I won’t reveal any spoilers, but I can tell you that it’s hilarious! Mark Twain was a great writer!

  249. IVAN3MAN

    @ kuhnigget,

    According to the Bible, the total body-count attributed to God: 2,301,417 (not including Noah’s Flood).

    Whereas the total body-count attributed to Satan: 10

    So, let’s ask the Christians, who’s the real bad-ass in the Bible?

  250. @ Ivan:

    You’re just askin’ for a smitin’!

  251. chuck,

    Re:Hoyles’ calculations – . . . . Whatever the case, assume your best case scenario and you’re still talking about numbers way beyond mathematical possibility.

    I do not believe that the calculations are beyond mathematical possibility. I do not believe that they are accurate, either.

    Re: the eye. All that incredible complexity, and you think it just came all together through random chance over eons and eons until it resulted in a functional eye. . . . . Seems like if blind random chance through beneficial mutations was at work, this arrangement would have been trashed along the way.

    Start with a random light sensitive cell. Even plants have them. The evolutionary advantage of even such primitive light sensing structures should be obvious. Mutate from that original single cell mutation and you arrive at eyes much better than our own.

    Evolution is self-organizing. Increasing complexity is expected with increasing function.

    Re: supposed contradictory creation accounts:

    Not all religions have the same beliefs about creation. Why should scientists accept your literal interpretation, rather than my metaphorical interpretation.

    The metaphorical interpretation is probably the dominant interpretation of those who have the Bible as their primary religious text. Then there are the other religions that have different Creation stories. Should science ignore all the evidence contradicting the literal interpretation of these Creation stories?

    Would that be scientific?

    Re: the odds. I think you are incorrect. Using the lottery as an example as before, just because there’s a winner doesn’t now mean the odds are better or irrelevant. Each chance is the same. Every drawing has the same odds. EVERY TIME.

    In an honestly run lottery, you would be correct.

    Evolution is a lottery with a cumulative outcome, hence dishonest. It is as if a scientist were conducting many experiments. He may be stubborn and conduct the same experiment several times, but the result of other experiments, conducted at the same time, will lead the scientist to stop making attempts at that same failed modification. You have many experiments, with similar outcomes, all progressing toward what conditions select as the best modifications.

    So whether the odds are 10 to 40,000 or more or less, each possibility of the event maintains the same odds. You also seem to be presuming it only had to happen once. I know that expedites things, but assuming (and it is a huge assumption) it happens, who’s to say this organism doesn’t immediately die.

    You do not understand that natural selection is a cumulative process. there would not be just one instance of this, but many – hundreds, thousands, millions. There would be many others nearing this condition.

    And even if it lives, how would it know to reproduce?(it’s never done it before, and being the first, it has no information passed on to it. I’m simplifying here, jumping ahead a few stages, but the argument about information would remain.

    With many instances of life, reproduction would certainly be selected for. All non-reproducing organisms would die out.

    Who’s to say that this incredible event wouldn’t have to occur hundreds or millions of times before life took a foothold here. And even in the simplest life forms there is complexity and information stored that boggles the mind. Where did this info come from?

    Natural selection of what works. nothing else is needed.

    How does this “newly evolved” life form even know how to function or what to do? When and why does it “evolve” from a self-reproducing creature to one that “mates” with another?

    If it does nothing to survive, that would be a form of selecting for a lack of survival. That form of life production would not be repeated too many times.

    Even Dawkins admitted “we don’t know” to this one.

    I have not followed what Dawkins has stated about evolution, but there is no reason to believe that not having all of the answers is the same as being wrong. Pointing to the Bible and stating, Word of God, is not having all of the answers, either.

    And in all this is the hint, or assumption, that these creatures “evolve” certain features or traits to better survive. How would they do that? How would they know to do it? Even the author admits that “we cant read the beetles mind”. How would this or any other creature develop this ability?

    Beetles’ minds are not worth reading. You keep trying to force a design on this, or some intelligence, but isn’t that because of what you believe?

    Evolution is not a conscious process motivated by the individual evolving.

    Why does evolution lead to any particular change?

    Because there are many instances of this change. There are enough of these changes that survive, and are similarly successful or more successful at survival than the previous iteration, that this form of creature will continue to produce instances of itself. Until the conditions are not right for this creature – another creature competes with it for a food source, or another creature dines on it (a lot), or something else happens to discourage the selection of this specific type of creature.

  252. chuck

    kunnie- very good. Attribute an arguement to your opponent that he hasn’t made, refute it while denigrating him for bringing it up, and voila, you win. I don’t care what kind of eye it is, who has it, or what it does. All eyes are made up of several to many parts, all of which must work correctly for the eye to function as needed for whatever creature. Because none of these parts by themselves serve the necessary purpose, they would be useless. And evolution, though not conscious, but still powerful, would discard the useless. So unless the eye just popped up fully functional, why would evolution keep it, so to speak. Whether they are wittle wizards in da cave with light saber eyes, or the most complicated eyes in the world, eyes are complex, even those that just sense light. In your world, a creature thats done just fine without eyes, suddenly mutates (oh sorry, sssslllloooowwwwllyyy changes over millions of years)a “partial eye” that serves no real function, because the parts that would enable it to do so haven’t arrived yet (and that may take millions of years) etc. etc. Or better, one day the blind creature gives birth to little billy, who, lo and behold, has a fully functional eye (or sensory device)!!! Which one is it? And the seeming fact that none of your arguments and assumptions occur to you as make-believish or wishful thinking leave me breathless (but not wordless).

    And no, I don’t think those things just happen to “happen”. I think there is a designer behind it all. As i have stated before, i could care less if he used evolution as His means. It means far less to me than it does to you. You and the others are the ones who are afraid of alternatives. I mean, reading your words, it seems obvious that evolution just HAS TO BE the ONLY way. God forbid that there be another answer. We just can’t have that! And curses on all the idiots (be they average joes or nobel prize winners) who think otherwise. I, however, am not trapped in the same intellectual prison. I am open to either. I really am. I’m just not buying into a model that offers not proof, but speculation and wishful thinking.

    To have you guys, some of you at least hinting that you may be scientists, or students thereof, ask me for evidences of design as if in your studies you’ve never seen such things, well, it just leaves me incredulous. All about you there is order, there is design. From the complexity of the smallest particles , to the wonders of the human body, you see things, living and not, that are interwoven with delicate and orderly functions, most of which, if off by the smallest degree, cease to be at all. Your answer to that is CHANCE. Remember, no one plus nothing times blind chance equals everything. And protest as you all may, it is BLIND. To attribute purpose or design, or even power to it, leaves you harrowingly close to your own little god.

    And this is the first i’ve heard of a request for an archaeological find that “proves Yahweh”. And what would that find be? A photograph (it’s a fake!). Writing on a stone tablet (it’s a fraud!). Accounts of people who encountered Him (it’s mythology!). What would such a find be that could 1) PROVE He exists and 2)convince you that He does? May I answer for you? Nothing and Nothing. In psalms it says “The fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God”. If you have already said in your heart that no matter what you see or hear or read, you will never believe, then why do you bother me with questions? Nevertheless, i will continue to answer as best as I can. More later.

  253. chuck

    jose- I had asked for a single ARCHAEOLOGICAL find that has disproven the bible. The supposed two creation stories is not a find, even though you may have found it.

    And this is a hoot. So Hoyle was “idiotic” because YOU don’t agree with his methods of calculation. And you base that on what? Are you accusing him of trying to find impossible odds? Dude, he’s one of you. He’s an evolutionist. He’s a brilliant scientist. No, he’s not perfect, and isn’t always right, but good grief, you and some of the crew here couldn’t fit your heads into an aircraft hanger bay. Please, give me some examples of what you’ve contributed to your specific fields of study. Seriously. I’ve got to be blogging with some truly significant characters. Yall look down so far so fast so easily that you can excuse me for wondering what great and significant works you have done. I hope you will share them with me.

    “No, not every part has to appear at once”. Really? Then why appear at all? They serve no purpose alone. It’s together that they make a living organism. Is it just me? Am i the only one here who thinks the odds of life just happening at once are far better than the odds of life just happening to come into being piece by piece? And what would those odds be, Jose, those quite reasonable odds of this accumulation? And what are the odds of anything being alive if all the necessary parts are not there all together and functioning correctly? You can throw a steering wheel into a parking lot, and throw out the several parts of an engine, together or one by one, thousands or millions of years, then later the carb, the wheels, chasis, add millions of years, etc. etc. When will you have a functional car? Never, that’s when. And if you think you ever will, your faith far surpasses mine. And making it a motorcycle or a scooter instead of a car doesn’t make it any more likely. And believing it could happen at once without “help” is just another leap of faith.

    And why is evolution not “random chance”? Is it not random? Is it not by chance? I mean, you can’t allow for design or purpose, can you? If you do, well, watch out, for here comes a designer. Are you saying that evolution is in effect the designer? I’m serious. I’m trying to understand. One of you refered to the “power of evolution”. Is it the FORCE. What power? Where did it get it’s power? How does it know when and how to use it? No, i think random and chance are the preferable choices here. The others reek too much of design.

    And sorry Jose, but they are Not contradictory accounts. As much as all of you encourage me to read about evol. and biology, etc. may I do the same to you concerning the bible. Even a cursory reading of these two passages reveals, as i said before, that the first IS an account of what God did and when, where only one aspect of creation is mentioned in the second passage, and with the purpose of revealing that Adam needed a mate, and, thank goodness, none of the animals would do. Seeing as how you all think it’s just a book written by men and full of myth, don’t you think the writer could have caught this supposed contradiction? I mean, its only a chapter later. Guess he didn’t proofread.

    And no, i don’t recall “scolding you for not knowing how design works”. I think we all know what design is and how it works, even if we don’t want to see it. And do you really want me to believe that, re the beetle, that list of 20 steps to becoming an insect terrorist is actually more sensible and likely than mine? As I said, even the author admitted it PROBABLY DIDN’T HAPPEN THIS WAY. I admire him for that. He only offered it as a possibility, and that’s all. And that’s what I take it as, and nothing more. A very remote, unrealistic possibility, filled with hopes and assumptions with no acknowledgement of the extreme difficulties encountered along the way. But he was honest about it. Let’s not credit him with something to which he laid no claim. Please stop pretending that everyone in the evolutionary community agrees on every hypothetical aspect of evolutionary theory. I mean, no one is observing it now ( I know, it’s soooooooo sllllloooooowwwww), no one has been able to replicate it, and thus disprove it by scientific method, there are NO transitional fossils (several old offerings included, and I could quote you numerous evolutionists who agree), and the odds are, no matter how wishful you make the prospects, beyond the number of possibilities the universe could offer. So no, not all evolutionists agree. That’s okay. That neither makes or breaks it. But there is disagreement, and one should fairly recognize it. There is no official textbook for evol that i’m going to find that represents all the viewpoints from your community. Like Archie and the walking whale. You guys have offered them as though “here they are, these prove evol” yet, if you have studied them, you well know that there are many staunch evolutionist who believe that they are proof of anything! I’ll give you names and quotes if you wish.

  254. chuck

    Sorry “NOT proof of anything” It’s late. Todd, you’re next.

    Addendum. Jose, i know how YOU think evolution works (and the rest of you), I just can’t find proof of it, and find that other evols are so disturbed when they look at the impossible odds that they feel forced to opt for panspermia and alien seed planting or whatever. These too are intelligent, some would say brilliant, men. You must understand that when some staunch evolutionists are so disturbed by the paucity of proof or the impossibility of it happening by chance that they take this road, why are you shocked or irritated when i do the same. They go for aliens or accidental seeding. I opt for God. They see impossibility, and are struck by it. Some of you see the same thing, and just believe it happened. Hoping something is true, and believing it when it’s unseen is, in the bible. called faith.

  255. IVAN3MAN

    Blackadder:

    To you, [Chuck], the [Enlightenment] was just something that happened to other people, wasn’t it?

  256. IVAN3MAN

    chuck:

    And no, I don’t think those things just happen to “happen”. I think there is a designer behind it all.

    Reproduction_for_Dummies

  257. José

    @Chuck

    Whether they are wittle wizards in da cave with light saber eyes, or the most complicated eyes in the world, eyes are complex, even those that just sense light.

    Not really. If I were to open up your skull, and start poking your brain with a stick, I could cause you to do, see, and feel all kinds of things that you have no control over. Does that mean your brain evolved to be sensitive to stick poking? Of course not.

    In the same manner, nerve cells can absorb light and be triggered. If a mutation occurs that causes the neurons that control an organisms movement to be closer to the animals surface, light may cause the neurons to fire, and all of a sudden you have an organism that causes an organism to react to its environment based on light.

    In your world, a creature thats done just fine without eyes, suddenly mutates (oh sorry, sssslllloooowwwwllyyy changes over millions of years)a “partial eye” that serves no real function, because the parts that would enable it to do so haven’t arrived yet (and that may take millions of years) etc. etc.

    Every single stage in the development of the eye is useful, and every stage is more functional that the last. A patch of skin sensitive to light could trigger an organism to start swimming away from a predator. If a mutation occurs that causes the light sensitive patch to be concave or convex, the organism can now tell the direction light is coming from. This pattern continues until we reach the modern eye.

    You and the others are the ones who are afraid of alternatives. I mean, reading your words, it seems obvious that evolution just HAS TO BE the ONLY way. God forbid that there be another answer. We just can’t have that!

    It doesn’t have to be the only way, but if there is another way, there’s no evidence for it. Every single case of irreducible complexity offered by IDers to date is just plain wrong. You’re welcome to keep trying though.

    I, however, am not trapped in the same intellectual prison.

    Yes, you seem to be stuck in a prison of arrogance, lies, and stupidity.

    Your answer to that is CHANCE. Remember, no one plus nothing times blind chance equals everything.

    Good God, what is wrong with you? You say your open to either idea, but you keep repeating this same lie over and over again. Is that what the Bible taught you?

    And protest as you all may, it is BLIND. To attribute purpose or design, or even power to it, leaves you harrowingly close to your own little god.

    Evolution has no purpose. It’s just a natural process which explains the natural world. It doesn’t exclude a designer, it just shows that a designer is not necessary.

    I had asked for a single ARCHAEOLOGICAL find that has disproven the bible. The supposed two creation stories is not a find, even though you may have found it.

    Yes dummy, and I’m saying it’s not necessary in order to prove the Bible can’t be a historical account.

    And this is a hoot. So Hoyle was “idiotic” because YOU don’t agree with his methods of calculation. And you base that on what?

    As I explained, what Hoyle was calculating was incorrect.

    Dude, he’s one of you. He’s an evolutionist. He’s a brilliant scientist.

    So what? Brilliant people can do stupid things. Wrong is wrong.

    Please, give me some examples of what you’ve contributed to your specific fields of study. Seriously.

    I’m not a scientist. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have a good understanding of evolution. I’m not a statistician either, but that doesn’t mean I can’t spot a misuse of statistics.

    “No, not every part has to appear at once”. Really? Then why appear at all? They serve no purpose alone. It’s together that they make a living organism. Is it just me?

    What makes you think they serve no purpose alone?

    Am i the only one here who thinks the odds of life just happening at once are far better than the odds of life just happening to come into being piece by piece?

    Yes. That notion is idiotic.

    And what would those odds be, Jose, those quite reasonable odds of this accumulation?

    I don’t have a clue, but it’s far better than the odds Hoyle calculated.

    And why is evolution not “random chance”? Is it not random? Is it not by chance? I mean, you can’t allow for design or purpose, can you? If you do, well, watch out, for here comes a designer. Are you saying that evolution is in effect the designer? I’m serious.

    Mutations are random chance. Evolution is a process where organisms with more favorable traits are more likely to survive and produce offspring. That process is not random.

    And sorry Jose, but they are Not contradictory accounts.

    Yes they are.

    As much as all of you encourage me to read about evol. and biology, etc. may I do the same to you concerning the bible.

    I was raised Christian, and I’ve read the bible many times over.

    Even a cursory reading of these two passages reveals, as i said before, that the first IS an account of what God did and when, where only one aspect of creation is mentioned in the second passage, and with the purpose of revealing that Adam needed a mate, and, thank goodness, none of the animals would do.

    Only a cursory reading or denial could lead you to this conclusion.

    Seeing as how you all think it’s just a book written by men and full of myth, don’t you think the writer could have caught this supposed contradiction? I mean, its only a chapter later. Guess he didn’t proofread.

    Because they weren’t concerned with whether or not the stories conflicted. Both were probably included because they were the were the oldest and most widely read versions around when the Torah was first compiled into a single text. It’s the same reasons we have four gospels that tell approximately the same story.

    And no, i don’t recall “scolding you for not knowing how design works”. I think we all know what design is and how it works, even if we don’t want to see it.

    Reread your comments, starting with the first one.

    As I said, even the author admitted it PROBABLY DIDN’T HAPPEN THIS WAY.

    I already addressed this. His description demonstrates how this feature COULD have evolved. He presents it to show that the beetles are a far cry from being irreducibly complex. There’s no need to be able to say this is exactly how it happened.

    Please stop pretending that everyone in the evolutionary community agrees on every hypothetical aspect of evolutionary theory.

    What are you talking about? Nobody makes this claim.

    there are NO transitional fossils (several old offerings included, and I could quote you numerous evolutionists who agree)

    You’re back to outright lies again. Quote some evolutionary scientists who say there are no transitional fossils.

    and the odds are, no matter how wishful you make the prospects, beyond the number of possibilities the universe could offer.

    Only if you keep lying to yourself.

    But there is disagreement, and one should fairly recognize it. There is no official textbook for evol that i’m going to find that represents all the viewpoints from your community.

    Of course there’s disagreement, and everyone recognizes this. So what? The underlying principles of evolution are sound.

    Addendum. Jose, i know how YOU think evolution works (and the rest of you), I just can’t find proof of it, and find that other evols are so disturbed when they look at the impossible odds that they feel forced to opt for panspermia and alien seed planting or whatever.

    That’s because your dishonest buffoon who has no qualms about lying to yourself and misrepresenting evidence. God’s not happy with you right now.

  258. IVAN3MAN

    @ chuck,

    Now look here, Phil Plait explained in detail the attitude problem of people like you, at this post:

    Turtles-All-The-Way-Down

    Click on the link and read what he has stated. Also, Chuck, at the bottom of that article, there’s a picture of you there!

  259. Todd W.

    @chuck

    Todd, you’re next.

    Can’t wait. Though I do hope you address my main arguments addressed to you, rather than my little side comments directed toward others.

  260. @ chuck if scientists had it figured out the scientist would have become engineers.* You also seem to have a problem betwwen knowing the difference between random chance and natural selection.

    I have some people trained in science to be creationists and that is a small percentage.

    *Then when they retire som of them will have to science got it all wromg.

  261. IVAN3MAN

    chuck:

    Todd, you’re next.

    Methinks that Chuck has taken time-out to “phone a friend”. ;-)

  262. Todd W.

    @IVAN3MAN

    Long phone call. I’m really a bit disappointed in chuck. He started out with such rapid replies. Now he’s keeping us waiting for days.

  263. chuck,

    Everybody else has covered most of your points.

    So Hoyle was “idiotic” because YOU don’t agree with his methods of calculation. /blockquote>

    It is not necessary to be idiotic to be wrong. Since his calculations are at odds with evolution, those scientists who follow the scientific evidence to the conclusion that evolution is a fact, well they do not agree with Hoyle’s calculations, either.

    “No, not every part has to appear at once”. Really? Then why appear at all? They serve no purpose alone. It’s together that they make a living organism. Is it just me?

    Then why appear at all? They are mutations. They don’t need a reason.

    They serve no purpose alone. Why do you assume that. Parts of an organism may have a number of functions. They start as simple, then specialize. Not due to an intelligent design, but because they are naturally selected to be more suitable for survival.

    Is it just me? No, but that does not mean that you are right.

    You give us explanations that suggest that you understand some of the concept of evolution. you state that you are not a young earth Creationist, rather a believer in Intelligent Design, something you claim allows for microevolution, but not macroevolution. Then you seem to retreat to the concept of animals arriving fully formed with no microevolution.

    You point to the ideas of Hoyle, who was critical of the Intelligent Design beliefs. You seem to believe that what he proposed was Intelligent Design.

    In the sense that he believed in a Creator. Yes.

    In the sense of the Intelligent Design movement to have Creationism taught in the science classroom, or the way they might describe it – to have anything not out of Genesis questioned in the science classroom. No.

    Intelligent Design is a legal concept, not a scientific one. It is similar to what you do – you question everything, trying to find something that cannot be explicitly answered. Then you claim Aha! Science does not have all of the answers. As if that were anything denied by science. It is the whole of evolution that matters, not the individual steps.

    DNA, which was unknown until after Darwin wrote about natural selection, shows that these changes occur. Fossils show that these changes do occur. The transitional fossils are not uncommon, but they are not the horrible deformities that Intelligent Design proponents mistakenly claim that transitional fossils must be.

    There is this need in ID for things to happen quickly, in nice clearly delineated steps. That is not the way evolution works. Changes happen at a variety of rates.

    Changes happen randomly, but the survival of these changes is based on the survivability of those changes in the environment at that time. At one time, dinosaurs were the evolutionarily selected top of the survival chain. The environment changed and dinosaurs were suddenly finding that all of those evolutionary changes were not suitable for the new environment. Humans are at the top of evolutionary selection, but a pandemic or nuclear detonations might change that.

    The Theory of Creation Science is unsupportable.

    Creation Science consists of claiming that evolution could not be, rather than showing evidence of any real theory.

    I could do the same with quantum physics. This would just be examples of me claiming that what quantum physics claims is true couldn’t be true, because it is so far fetched. I could convince a lot of people that there are too many unanswered questions. Just as Intelligent Design does with evolution. Proponents of quantum physics are able to show, in the laboratory environment, that these events occur. I could claim that I need to see this in the everyday world, which is not going to happen any time soon.

    This would not be proof of the failure of quantum physics, but of my lack of understanding of quantum physics. Not understanding the science does not mean that the science is wrong. It only means that I do not understand the science.

  264. And I still can’t manage to close all of the html tags.

  265. chuck

    Response to Ivan3, April 6th posting.

    Dude, no need for the bloviation. Do you really think, with all the fine minds gathered here, that I could sway you with my incredulity? I no more expect to sway you with my arguments than you should expect to sway me. It’s the facts i’m interested in.

    Thanks for your help on the eye. Duh. I know how it works. The fact that it inverts what we see should pose a far greater problem for evolution than design. Oh wait a minute, it just happened that way, or was it the POWER of evolution?

    Re “crocs”- sorry, got your posting mixed up with someone elses. You did say octopus, tho it doesnt change the point.

    About the argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. In your quote from Darwin, he uses phrases such as “is certainly the case” and “as is likewise the case”, then goes on to assert in his argument that if his assumptions (and guys, they must certainly be the case) can be assumed, he sees no problem with his theory. Now, is that ignorance, or should I be incredulous? I can prove about anything if I add some assumptions with “certainly is the cases” without any proof, and then, like most of you do when you label anyone who doesnt accept your model an idiot, use the “most scientists believe in evolution” and some sort of guarantee of its authenticity. Even Darwin points to past beliefs that were invalid in spite of most people believing in them. It goes both ways, chaps. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

    Sorry guys, but if you’ve done any reading of scripture, aside from “100 apparent contradictions in the bible”, you would know that God clearly states that regardless of what men chose to worship, He is the only God. Period. Paul points out in I Corinthians and Ephesians that no matter what men attribute to idols, they are just wood and stone. He is the one true God. That’s what He says. Got a problem with it? I’m sure the day will come when you can talk about with Him.

    And, the “us” you referred to in Genesis is believed by christians to be referring to the Triune Godhead. God alone is said to be the creator in the bible, not angels, or “other gods”. That’s why He condemned idol worship. I wont pretend I could ever understand fully who God is, I can only go by His descriptions of Himself.

    And no, it still isn’t a contradiction. A fair appraisal of the passages shows that one is a step by step account, the other a recap of something God had already done. Hebrew writings are replete with this type of descriptive phraseology. Here, let me try to help. If I said that today I 1) got up 2) showered 3)dressed 4)went to work 5)went grocery shopping 6)came home 7) ate dinner 8)watched tv and 9)went to bed, and later, recounting my day, told someone I went to bed after grocery shopping, I wouldn’t be contradicting myself, just leaving out a couple of steps. Or if i said that after coming home I got my groceries, I still would not be contradicting myself, just simplifying. I could mean I got my groceries out of the car. I had already purchased them, just like God had already made the animals. Now He brings them into contact with man.

    And why would you struggle with an eternal God. Didnt “most” scientists once believe the same about the universe. Carl Sagan said the “cosmos is all there ever was, is, and will be.” Some scientists still hang on to that. Why would God have to be created? Do you have some intense, uncontrollable desire that there be a Designer for everything with design? I mean, if the cosmos can come from nothing, or be eternal, certainly you would have no objection to God being eternal, or having no originator. And Ivan, by all means, do get started!

  266. chuck

    To Daffy, April 6th posting.

    You touch on a difficult point. Anyone with a thinking brain, including us christians, has struggled with that question. I honestly dont know why He did it all like He did. I know He wants us to love Him, and that involves free will. He doesn’t want robots, He wants the love to be sincere. I guess that also gives freedom to those who want no part of Him to reject Him, and His desires. Somehow death and life, cruelty and compassion, evil and purity have to battle it out for a time, until He returns to set it right. Maybe the only way to have the good, for now, was to give the bad equal time. But if you think it through, it would be equally hard to swallow a God looking down on earth after supposed millions of years, a billions and trillions of deaths and dyings, and proclaim “it is good”. Evolution, at it’s heart, teaches that we are all just the ultimate offspring of some single celled lifeform, that there is no real purpose behind everything, and if survival of the fittest is the law behind it all, why not kill and control, conquer and take advantage of. Who’s to say it’s wrong. Certainly not “the majority of the people”. We know people on this site reject that argument, don’t we (snicker). If there is no ultimate purpose, or significant meaning, if all of this came about by accident, or quirks of nature, or the POWER of evolution, then no has a right to declare anything right or wrong, or the power to enforce such beliefs, unless they are in the…….(shudder)…..majority. Strange that, in spite of the many sins of those claiming allegiance to God, in spite of their many acts that contradict His message, it wasn’t until after men began to reject God and His stated purpose and accepted a “no God, no soul, no purpose” way of thinking, and with it the rejection of any ultimate authority or purpose, that man really was set free to kill, murder, annihilate his fellow man. Compare the centuries of our brief history, and compare pre-Darwin with post Darwin thinking, and tell me which period holds the greatest slaughter of mankind, especially in Godless regimes such as Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. Hey buddy, if there ain’t no God, and there aren’t any absolute right and wrong, well, good luck. The fittest will survive.

  267. José

    @chuck

    I no more expect to sway you with my arguments than you should expect to sway me. It’s the facts i’m interested in.

    Not the facts that that contradict your personal bias. I honestly thought you’d drop your Hoyle argument once I explained why his numbers were meaningless, but instead you tried attacking my scientific credentials. Next time that happens, you should respond with something like “Thanks, I didn’t know that.” Then we can move on. Instead you showed how laughable it is for you to pretend you’re open minded and only interested in facts.

    And why would you struggle with an eternal God.

    I don’t. There’s just no reason or need to think he exists. If God decides to make himself known to me, I’m fine with it.

    Didnt “most” scientists once believe the same about the universe.

    So what. Didn’t most Christians think the Sun goes around the Earth? Yes. Does that mean most Christians should believe that today? Of course not.

    Evolution, at it’s heart, teaches that we are all just the ultimate offspring of some single celled lifeform, that there is no real purpose behind everything, and if survival of the fittest is the law behind it all, why not kill and control, conquer and take advantage of.

    “Survival of the fittest” is at best an overly simplistic view of evolution. At worst, it’s an unscientific notion used to justify amoral behavior. I’m an atheist and I believe in evolution, yet I don’t desire to kill, control, or take advantage of people. I lead a life most Christians would be proud of. Are you really baffled as to how that is possible? To me, it’s terrifying and disturbing that there are people in the world who look to the Bible as their guideline for morality.

    Strange that, in spite of the many sins of those claiming allegiance to God, in spite of their many acts that contradict His message, it wasn’t until after men began to reject God and His stated purpose and accepted a “no God, no soul, no purpose” way of thinking, and with it the rejection of any ultimate authority or purpose, that man really was set free to kill, murder, annihilate his fellow man.

    They weren’t free to do this before? Are you serious. For centuries people have been have been using belief in God as an excuse to justify doing all those things.

    Compare the centuries of our brief history, and compare pre-Darwin with post Darwin thinking, and tell me which period holds the greatest slaughter of mankind, especially in Godless regimes such as Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.

    By “post Darwin thinking” do you mean discredited, misapplied, unscientific ideas like Social Darwinism? And, how can you look past the fact that the God you believe in is guilty of far greater atrocities than any man.

  268. chuck Says:
    To Daffy, April 6th posting.
    You touch on a difficult point. Anyone with a thinking brain, including us christians, has struggled with that question. I honestly dont know why He did it all like He did. I know He wants us to love Him, and that involves free will. He doesn’t want robots, He wants the love to be sincere.

    So… an omnipotent, eternal/omnipresent/omniscient being with self-esteem problems?

    J/P=?

  269. IVAN3MAN

    RE: chuck.

    Extract from The Fine Art of Baloney Detection:

    One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.) – Carl Sagan.

  270. Todd W.

    @chuck

    But, I thought I was next. I guess I’m just not worthy.

    The fact that it [the eye] inverts what we see should pose a far greater problem for evolution than design.

    Why? It speaks to poor design, to me, whereas it fits perfectly with natural processes and optical physics.

    Evolution, at it’s heart, teaches that we are all just the ultimate offspring of some single celled lifeform, that there is no real purpose behind everything, and if survival of the fittest is the law behind it all, why not kill and control, conquer and take advantage of. Who’s to say it’s wrong. Certainly not “the majority of the people”.

    José already addressed this, but I thought I’d throw in my two cents, as well. There is no inherent purpose to life other than to live, survive and reproduce. That is not to say that organisms try to survive at the cost of every other organism around them; that would be self-defeating. Look at it this way: suppose that every individual decided that “everyone else be damned, I’m going to survive” and they proceeded to go on a killing spree. The species would die out pretty darn quick and would not survive or reproduce. So, from a purely evolutionary perspective, such behavior is detrimental to the organism as a species. From an individual perspective, it’s also a bad idea. If you kill everyone, then there is no one to help you out when you need help. If, however, you live in a symbiotic relationship with those around you, both the individual and the species as a whole benefit.

    Your use of Hitler and others using programs like Social Darwinism simply show that the ideas about evolution can be twisted, distorted and misapplied, much like the Dark Ages church twisted, distorted and misapplied Christian teachings to justify the mass slaughter of “heathens” in the name of God. Or how terrorists twist, distort and misapply Islamic teachings to justify the slaughter of “infidels” in the name of God. The misapplied use of the ideas does not mean that the ideas are wrong. So, your reasoning in that regard is quite simply flawed.

    Now, getting back to the topic at hand, teaching the Theory of Evolution vs. teaching Intelligent Design/Creationism in science classes:

    Exactly how is ID/Creationism science, and why should it be taught in science classes? Please inform us of what, as far as you understand, isthe supposed theory; what predictions does that “theory” make; what research has been done and where can that research be found; how can it be falsified; and, if ID/Creationism is not religion, then who or what is the Designer and where can we find evidence of its existence?

  271. chuck

    Re Daffy, posting april 6th.

  272. chuck

    sorry, hit wrong button. Daffy, you’re statement concerning a “select few” is way off. According to the bible, anyone who believes in the death and resurrection of Christ as payment for sins enters heaven. Assuming most people liars, you still would have millions upon millions who have placed their faith in Him. Very far from a select few. Those who do not enter heaven do so by their own choice, as you apparently are doing. That is your right. God will recognize and honor your choice. People have many ways of describing hell, but if one takes all references together, hell seems mostly to be a place of darkness and aloneness. The fire may be symbolic, when put together with weeping and gnashing of teeth, seems more to focus on the anguish and lonliness involved in choosing to remain out of Gods presence. For those who do not actually hear the gospel via witness, Romans 1 says creation itself is witness to Gods power and might, and no one has an excuse.

  273. chuck

    Ivan, posting of april 6th- chauvinistic pig(lol). Now we see how you REALLY feel about the fairer sex. As to why God did it the way He did it, i don’t have a clue. I guessed in an earlier post, but ultimately I have to agree with the bible…”His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts…who can understand Him?

  274. chuck

    To nigget, april 6th posting- the christian doctrine of the trinity is not an attempt to tie up loose ends. There are many passages in scripture that refer to three persons, and in various passages they are all referred to as God. I can no more explain how God is eternal and triune than i can explain how the universe would be eternal and water could be liquid,ice, and gas( a poor example, i admit, perhaps our being body, soul, and spirit is a reflection of being made in His image.

  275. chuck

    To Ivan3, posting april 6th. Satan, while powerful, is not equal in power to God. He allows Satan and his minions freedom while His plan comes to fruition. The devil will eventually be cast into the lake of fire with his demons, so I think that answers the question as to who is more powerful.

  276. chuck

    Daffy, posting april 6th. Dude, if I declared there were no chucks before me,(i’d be wrong, but anyway), that would mean there were no “mes” before me. In this imaginary scenario, others may call themselves chuck, or others may indentify individuals as me, but that doesn’t mean they are. There is only one true me(as you have found out, yet your love for me abounds anyway). All others are pretenders, or idols.

  277. chuck

    nigget, posting of april 6th. Wait a minute now, I thought all that evil, suffering, and pain were part of the POWER of evolution!

  278. chuck

    Ivan, posting of april 6th – Not sure where you came up with that number, but let’s assume it is over two million. If I accept the bibles’ teaching that Satan is the author of lies and one who comes to kill, steal, and destroy let’s consider the tens, or by now, hundreds of millions who have died under godless regimes or dictatorships, as I previously mentioned, specifically Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and very much so one. Now who is the baddie? Oh, don’t believe in Satan? Then we are just left with THE POWER OF EVOLUTION…tion…tion…tion…tion.

  279. chuck

    RE: Roguemedic, posting of april 7th- in your response, you use such phrases as “reproduction…is selected for..”, “evolution is self-organizing”. My question is,”How does evolution know to do these things? What programmed it to be that way? If you’re going to respond as someone else did that process occur all the time with out the thing (plant, stone, even us) being consciously aware of it, I can accept that in reference to plants (wait, don’t some people think plants can feel pain and respond to singing?) or rocks, but even though humans may not be aware on a conscious level that doesn’t mean that the brain isn’t processing and responding accordingly. It can do that, as you well know, because of it’s intricate design and marvelous complexity. I know you’re “evolution is dishonest” wasn’t literal, but the more some of you talk about evolution the more it sounds like you’re attributing personality or thought to it. Anyway, enjoyed your post. Very well put. Even if I don’t agree with an argument made, it doesn’t mean I don’t admire its construction. Also, your comment about the thousands and millions of repetitions that brought about life causes me no pause. If evolution is true, that would be necessary. However, I think my argument still holds. The odds would be astronomical.

  280. chuck

    Ivan3- I finally figured out your denominatio. You’re a Crystal Methodist.

  281. Heeeee’s baaaaaaack!

    @ chuck:

    Who you calling a “nigget”?!

    “Compare the centuries of our brief history, and compare pre-Darwin with post Darwin thinking, and tell me which period holds the greatest slaughter of mankind, especially in Godless regimes such as Hitler, Mao, and Stalin.”

    You are comparing apples and oranges. Do you honestly think if the Christian Romans, or any of the later European kings and emperors had at their disposal the tools of the modern, post-industrial age the “slaughter of mankind” by God-fearing defenders of the faith would not have been upped just a wee bit? Naive at best, deliberately disingenuous at worst, Chuck.

    “Wait a minute now, I thought all that evil, suffering, and pain were part of the POWER of evolution!”

    Nice try, but in nature there is no such thing as “evil.” Evil is a human concept, invented by us. Pain, suffering, yes, there is a lot of that, unfortunately. And that, frankly, to paraphrase the Italian journalist Oriana Falacci, is why many people find the notion that of a divinely designed world so offensive. How could a being that purposefully designed such a system, in which life itself depends on the death and destruction of other life–typically in horrific agony–be considered even remotely “good?”

    It’s easy to hide behind the screen of “god’s mysterious ways,” but that is just a cop-out, as is the equally hideous notion that somehow the single act of a semi-divine man would condemn an entire universe to pain and suffering. Countless agonizing death throes, animals being torn limb from limb and eaten alive, all because a mythological man and woman ate an apple? Toss in an eternity of torture and suffering and that is just…sick.

    BTW, you never have answered a question from waaaaaay back: Why is the Bible a true record of divine history, yet not the Rig Vedas? Or the Zoroastrian Avesta? Or, for that matter, the Book of Mormon or the collected writings of L. Ron Hubbard? Why is YOUR religion so much more special than anyone else’s?

  282. ”How does evolution know to do these things? What programmed it to be that way?”

    Evolution doesn’t “know” anything. It just happens.

    This is a fundamental flaw with all creationist arguments against evolution, and specifically natural selection — and proof they do not understand even the basics of the ideas they claim to disprove.

    Evolution has no direction. There is no “way” to be programmed. Species either survive or they don’t. Individuals either live to reproduce, thus ensuring the species goes on, or they die before they can reproduce, contributing to the likelihood of extinction. A feature that helps an individual survive (and hence reproduce) is passed on to its young and the population gradually fills up with individuals sharing that particular advantage. Multiply by millions of generations (hundreds of billions in the early stages), and countless features all contributing at once, and you’ve got the diversity of forms that astound us to this day.

    Honestly, I think if creationists could just grasp that one elegantly powerful concept, their path toward understanding the natural world would be so much easier. Unfortunately, they can’t seem to get over the idea that somehow evolution was “programmed” to produce humans and tigers and wombats and platypuses and e coli and every other creature. We, and wombats and all the rest, are happenstance. And far from finding that an insult, I think it’s absolutely marvelous, much more so than creation by the fiat of a demented superbeing.

  283. chuck

    Jose, april 10th. Speaking of contradictory, You make the statement that “evolution ia a process where organisms with more favorable traits are more likely to survive and produce offspring. That process is not random.” Yet you preface that statement with “Mutations are random chance”. Make up your mind, dude.

    I’ll assume you guys have given up on the archaeological find that proves the bible wrong on something. I completely understand and sympathize. It’s because there aren’t any.

    You know, I wish I had a buck for every person who has told me they’ve read the bible( x times over). Yet the more they talk about it, the more it becomes obvious they have no real knowledge of it.

    “I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them….I will lay it on the line– there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument”- the late Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History.

    “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution” Stephen Jay Gould-definitely an evolutionist.

    “I regard the failure to find a clear “vextor of progress” in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record”-Gould again

    “Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species”-M Denton

    “Paleontologists have tried to turn archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of “paleobabble” is going to change that”. Alan Feduccia, world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina, an evolutionist.

    “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any way. To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a liniage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific”-Evolutionary biologist Henry Gee.

    I’ve got more if you want them.

    About your ‘tude, Jose. I can only paraphrase an old saying…” a personal insult is the last withdrawal of a bankrupt mind.”

  284. chuck

    Jose, again.- you think the notion of life coming into being is (using the favorite method of debate on this site) argument ad idiot(i prefer your usage of argument ad nauseum) if I think it happened at once compared to (drum roll please, show old film clip of Carl Sagan) billions and billions of mutations and variations and natural selections. Most evolutionists probably feel this way. But when it comes to the Big Bang, they feel no compulsion to explain how it(the original flatuating ball) came into being. It all starts with….SUDDENLY!! Well, if the universe could possibly just suddenly be there, why not life? Or are you a steady-stater?

  285. chuck

    To Ivan3- ahhhhh, isn’t confession good for the soul. do you feel better now”. I’m so proud of you. I never thought you would admit it.

  286. chuck

    To Paradox- why would wanting someone to love you freely be a self-esteem problem. Or are you confessing like Ivan?

  287. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    @ chuck The Panda’s Thumbs troll:

    How does evolution know to do these things?

    It doesn’t. It is a mindless process that is defined by what we observe. You can as well ask how gravitation knows how to to it’s stuff. It has to, or it wouldn’t be what we observe.

    but even though humans may not be aware on a conscious level that doesn’t mean that the brain isn’t processing and responding accordingly.

    Ah yes, but not as part of the genome as in common descent as “hereditary change over time”.

    Your confusion is over the populations genome, which acts as an adaptive agent under the process of evolution because it learns about its environment, and over the fact that feedback systems such as minds ( or the biochemical response of those plants that you reject) also acts as adaptive agents. But the later learning isn’t hereditary, children or seedlings don’t know what their parents has experienced.

    The odds would be astronomical.

    You rejected the meaning of RM’s comment that these processes are cumulative. The process consists of many repetitions, each probable, and each fixed before the next step is taken. (Usually, the alternative is very unlikely as you say, but it happens.)

    I.e. how unlikely one step is, it happened and become a fact, before the next happens. They are not independent as you claim, but causally ordered.

    As an analog model, much simplified, you are claiming that a stone can’t tumble down a slope. Each tumble has a certain probability to end up in a certain spot and each probability is very low.

    But despite that the stone takes a tumble and lands somewhere – and by selection from gravity it will likely be downhill – and so the probability (the allele for an organism, by way of the genome) is fixed. Then it takes the next tumble from that position, and so on.

    The repetitions add up, and likely the stone will end up far downhill due to the selection of gravity influence on each tumble. The odds that would happen if you don’t let the stone land in between, but just multiply up each probability for the whole stretch as a creationist does, is astronomical.

    Scientists are stone tumble observers, creationists are stone tumble deniers.

  288. Julian

    “Jose, april 10th. Speaking of contradictory, You make the statement that “evolution ia a process where organisms with more favorable traits are more likely to survive and produce offspring. That process is not random.” Yet you preface that statement with “Mutations are random chance”. Make up your mind, dude.”

    yes Chuck, mutations are random. The selection against which ones get passed on is not. Are you being intentionally stupid?

    ““Paleontologists have tried to turn archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of “paleobabble” is going to change that”. Alan Feduccia, world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina, an evolutionist.”

    Tell me, why do you resort to these types of arguments? ‘So-so said this and he’s real smart.’ You’re like a five year old. I’d like you to explain exactly why a fossil like archeopteryx isn’t a transitional fossil and then I’d like you to do the same for ever other fossil that establishes the same link. No so-and-so said. Data and arguments not appeals to authority because, hey, if we’re going with consensus you’ve already lost haven’t you?

    “You know, I wish I had a buck for every person who has told me they’ve read the bible( x times over). Yet the more they talk about it, the more it becomes obvious they have no real knowledge of it.”

    I find the same problem when talking to you Creationist.

  289. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    You can as well ask how gravitation knows how to to it’s stuff. It has to, or it wouldn’t be what we observe.

    You can as well ask how gravitation knows how to do it’s stuff. It has to do it, or it wouldn’t be what we observe.

  290. chuck

    To Jose- I didn’t say men were set free when, but REALLY set free. Think what you will of Christianity, but in spite of the imperfections of its adherents it taught, at its base, that mankind was a special creation of God, with meaning and purpose. While many have used religion as a catalyst for wrong, many more have used it’s absence as excuse for great evil. Social Darwinism begone. Call it what you will, it still (and I’m sure that while Darwin sought to eliminate God from the picture of creation he did not ever dream of how some would use his model) formed the basis for many instances of cruel degradation of fellow men. Toss that aside lightly if you will, but, as you did with Hoyle, do the calculations. No, Hoyle did not calculate incorrectly. You’re real argument is with certain assumptions he made (i.e. parts of earliest cell). Seeing as how we’ll never know how simple or complicated the earliest forms of life were, his assumptions are as valid as anyone else’s.

    And no, I’m not challenging anyone’s scientific credentials. I’m challenging certain peoples attitudes and arrogance, and assumption that certain things are known when they are not. For every accusation of arrogance you throw at me, there is one that can be sent back. Every assumption and so-called false line of reasoning tossed in my direction can be tossed right back (right Ivan?). That is why, while I certainly appreciate a good-natured jibe and a dose of sarcasm now and then as you’ve seen, it’s the tendency to make it personal that shows me more than anything else how weak your foundational arguments are. Most of you respond with a tone that shows far more “I’m insulted personally that you dare disagree with me, you idiot” than “well, none of has all the answers, but the interchange is cool.” A deposit of civil courtesy will bring that mind i referred to earlier out of bankruptcy.

    “The fact that God….atrocities…etc. The FACT that..? You know alot about God that others do not. If you think, adding up all of the instances where death could be attributed directly to God in the bible, do you really mean to say that is more atrocious than the tens and tens of millions that have been killed at the hands of godless rulers and their followers. That is disengenuous at best. Are you personally mad at God for…..wait, you are an atheist. How can you hold a non-existant being responsible or accuse him of anything?? Not consistent.You must blame man. Call him whatever you want. Bloated. Naughty. Makes bad decisions. I call him evil. You are consistent on this: if there is no real purpose or meaning inherent in life, then there are no absolutes, or evil, because who would decide? Majorities need not apply. Inevitably, when I meet someone who says they do not believe in God, it involves accountability. Men, by nature, want to be their own little gods, with no one to say “No No”. It also explains some of the vehemence against intelligent design. If there is a designer, does that mean I am accountable to Him in some way? What will I loose? My free will? Can I do whatever pleases me. Will I have to become “religious”?

    I know you guys hate it when I make a caricature re evol while making a point, but most of you do the same with christians. You take instances of sin, magnify by a million, and then that becomes your description of christianity.

    And Jose, Ephesians 2:8 says we are saved by grace, not by works, lest anyman should boast. If you are living a good life, well, sincerely, good for you. Keep it up. But living a good life FOLLOWS salvation, it does not precede it. Belief in Christ does. Or as one of you says, sadly, Jeebus. Guys, I will ask you the same question Jesus asked those who sought to stone Him(paraphrasing) “who among you can name a sin I am guilty of”. I can understand mocking some claiming to be christian, they may very well deserve it. But Jesus? No, I think not.

  291. Chuck:

    You didn’t answer my question…again. Why YOUR religion, and not the thousands of OTHER religions.

    And this:

    “Jose, april 10th. Speaking of contradictory, You make the statement that “evolution ia a process where organisms with more favorable traits are more likely to survive and produce offspring. That process is not random.” Yet you preface that statement with “Mutations are random chance”. Make up your mind, dude.”

    What Julian said, and you keep ignoring. A mutation can be random. The effect that mutation has on an individual’s chances of successfully reproducing are far from random. That is the essence of natural selection, and your comment proves–yet again–that you do not understand this elegantly simple idea. The fact you do not understand it is evident, and until you do understand it, you cannot possibly argue against–or for–it.

    I’ll assume you guys have given up on the archaeological find that proves the bible wrong on something. I completely understand and sympathize. It’s because there aren’t any.

    Sorry, Chuck, I’ve listed numerous examples throughout this thread. Furthermore, pick up ANY journal of Egyptian archaeology, check its index for “workers.” You will find numerous examples of fully excavated towns inhabited by happy, well-paid, well-cared for workers employed in the building of Egypt’s monuments.

    Visit Egypt yourself, check out the relief carvings on the temple of Luxor, the Hatshepsut obelisk at Karnak, the Ramesseum at Medinet Habu…and on and on. You will see numerous examples of workers shown constructing those same monuments.

    The new excavations of the worker’s village at Giza have uncovered numerous reliefs and inscriptions identifying individual workers employed in the construction of the pyramids and associated monuments. We have names. These are Old Kingdom ruins, Chuck, pre-biblical times.

    The archaeological record in Egypt is clear: no mass enslavement of the Hebrews, at any time.

    Now, where’s your archaeological evidence proving the events in the Bible happened? Something that shows exactly how the Earth could stop spinning in its orbit for a while would be a good one. Seems like that would have some climatological effects that would have been recorded in, oh, China, let’s say, since they were pretty good about keeping track of that sort of thing. No? Nothing? Didn’t think so.

    You know, I wish I had a buck for every person who has told me they’ve read the bible( x times over). Yet the more they talk about it, the more it becomes obvious they have no real knowledge of it.

    I wish I had a buck for every person who told me they had “knowledge” of the Bible but have done nothing but read it.

    Try reading up on how it came about. There are lots of terrific popular and scholarly books that can introduce you to the subject. I’d recommend anything by Elaine Pagels for a starter.

    And while you’re at it, why not take a survey course in all the world’s religions, so you’re not quite so boorish on the subject?

  292. IVAN3MAN

    I don’t know about everybody else here, but I think that this bloody thread is well past its sell-buy date! However,…

    chuck:

    Do you really think, with all the fine minds gathered here, that I could sway you with my incredulity? I no more expect to sway you with my arguments than you should expect to sway me.

    Why the bloody hell do you come here, then?!

    It’s the facts i’m interested in.

    Then why do you ignore the links that were provided for you?

    Thanks for your help on the eye. Duh. I know how it works. The fact that it inverts what we see should pose a far greater problem for evolution than design. Oh wait a minute, it just happened that way, or was it the POWER of evolution?

    Was the Pentium IV processor ‘reverse engineered’ from alien technology recovered from the alleged Roswell UFO crash site; or was it, in actual fact, developed eventually by mankind in small, incremental steps?

    About the argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. [Blah, blah, blah… blah, blah… blah.] Even Darwin points to past beliefs that were invalid in spite of most people believing in them. It goes both ways, chaps. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

    Evolutionary biologists have the fossil record as evidence, but what do biblical literalists have for ‘evidence’? — A >2000-year-old book written by Hebrew sheep-shaggers in dire need of a blow-job!

    Sorry guys, but if you’ve done any reading of scripture, [blah, blah, blah… blah, blah… blah.] And no, it still isn’t a contradiction. [Blah, blah, blah… blah, blah, blah…], just like God had already made the animals. Now He brings them into contact with man.

    (My emphasis.)

    Err… chuck, I think that it is you who should do some “reading of scripture”…

    Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
    2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    And, the “us” you referred to in Genesis is believed by christians to be referring to the Triune Godhead. God alone is said to be the creator in the bible, not angels, or “other gods”. That’s why He condemned idol worship. I wont pretend I could ever understand fully who God is, I can only go by His descriptions of Himself.

    Oh, you mean that this “God” is a paranoid schizophrenic, then?!

    And why would you struggle with an eternal God[?]

    Why would one struggle with someone else’s imaginary ‘friend’?

    Why would God have to be created?

    Why would the Universe have to be created?

    Do you have some intense, uncontrollable desire that there be a Designer for everything with design?

    Are you talking to yourself, or what?

    I mean, if the cosmos can come from nothing, or be eternal, certainly you would have no objection to God being eternal, or having no originator.

    Actually, astrophysicists/cosmologists have never claimed that the cosmos “came from nothing”; it cannot be eternal either, because of Olbers’ paradox (look it up in Wikipedia).

    :cool:

  293. @ Ivan:

    Heh heh. Sheep shaggers. Heh.

    Though according to Egyptian and Babylonian accounts, the hebiru were fond of hiring themselves out as mercenaries, too. That is, when they weren’t raiding each other’s encampments. The idea of poor ol’ pastoral tribes gettin’ kicked around until Moses showed ‘em the land of milk and honey is yet another Biblical “truth” not exactly in sync with the real world.

    BTW, how do you get that red type? That could come in handy.

  294. IVAN3MAN

    kuhnigget:

    BTW, how do you get that red type? That could come in handy.

    If you can, provide me with your e-mail address and I’ll send to you the HTML/CSS codes that are required. I do not want to give information away to the enemy here! ;-)

  295. Ivan:

    There’s an email link at the bottom of the page my ID links to. Look to the lower left.

  296. José

    @Chuck

    Jose, april 10th. Speaking of contradictory, You make the statement that “evolution ia a process where organisms with more favorable traits are more likely to survive and produce offspring. That process is not random.” Yet you preface that statement with “Mutations are random chance”. Make up your mind, dude.

    You’re hopeless if you think this is a good point.


    I’ll assume you guys have given up on the archaeological find that proves the bible wrong on something. I completely understand and sympathize. It’s because there aren’t any.

    I personally never tried. I just said it’s not necessary to find archaeological evidence to prove the Bible wrong. There’s plenty of other ways to do that.


    You know, I wish I had a buck for every person who has told me they’ve read the bible( x times over). Yet the more they talk about it, the more it becomes obvious they have no real knowledge of it.

    You don’t know it as well as I do, so I won’t take that as an insult.


    “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution” Stephen Jay Gould-definitely an evolutionist.

    “I regard the failure to find a clear “vextor of progress” in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record”

    -Stephen Jay Gould-definitely an evolutionist.

    He’s clearly talking about the lack of evidence for gradual evolution. That’s why he developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium.


    “Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species”-M Denton

    A quote from a dishonest ID guy? Perfect.


    “Paleontologists have tried to turn archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of “paleobabble” is going to change that”. Alan Feduccia, world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina, an evolutionist.

    He’s talking about a specific case where we didn’t have specific transitional fossils. He’s not saying there are no transitional fossils. And some of these fossils have been discovered in the years since this quote was made.


    “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any way. To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a liniage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific”-Evolutionary biologist Henry Gee.

    He’s saying we can’t know precisely how the fossil record fits together. He’s certainly not saying there are no transitional fossils.


    I’ve got more if you want them.

    You’ve got more quote mines that prove you don’t understand what your talking about? No thanks.


    About your ‘tude, Jose. I can only paraphrase an old saying…” a personal insult is the last withdrawal of a bankrupt mind.”

    My attitude is a direct response to your attitude. If you’re polite, I’ll be polite. If you act like an arrogant baby and then have the gall to complain about other peoples attitudes, I’ll call you out.


    But when it comes to the Big Bang, they feel no compulsion to explain how it(the original flatuating ball) came into being. It all starts with….SUDDENLY!! Well, if the universe could possibly just suddenly be there, why not life? Or are you a steady-stater?

    Why are we talking about the Big Bang now? Do you really want to delve into another subject you don’t grasp very well? There’s physical evidence for the Big Bang. There’s no evidence that God needed to intervene to create life as we know it.


    While many have used religion as a catalyst for wrong, many more have used it’s absence as excuse for great evil.

    If there’s one thing you’re an expert at, it’s lying to yourself.


    No, Hoyle did not calculate incorrectly.

    I don’t know how you can say that considering he didn’t say how he calculated what he did. Do you have his notes?


    You’re real argument is with certain assumptions he made (i.e. parts of earliest cell).

    Duh. I was clear about that.


    Seeing as how we’ll never know how simple or complicated the earliest forms of life were, his assumptions are as valid as anyone else’s.

    Saying that one persons assumptions are as valid as another’s is dumb. And if If you do believe this, then why did you use it to support your argument? In this case Hoyle’s assumptions are clearly wrong. I explained why, but instead of conceding, you attacked my credentials.


    And no, I’m not challenging anyone’s scientific credentials.

    Here’s what you said.


    “Please, give me some examples of what you’ve contributed to your specific fields of study. Seriously.”

    I don’t know how I got the idea you were attacking my credentials


    For every accusation of arrogance you throw at me, there is one that can be sent back.

    As the old saying goes, “You started it, so quite whining. Hypocrite.”


    A deposit of civil courtesy will bring that mind i referred to earlier out of bankruptcy.

    So if I get irritated when you lie and act like a jackass, it means I have a bankrupt mind? Got it.


    The fact that God….atrocities…etc. The FACT that..? You know alot about God that others do not.

    If you don’t think killing off almost everyone in the world is an atrocity, then I think your an amoral loon.


    Are you personally mad at God for…..wait, you are an atheist. How can you hold a non-existant being responsible or accuse him of anything?

    That this supposed god could do such things is what first caused me to question his existence.


    Inevitably, when I meet someone who says they do not believe in God, it involves accountability.

    If the God you believe in existed, I would spit on him. He would deserve worse. Since he’s a fairy tale, I have no more animosity towards him than I do towards Zeus or Darth Vader. I do have animosity towards people who try and force non-scientific beliefs into science. I have no animosity towards Christians in general.


    But living a good life FOLLOWS salvation, it does not precede it. Belief in Christ does.

    So you’re saying I’m not living a good life because I don’t believe in Christ? Who do you think are? You keep talking about how godlessness leads to immorality, but being able to lead an amoral life with the knowledge that just accepting Christ will get you into heaven is much worse. So is lying in the name of Christ.

  297. IVAN3MAN

    chuck:

    Strange that, in spite of the many sins of those claiming allegiance to God, in spite of their many acts that contradict His message, it wasn’t until after men began to reject God and His stated purpose and accepted a “no God, no soul, no purpose” way of thinking, and with it the rejection of any ultimate authority or purpose, that man really was set free to kill, murder, annihilate his fellow man. Compare the centuries of our brief history, and compare pre-Darwin with post Darwin thinking, and tell me which period holds the greatest slaughter of mankind, especially in Godless regimes such as Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. Hey buddy, if there ain’t no God, and there aren’t any absolute right and wrong, well, good luck. The fittest will survive.

    Hmm… let’s see…

    *Checks Wikipedia entry on the “Crusades“* (Click on my name for the link.)

    Holy s***, Batman! Here’s an abstract from Wiki (and other sources) about the First Crusade:

    Between 1095 to 1272, there were a total of NINE Crusades, not including the Albigensen Crusade — where* (according to the Cistercian writer Caesar of Heisterbach, one of the leaders of the Crusader army) the Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, when asked by a Crusader how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics, answered: “Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius” (“Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his”) — and the Northern Crusades (Baltic and Germany); plus, at least, six ‘minor’ Crusades after the Ninth Crusade!

    The Crusades were initiated by a letter that Pope Urban II had received from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos of Constantinople pleading for mercenaries to help against the advancing Seljuk Turks from the east, and he decided to use the Crusades to his advantage. During that time, the Church had enormous influence and its propaganda campaign stirred the people into a fever pitch. The Pope, who people believed to be bestowed with power by God, told them they would be guaranteed salvation and a path to Heaven if they fought in the Crusades. To the people of Europe, Heaven and Hell were real places and they were terrified of going to Hell if they disobeyed the Church. The Pope’s message triggered a massive wave of religious fever that swept across Europe. Christians were determined to fight and win back the Holy City of Jerusalem. They were driven into a frenzy and without waiting for the Pope’s planned departure, 100,000 Christians began marching to Constantinople, following the charismatic priest named Peter the Hermit.

    Driven by their religious conviction, the Crusaders — comprising mainly of uneducated (“I have a cunning plan, Mr. B.”) peasants who did not even have any idea where Jerusalem was! — proceeded to massacre any Jews they found as they marched towards the Holy Land. They believed that all non-Christians deserved to be put to death. Whole towns were ransacked in their search for Jews, as well as for food and supplies to sustain themselves en route.

    Since the followers of Peter the Hermit (this guy sounds like “Baldwick”!) were not real warriors, many of these ‘Crusaders’ were killed by the Seljuks, but those that survived had turned back. (Hmm… “cunning plan” didn’t work, then?!)

    A more organized Crusade soon followed called “The Prince’s Crusade.” In this Crusade, the nobles and their knights moved into Anatolia from Constantinople. They lay siege to Antioch and Jerusalem and the cities surrendered after two long sieges. In both of these cities, Muslims, Jews and Christians were massacred by the marauding Crusaders.

    The Crusades caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, Muslims, Jews and Christians. It slowed scientific advancements and it stirred up hatred in the Middle East that lasted for hundreds of years. Also, the Crusades started a wave of anti-Semitism which was still prevalent centuries later. The legacy of the Crusades’ anti-Semitism may have been one of the causes for the Holocaust.


    Strange that (isn’t it, Chuck?), how “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things; but for good people to do evil things — that takes religion!” That bloody Pope Urban II was an Adolf Hitler Mk I!


    *On the other hand, the legate’s own statement, in a letter to the Pope in August 1209 (col.139), states: “…while discussions were still going on with the barons about the release of those in the city who were deemed to be Catholics, the servants and other persons of low degree and unarmed attacked the city without waiting for orders from their leaders. To our amazement, crying ‘to arms, to arms!’, within the space of two or three hours they crossed the ditches and the walls and Béziers was taken. Our men spared no one, irrespective of rank, sex or age, and put to the sword almost 20,000 people. After this great slaughter the whole city was despoiled and burnt, as Divine vengeance miraculously…”

    Nice(!).

  298. Goddamnit! I forgot the link to the Wikipedia article on the Crusades. You can click on my name now for it.

  299. “Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”

    Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out?

    Ah, Latin, language of the truly civilized

    ;)

    J/P=?

  300. IVAN3MAN

    SCENE: King Richard IV is about to set out on a crusade against the Turks…

    Richard IV:

    As the good Lord said: “Love thy neighbour as thyself, unless he’s Turkish; in which case, kill the bastard!”

  301. Todd W.

    @chuck

    What? Still no response to me? I guess the only way for me to get an answer is to make chuck think I’m insulting him.

    @IVAN3MAN

    Besides the crusades, there was also Mary, Elizabeth I’s sister, who killed anyone who was not Catholic. Oliver Cromwell was also a pleasant fellow, using his particular brand of Protestant Christianity to kill anyone he didn’t like, as well as dispossess Irish Catholics of their lands. The puritans of Europe and early North America charged plenty of people with witchcraft and put them to the torch, among other things, based on their religion. To use chuck’s own example of Hitler, while it is unclear what his actual religious beliefs were, he used religion to whip up fanaticism among his followers just as much as he used social darwinism. Then there are the various Christians who use their religion and The Bible to justify beating up and, in some cases, killing gays. The Bible has been used as justification for enslaving blacks and for blowing up physicians’ offices.

    So, those are just some more of the examples of Christians using religion to justify atrocious acts. I could go on about various extremist Muslims and Jews currently waging religious wars in the Middle East, but I think the point is made.

    People do evil things. They use whatever they believe in as justification to mitigate their guilt. It is not the tool they use (The Bible, Q’uran, Torah, evolution, etc.) that is evil, but rather themselves. Just because someone is an atheist, or Christian or Muslim, or whatever, does not make them immoral; it does not make them evil.

    At any rate, to quote my previous post, since you still haven’t answered:

    Now, getting back to the topic at hand, teaching the Theory of Evolution vs. teaching Intelligent Design/Creationism in science classes:

    Exactly how is ID/Creationism science, and why should it be taught in science classes? Please inform us of what, as far as you understand, isthe supposed theory; what predictions does that “theory” make; what research has been done and where can that research be found; how can it be falsified; and, if ID/Creationism is not religion, then who or what is the Designer and where can we find evidence of its existence?

  302. IVAN3MAN

    @ Todd W.,

    Don’t forget the Spanish Inquisition:

    Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

  303. Chuck needs….the comfy chair!

  304. (forgot to close the tag)

  305. IVAN3MAN

    chuck:

    Ivan3 — I finally figured out your denominatio. You’re a Crystal Methodist.

    You figured wrong… I was initially raised as Christian (Eastern) Orthodox; later, I became an agnostic, before I finally became a Militant Atheist.

    Ivan, posting of april 6th- chauvinistic pig(lol). Now we see how you REALLY feel about the fairer sex. As to why God did it the way He did it, i don’t have a clue. I guessed in an earlier post, but ultimately I have to agree with the bible…”His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts…who can understand Him?

    I warned you not to get me started…

    And Ivan, by all means, do get started!

    Well, Chuck, you asked for it…

    Now, let’s see how the Bible “REALLY feel[s] about the fairer sex”:

    Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

    1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
    11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
    11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
    11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
    11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
    11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
    11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

    1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
    14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
    14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

    1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
    2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
    2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

    [Now it gets worse…]

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

    [So, Moses tells the Israelites to kill every male and all the non-virgin females, but to keep the virgins for themselves. Now why did Hollywood omit that ‘little’ detail from the film The Ten Commandments(?)!]

    Deuteronomy 22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
    22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
    22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
    22:16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
    22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
    22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
    22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
    22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
    22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

    [So, if a man marries and then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim that she wasn’t a virgin when they were married. If her father can’t produce the “tokens of her virginity” (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father’s doorstep. Nice(!).]

    <p style="font-family: Tempus Sans ITC; font-size: 150%; color: Black;" Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
    22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

    [So, if a woman is raped in the city and doesn’t cry out loud enough, the men of the city must stone her to death. Nice(!).]

    Judges 19:22 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.

    [Yeah, guessed it… in the biblical sense! ;-) ]

    19:23 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.
    19:24 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.
    19:25 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.
    19:26 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.
    19:27 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.
    19:28 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.
    19:29 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.

    [How? By UPS(?)!]


    That last story, which must be one of the most disgusting stories ever told, ends with: “[C]onsider of it, take advice, and speak your mind.” Those who do consider it will immediately reject the idea that the Bible is inspired by “God”. Hopefully, they will then speak their mind.

    :cool:

  306. IVAN3MAN

    Until we get a bloody preview/edit facility here, one’s postings are never going to be 100% perfect, dagnammit! :|

  307. IVAN3MAN

    That’s strange,… due to a missing “>” tag at Deuteronomy 22:23, everything at and below it has gone into bold print on Firefox 3.0.8; however, on IE7, everything is fine! WTF?! :O

  308. Oh, Ivan! You and your Biblical quotes “taken out of context.” Oh, wait…

    I’m always amazed at how the rantings of the misogynist Paul/Saul are considered “holy.” How he could transform the pacifist philosophy of a wannabe rebbi into such hate-filled, anti-woman, anti-sex, junk just staggers the imagination. That was one messed up dude.

    And that subsequent generations of Christians could elevate his propaganda letters to the status of holy writ is even more astounding.

    BTW, ex-Catholic/Greek Orthodox here. But then that just proves I don’t really have “knowledge” of the Bible.

  309. IVAN3MAN

    kuhnigget:

    Oh, Ivan! You and your Biblical quotes “taken out of context.”

    Yeah, well… I told Chuck NOT to get me started!

  310. Todd W.

    @IVAN3MAN

    Why’d you have to go and show the mysoginistic passages from the Bible? Now chuck’ll focus on you, once again ignoring my questions. Sigh. What’s a fellow to do?

  311. kuhnigget Says:
    I’m always amazed at how the rantings of the misogynist Paul/Saul are considered “holy.” How he could transform the pacifist philosophy of a wannabe rebbi into such hate-filled, anti-woman, anti-sex, junk just staggers the imagination. That was one messed up dude.

    After reading The Mythmaker (how Paul/Saul was the actual founder of christianity) I remembered how the best way to destroy an organization (e.g. MAFIA) is from the INSIDE….

    J/P=?

  312. IVAN3MAN

    Todd W.:

    Why’d you have to go and show the [misogynistic] passages from the Bible? Now chuck’ll focus on you, once again ignoring my questions.

    Because that hypocritical bastard had the audacity of accusing me of being a “chauvinistic pig” — Moi? For quoting Kojak’s use the word “broad”? — when the Bible, that is espoused by Chuck, is full of misogynistic quotes/verses — this is the pot calling the kettle black!

    Sigh. What’s a fellow to do?

    Do likewise… it’s fun!

  313. chuck,

    RE: Roguemedic, posting of april 7th- in your response, you use such phrases as “reproduction…is selected for..”, “evolution is self-organizing”. My question is,”How does evolution know to do these things? What programmed it to be that way?

    “reproduction…is selected for..” There is no though process. These are the results of natural selection. Natural selection is the survival of a species, or a variant of a species, because of its ability to continue to reproduce. If it does not continue to reproduce, there will be no survival.

    This is not a conscious selection. A species that does not continue to reproduce will die out. the same is true for any modification of that species, even if it initially seemed to offer a survival benefit. Any time the environment changes, what is naturally selected for also changes. If a predator is introduced into the environment, a species that may have thrived there, may find itself the preferred food for that predator. The species may become extinct, may just become much less dominant, may select for mutations that occurred before, but offered no benefit. Some examples might be different coloring, claws or some other mechanism for climbing to allow for living in trees out of the easy reach of the predator.

    “evolution is self-organizing” Natural selection does not need to think about anything. What survives is more likely to continue to survive. What mutates into a mess of uncoordinated variations, is not likely to survive. What mutates into a more coordinated bunch of variations, is more likely to survive. Mutations that work, that are able to coordinate into a useful function, are more likely to lead to survival of those mutations. Individuals with these variations that work together are more likely to reproduce. They are more likely to reproduce in larger numbers than others in the species. They are more likely to produce numbers that are represented significantly in the survivors of each generation. at least until the environment changes, or the mutations start producing unfavorable changes (the unfavorable changes would probably only affect a subset of that species, or a subset of that variation of the species).

  314. Maybe some day I will check to see if I have closed html tags. :-(

  315. Worth a try closing the tag. Apparently I didn’t do it. :-)

  316. Spectroscope

    @ IVAN3MAN : (April 20th, 2009 at 11:51 pm)

    Until we get a bloody preview/edit facility here, one’s postings are never going to be 100% perfect, dagnammit!

    All too true – veryoften less than 70 % in my case. Typos! ARgh!

    BA please, please, when oh when are we getting the edit /preview ability here?

  317. Flying sardines

    Thus thread started on March 17th, 2009 4:44 PM.

    & here I thought the ‘Evolution is true” thread had been going on forever .. ;-(

  318. IVAN3MAN

    @ Rogue Medic,

    As I stated above, the bold text issue only appears to occur on the Firefox 3.0.8 browser, but NOT on the IE7 browser. Go figure! :-)

  319. IVAN3MAN

    b {font-style: normal}

  320. IVAN3MAN

    Now attempting, for the second time, to fix the font fer sher…

    b {font-weight: normal

  321. IVAN3MAN
  322. IVAN3MAN

    This is a TEST.

  323. IVAN3MAN

    O.K. I’ve fixed the bold font issue, but the “<b>” tag has now been disabled on this thread; instead, you will have to use the “<strong>” and “</strong>” tags here for bold text from now on.

  324. b {font-weight: normal}

    Jeeze, can’t let you kids play with anything…..

    J/P=?

  325. IVAN3MAN

    @ John Paradox,

    It was like that when I got here! ;-)

  326. @ Flying Sardines:

    & here I thought the ‘Evolution is true” thread had been going on forever .. ;-(

    Oh, puh-leeze! The old Billy Meier = Alien Prophet thread went on well past forever. Trouble is, you go through the usual round of kook cycles, and then one more fruitloop shows up. “Let it go”? No way. The nutjobs are going to go away claiming victory to their invisible friends anyway, might as well make them work for it.

  327. IVAN3MAN,

    I had not read through the rest of the posts and probably just thought that everyone was becoming just a bit more emphatic in their comments. In which case, increasingly emphatic, the comments tend to be less informative, but occasionally more entertaining. ;-)

    Why does Discover not have preview capability?

    Why do they not have an option for those who want email updates, rather than RSS, to choose email updates?

    Perhaps Discover needs to evolve a bit.

  328. IVAN3MAN,

    Thank you for fixing the glitch.

  329. Flying sardines

    @ kuhnigget :

    Oh, puh-leeze! The old Billy Meier = Alien Prophet thread went on well past forever.

    I missed that one.

    Trouble is, you go through the usual round of kook cycles, and then one more fruitloop shows up. “Let it go”? No way. The nutjobs are going to go away claiming victory to their invisible friends anyway, might as well make them work for it.

    Hell yes! With ya there.

  330. chuck

    Todd, posting April 16- I’m trying to figure out how something you think fits “perfectly with natural processes and optical physics” could also be called “poor design”. Your words, not mine.

  331. chuck

    Jose, posting april 16th- yes, at one time most christians believed that the sun went around the earth. So did non-christians. So did the scientists. Above all, so did the scientists. Don’t you believe christians should take their lead on science from scientists?

  332. chuck

    Todd, posting of april 16th- in reference to social darwinism being “twisted”. Perhaps “the man” himself should speak..”The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world”. Charles Darwin, 1881.

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world” Charles Darwin, in The Descent of Man, subtitled “The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”.

    Thomas Huxley, who coined the term “agnostic” and considered by some as the man most responsible for advancing Darwinian doctrine said, “no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man…It is simply incredible (to think) that…he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites”. Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews, 1871

    You can see where the hitlers, stalins, maos, and good old racists would love this theory.

  333. chuck

    Nigget, posting april 18th.- as I stated in previous posts, i won’t even pretend to have all the answers. God could have just created a race of beings and MADE them love him, but that wouldn’t be free will, and it wouldn’t be love. Are you not glad that God made you? You have abilities far superior to the animal kingdom, and the right to chose how you will live. Would you rather be robotic? As the scriptures, in particular Romans ch. 1 states, the universe (creation) is witness to God’s power and might, to His glory. Even if you never heard the gospel, a simple rational reasoning of the mind would lead you to questions such as “how did we get here?”, “how did this all come to be?”, “is there a creator of all of this?”, questions that have obviously occupied the mind of men and women since their creation. It’s all there to see.

    I’m sorry you mis-understand the reasons for Christs life, death, and resurrection. It was to give life, and to deliver all those who choose rescue from an eternity away from the presence of God. Jesus’ death did not condemn anyone to hell, they were already on the way there, aside from the life and death of Christ. The Old Testament believers placed their faith in following Gods’ commandments, and the sacrificial system, which was a pre-figure of the death of Christ. When you add up thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, and by now billions of people, before Christ and after, who have made decisions for Christ, heaven will not be a lonely place occupied by a few. Throw in all children who died before maturity (yes, OT teaching and the teaching of Christ states that children will enter the kingdom of God, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE CHILDREN!!), I don’t know a specific age, but the age at which a boy became a man in Judaism was 12, so apply that. As painful as it is to anyone to watch children dying as a result of wars, famines, natural disasters, I console myself with knowing that the life they were robbed of here on earth will be enjoyed in heaven forever, with no pain, no suffering, no tears, no hunger.

    I dont recall being challenged to answer the questions at the end of your posting, but if you did, I apologize. I wasn’t ignoring them, just didn’t see or remember them.

    Well, the bible is the best-selling book of all time, and continues to be so. That should speak well of it. Other religions that claim to be christian, such as Jehovah witness, Mormans, the Way, etc, do not hold to the cardinal doctrines of true christian faith. Most deny the deity of Christ, the Trinity, salvation by grace, not works. Some get a little strange, such as the Mormons’ original teaching that Christ was born as a result of God coming down in the flesh and having actual physical sex with Mary (they often deny this when confronted, but I have copies of the original writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al, and can easily document this for you. The JWs’ believe Jesus used to be the archangel Michael, then was born as Jesus, and after His ressurection, once again became Michael. While certainly free to believe as they wish, posing as orthodox christians who have “recovered” the truth (forget that their “truth” came thousands of years after the giving of Gods’ written word) is disengenuous at best. As to other non-christian religions, well, study them yourself and decide which one, if any, you find more rational, reasonable, with more authentic detail instead of mythology. They certainly aren’t compatible with christian orthodoxy.

    One thing I learned before leaving the realm of the occult (a warlock) and the thinking of the new age, was that christianity, taught in accordance with the revelations found in the bible, is the ONLY belief system in which one does NOT attain heaven by works. Every other system of belief, Far East, New Age, pseudo-christian, etc, teaches that you EARN your way into heaven. Christianity teaches that salvation is a gift, received when one believes in someone else(Christ) leading a sinless, obedient life, that His death was for all, and His ressurection gives all who believe entrance into heaven. NO OTHER set of beliefs, in the entire world, has this teaching as its’ core theology.

  334. chuck

    For those of you who don’t appreciate Mr Hoyle, I will give you Carl Sagan, who estimated the the chance of life evolving on any given single planet, such as the earth, as 1X10(2,000,000,000)-Communications with Exterrestrial Intelligence

    Dr Borel, one of the world’s foremost experts on mathmatical probability, in reference to the “law of probability, states that this law states that the occurence of any event, where the chances are beyond one in one followed by fifty zeroes, is an event that we can state with certainty NEVER will happen,NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME IS ALLOTTED AND NO MATTER HOW MANY CONCEIVABLE OPPORTUNITIES COULD EXIST FOR THE EVENT TO TAKE PLACE.

    Harold Morowitz, writing in Energy Flow in Biology, states that, based on his estimation, the probability for the chance formation of the smallest, simplest, form of living organism known is one chance in 1X10(340,000,000).

    Want more?

  335. Gosh, like a cold that just won’t go away…

    Okay, Chuck, round…what is it? 37?

    Nigget, posting april 18th.- as I stated in previous posts, i won’t even pretend to have all the answers.

    No, just the ones that come bound in imitation leather bindings.

    God could have just created a race of beings and MADE them love him, but that wouldn’t be free will, and it wouldn’t be love.

    An omniscient being could do anything he/she/it wanted to do. And since said omniscient being would get to make up the definitions, too, he/she/it could call anything “love.” Oh, wait, you are the one making up the definitions, aren’t you?

    Are you not glad that God made you?

    Your god did not make me.

    You have abilities far superior to the animal kingdom,

    Unless I’m in a footrace with a cheetah. Or an arm-wrestling match with a gorilla. Or a visual acuity test with an eagle. Or a swimming contest with a dolphin. Or….get it? It remains to be seen if human intelligence is in fact a successful long-term survival strategy.

    …and the right to choose how you will live.

    Glad you understand that. Now keep your damn religion out of my kid’s school.

    …a simple rational reasoning of the mind would lead you to questions such as “how did we get here?”, “how did this all come to be?”, “is there a creator of all of this?”, questions that have obviously occupied the mind of men and women since their creation.

    Yup. And the process of science helps us answer those questions.

    It’s all there to see.

    It sure is. And the universe makes a much better textbook than a 1700 year old compendium of even older mythology, picked over, edited, redacted and rewritten countless times.

    I’m sorry you mis-understand the reasons for Christs life, death, and resurrection.

    I understand it perfectly well. I just don’t believe that two thousand year-old religious mythology should be confused with reality.

    Well, the bible is the best-selling book of all time, and continues to be so. That should speak well of it.

    You, yourself, in your post up above, pointed out that the majority of people in the world once thought the sun went around the earth. It does not. The majority frequently gets it wrong.

    Other religions that claim to be christian, such as Jehovah witness, Mormans, the Way, etc, do not hold to the cardinal doctrines of true christian faith.

    And???? Your point is???? Or is this the answer to the question (finally!) “why your religion above all others?” If that’s the case, you haven’t answered.

    Is christianity “true” because so many people believe in it? See your own “sun around the earth” argument, above.

    So the question remains, Why your religion? Why yourgod? Why not Vishnu? Or Allah? Or Loki? Or Cthulhu?

    Oh, wait, we have this:

    As to other non-christian religions, well, study them yourself and decide which one, if any, you find more rational, reasonable, with more authentic detail instead of mythology. They certainly aren’t compatible with christian orthodoxy.

    Says who? Have you ever read the Bagavad Gita? Or the entire Mahabarata? Or the Avesta? They are chock full of authentic detail. The details just aren’t familiar to you, to your culture. But millions, billions of people were and are familiar with them. The fact that you dismiss them out of hand because they are not compatible with your own mythology just emphasizes how egotistical you fundamentalists are.

    One thing I learned before leaving the realm of the occult

    Well, I give you credit for “leaving”…Too bad you jumped from one irrationality to another. Why does your life need to substitute mythology for reality? Why do you need a magic superdaddy in the sky to make you comfortable?

    Christianity teaches that salvation is a gift, received when one believes in someone else(Christ) leading a sinless, obedient life, that His death was for all, and His ressurection gives all who believe entrance into heaven. NO OTHER set of beliefs, in the entire world, has this teaching as its’ core theology.

    Gee, do you not thing that very belief is why Christianity is so popular? You don’t have to lead a good life, or do well unto others, or respect anyone else’s beliefs, or be nice to people…all you have to do is say “Jesus saved me!” and you get out of jail free. Pretty enticing…for the lazy.

  336. chuck,

    For those of you who don’t appreciate Mr Hoyle, I will give you Carl Sagan, who estimated the the chance of life evolving on any given single planet, such as the earth, as 1X10(2,000,000,000)-Communications with Exterrestrial Intelligence

    I notice that you do not give the full quote. Perhaps that is because Carl Sagan was referring to something entirely different from what you suggest. He has been very critical of Creationism. Taking his quote out of context, not even using the actual quote or the context, is just an indication of a dishonest approach to the debate.

    Dr Borel, one of the world’s foremost experts on mathmatical probability, in reference to the “law of probability, states that this law states that the occurence of any event, where the chances are beyond one in one followed by fifty zeroes, is an event that we can state with certainty NEVER will happen,NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME IS ALLOTTED AND NO MATTER HOW MANY CONCEIVABLE OPPORTUNITIES COULD EXIST FOR THE EVENT TO TAKE PLACE.

    Dr. Borel was referring to the same non-cumulative odds that Hoyle was. This is still not relevant to any discussion of evolution.

    Harold Morowitz, writing in Energy Flow in Biology, states that, based on his estimation, the probability for the chance formation of the smallest, simplest, form of living organism known is one chance in 1X10(340,000,000).

    Again not what was actually stated.

    It does not matter how many authoritative references you cite. If there is no understanding of the way that the selection of natural selection affects the odds, their statements are not relevant.

    Want more?

    Misrepresenting what a person wrote is dishonest. Why would I want to read some list of distortions from the Creationists’ Guide to False Testimony?

  337. The paragraph beginning with Harold Morowitz should be a quote from chuck’s comment.

    More evidence that we need a preview function for the html semi-literate, such as me. :-)

  338. @chuck

    Todd, posting April 16- I’m trying to figure out how something you think fits “perfectly with natural processes and optical physics” could also be called “poor design”. Your words, not mine.

    Because the complex camera eye, e.g. the human eye, appears to be a system that was cobbled together in a stepwise process, rather than something designed for the purpose of sight. Natural processes and optical physics explain the development and workings of the eye. On the other hand, the way that the various parts of the eye are situated is pretty clumsy from a design perspective.

    Assuming, for a moment, that there is a designer that is responsible responsible for it, the design of the human eye would indicate either a designer who is less intelligent than humans (we design machinery that puts the optical wiring behind the receptors, rather than in front) or who feels it necessary to give humans a blind spot in their vision. Add onto this the abundance of eye problems that people have, and that’s pretty poor design.

    On the other hand, it works well enough for the species to survive and pass along the genes that encode for the eye structure.

  339. José

    @chuck
    Jose, posting april 16th- yes, at one time most christians believed that the sun went around the earth. So did non-christians. So did the scientists. Above all, so did the scientists. Don’t you believe christians should take their lead on science from scientists?

    Exactly! Learn science from scientists. But don’t believe in 400 year old scientific ideas that have long since been proven wrong, and don’t argue that the fact that many scientists believe in God is evidence that God must exist.

    Harold Morowitz, writing in Energy Flow in Biology, states that, based on his estimation, the probability for the chance formation of the smallest, simplest, form of living organism known is one chance in 1X10(340,000,000). Want more?

    Why do you keep going on with this? No one is arguing that the simplest form of life we see today just popped into existence by chance.

    If you calculate the chance that a given snowflake could just pop into existence fully formed, you’d find that it’s also absurdly improbable. Is that evidence that God created the snowflake? Of course not.

  340. @ Rogue:

    Chuck’s posting of the Darwin/Sagan/et al quotes is typical of his type and goes a long way toward explaining why people like him do not understand the very basics of the topics they claim to be arguing against.

    Creationists are of the mistaken belief that scientists worship Darwin/Einstein/Sagan (pick your “deity”) and hence will take for gospel anything and everything their “gods” utter. It’s natural for them to think like this, since that’s they way they receive their own “truths.” But this idea couldn’t possibly be further from the reality.

    Frankly, I could not care less about Charles Darwin’s view on the superiority of the races (although I note he was specifically referencing “savagery”, not race per se. His views were those of a typical Victorian Englishman.), nor do I care what Einstein thought about religion, or, for that matter, geology. Einstein was a physicist. A brilliant one. But that doesn’t make him an expert–let alone a flawless one– in other subjects that were not his specialty.

    What interests me about Darwin is his theory of natural selection. That is his contribution to science, and why scientists are still interested in him a century and a half after his death.

    BTW, Chuck, still working on that archaeological evidence for the stories in the bible? No, never mind. You’ll just quote some bible passage. Bo(o)ring.

  341. chuck

    To Julian-posting april 18th. Look, just because you guys are happy with your definitions, presumptions, assumptions, etc. doesn’t mean I have to accept them at face value. Yes, your “helpful monster” mutations are supposedly random(but are you sure? Could the power of evolution be working behind the scenes here, without your knowledge). Then this “natural selection” (love that definition. It makes it almost seem, well, natural) I hear you guys talking about evolutions “power”, its’ “directing” the process, it “selecting” which mutations to pass along. You hate the words “blind chance”, but aren’t they more accurate than “natural selection”. Evolution is nothing more than a name you’ve given a process that you believe happens. But unless someone programmed it on how to select, or how to chose, than it’s nothing more significant than the wind blowing. It just “is”. It doesn’t chose, or select, or know anything. It can’t see, or know how to chose, thus it is blind. Mutations are random occurances, not designed or directed, therefore they happen by chance. Thus blind chance. Pretty it up all you want, but that’s all it is.

  342. Talk about ignorance, that one took the cake.

    Chuck, you haven’t the slightest idea what the frak you’re talking about. You clearly don’t understand the basics of evolution, let alone biology. Have you ever read a book in your life that wasn’t some piece of crap nonsense?

    Go away. You have no business pretending to debate this topic; you’re a bigger idiot than even the average creationist moron. I can’t even pretend to be nice to you anymore. Go away, you dumb piece of stupid.

  343. José

    OK Chuck. I’ll try one more time. Imagine you dump 100 people in the water a mile off shore. 50 of these people are excellent swimmers and 50 are poor swimmers. Do you think it’s random chance who makes it back to shore and who drowns, or do you think that the people who are excellent swimmers are more likely to survive?

    Now, assuming you answer that it’s not random chance who survives, did a higher power need to direct this process, or would it just happen based upon what you know about swimming?

  344. chuck

    To Julian, posting april 18th- I’m sitting here rubbing my eyes (still not fully developed, but nonetheless functional), rereading your post and hoping I didn’t read what I really did read. Do you realize what an inane line of reasoning you just used. Usually the point of a debate is to present two opposing views, give reasoning and evidence for both, and then have interchange. The evidence presented is seldom (except for five year olds) “here’s what I think” followed by “well, here’s what I think” and then whoever can insult the other one the most wins.

    Unless you are asking me to accept YOUR opinions as the highest authority on this given subject, then I’m sure you don’t mind if I quote people considered to be experts or preiminent in their fields. I’ve gone to great lengths to quote only evolutionary scientists in the process. What better way to prove a point than to use the other sides supporters words against them. I’ve also made it clear that just because they cast certain “evidence” of evolution in a more negative light than you’d like, doesn’t mean they’ve given up on evolution. Quite the contrary. To my knowledge, they remain or remained evolutionist to this day. Most of you on this site seem to respect no opinion other than your own, so my quoting a creationist or ID scientist would hold absolutely no value in this debate, at least for all of you. And why you’d rather hear why “i” don’t think Archie is a transitional fossil find when someone else, both a staunch evolutionist and world expert on birds and their history, can tell you why is, well, non-sensical.

    Maybe you, in particular, are just angry that I’m doing just such a thing. By using quotes from those on your side to bolster my point, maybe I’m forcing you into either the “well, he or she are just idiots” or something inside you squirms just a bit when someone who is just as much an evolutionist as you points out that some of the evidence you are using isn’t really evidence at all.

    Accomodating your suggestion would only turn this from a (so-called) “he-said, she-said” into an “I-said, you-said”.

    Based on what those much smarter than I have studied and said, Archie’s not a transitional fossil, well, because there’s nothing transitional about it. As quoted above, it is just a bird. Seeing as how it is fossil remains, there are no actual feathers found, just possible outlines of possible feathers, altho Fedducia has cast some doubt on whether they are actual feather outlines or the outlines of skin.

    Sorry about rejecting your suggestion, but seeing as how I’ve been called a twit, hypocrite, five-year old, silly, arrogant, holier-than-thou, etc. I am under no illusion that any of you actually care a rat’s butt about my own beliefs. If some of you don’t like the way I blog, well then, change the channel.

  345. chuck you’re quote mining. Feduccia’s quote is one of those snappy quotes creationists love. The argument from authority. Forget about the fact that you would disagree with almost everything else Feduccia has to say on evolution you have one quote you can throw around from this obvious authority. But you also have to remember his opinion is a minority opinion. I think I will still go with the scientific consensus.

  346. chuck

    To nigget- Your building a straw man there, my friend. I’ve never said that the Egyptians never used regular tradesmen. Of course they did. What significant society didn’t. What I am saying is that the Egyptians did have slaves at various times, usually the result of wars. Thutmose 111 reports returning from Canaan with 90,000 of them. Maybe they were treated better in Egypt than they would have been elsewhere, but they were still slaves. If you can’t leave when you want, if someone else holds ultimate control over your life, if you can be executed for trying to leave the country, then I call that slavery.

    Though you reject the bible as myth, I think it actually is a sign of its’ truthfulness if archaeology hasn’t found definitive proof yet of the Hebrew stay in Egypt. If only a small part of the Exodus story is true, then the non-mention of it on tablets or temples falls right in line with the pattern of omitting or erasing the mention of a people or individual that might embarrass or anger the current king, pharoah, emporer, whatever. Its a pattern noted frequently in history.

    So just because no one has found a photograph of Moses parting the Red Sea doesnt mean it’s not true. In the OT it is clear that the Jews considered themselves slaves. It is more than once repeated in the NT. The teachings of the Jewish authorites speaks to it’s truth, as does the writings of the early church fathers. So if the Jews considered themselves slaves, which they did, and were in Egypt when they said they were (and archaeology gives us proof that they were indeed in Egypt about that time), and we know that Egypt at times did have slaves, which we do, then I’ll just accept the story. Many biblical accounts have been verified by archaeological finds (I still have almost a hundred more I’ll gladly list for you), maybe the time is coming when this one will too.

  347. chuck

    Ivan.-dude, get a clue. I mean, in spite of the fact that you’re a hypocritical whining baby, and a liar to boot,(just “calling you out”), I will still try to help you. I’ll start with your last point, re the good life.

    Who do I think I am? Who do you think you are? Quit lying to yourself!! With the venomous pablum that spills from your mouth whenever you refer to God, or Jesus, you obviously are ticked off with Him. Nice try on the back-up with “this supposed God”. Hey, if you don’t like Him, tell Him. Challenge Him to prove himself to you.

    I’ve read my words over and over again, and I’m sorry, I must throw your own words back at you in reference to not being able to understand something. In NOT ONE PLACE did I even intimate that you are not living a “good life” because you don’t believe in Christ. Read the words, man!! My statement was that (as I said, “good for you”) doing good works is not what gets you into heaven, faith in Christ is. That is just what the bible says. Jesus says “I am THE way, THE truth, THE life, no man comes to the Father except THROUGH ME”. To repeat, Eph. 2:8 says that we are NOT saved by works, it is a gift of grace based on faith. The christian does not believe he or she is saved because they are “good people”, but because Christ is good. As I said, you are completely free to reject this message. This cruel God you refer to has given you complete freedom to chose what you do with your life now, and where you spend it in eternity.

    And if you knew the bible, and all it teaches about the flood, you would understand that the world had become so corrupt, so demonically evil, that yes, God was doing a good thing. He could only find Noah and his family to follow and obey Him. None of you seem to believe in evil (bet you really do), but it’s real, in front of your face, everyday. You can redefine it if you want, but it is what it is. Throwing away the concept of evil is just another in a long line of attempts to throw off the “constraing shackles” of God. Man becomes the ultimate judge.

    You would spit in the face of God. Who do you think you are?

    And please,please, point out to me where I have lied. Is it where I told you what I believe or reject? No lies there, I’ve been upfront with you there. Is it when I quote other evolutionists who aren’t in lock-step with your opinions? Then your problem is with them, not me. I merely quote them.
    Where have you caught me in a lie?

    So let’s see, if someone is of the mind that the more courteous the exchange the better, you call that whining?? Fine, call me anything you want. You make up your own rules anyway. And nothing in the world of this blog is evil. Evil doesn’t even exist (but I bet you think God is, right?). I must apologize. I won’t whine again. Let hell heat up and the fossil feathers fly, if that’s what you want.

    Attacking your credentials? I merely ask to see them, and you’re offended. Now who’s whining?

    I’ll stick with my statement, at least in reference to Hoyle. Seeing as how none of us were there, seeing as how many evolutionary scientist point out the impossibility of life via spontaneous generation, and seeing as how no one knows how simple or complicated this first organism would be, I think a scientist such as Hoyle deserves the same benefit of a doubt you would give to anyone else. He, in spite of his own overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is so enamored of evolution that he resorted to panspermia, or alien seeding. He certainly wasnt out to disprove evolution. And in his own mind he obviously didn’t. He did prove, however, that it’s not possible by natural means. And no, you didnt explain why, unless it was you who said he assumed this first cell would be as complicated as cells seen today. If that’s it, I reject it. No offense, I just don’t buy it. Mainly because even the simplest of lifeforms known today are incredibly complex, containing not just numerous parts but millions and millions of bits of information in each and every one. If you try to make the first cell simpler than anything observed today, you are going against all the available evidence. Don’t change the formula until you get a more pleasing answer. Accept the evidence.

    And I am sorry, but you havent given any evidence of transitional fossils. But don’t fret, I’ve got one for you!!!

    Appears they just found the fossil remains of some web-footed sea otter creature. Here’s the facts:

    (It’s 23 millions years old. Thank goodness they found his drivers license with his bd on it)

    (it is a web-footed sea otter like creature. When I read this, it rang a bell. I thought, what does that remind me of? Mmmmmmmmmm…..mmmmmmmm….oh yeah, a web-footed sea otter)

    (It is called a “missing link”)

    (It is not a direct ancestor of whales and whatever)

    (but it shows us what a direct ancestor would look like. Okay, I’m sure that makes sense to you guys, but if it isn’t something, how can it show us what the something would look like?)

    So to sum up (and we aren’t told how much of the fossil was found, and in what proximity), we have the supposed remains of a creature that looks like one we have today, it isn’t the direct link to anything, but that makes it a “missing link”. We also know, within a few hundred thousand years, how old it is, but aren’t told how (would I presume wrong if I believed that the fossil was dated by the strata assumed age that it was found in, which now means the stratas age can now be confirmed by the fossils age. “Willie goes ’round in circles”.

    It’s late. will finish tomorrow.

  348. @chuck “He did prove, however, that it’s not possible by natural means.”

    No he didn’t for the same reason we can’t prove your god does not exist.

    If find it especially amusing that you do not accept anything scientifically based except when you latch on to some comment from a dissident scientist that you reject most of what they say anyway.

    And we have no interest in you proselytising. You’re wasting your time.

  349. Darth Robo

    So chuck. You object to evolution as being supposedly unscientific, and your alternative is “Goddidit cuz the Bible sez so!”?

    This is why you will never be taken seriously. Not by us, not by the courts, and not by the scientific community. So you support teaching creationism in schools as opposed to evolution, by all means carry on preaching and using every argument in the creationist handbook because all you’re doing is shoot yourself in the foot.

  350. @chuck
    Hey, if you don’t like Him, tell Him. Challenge Him to prove himself to you.

    You religious types really don’t get the non-belief thing do you. It would be as weird as me challenging the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy to prove themselves to me.

  351. José

    @chuck

    I’ve gone to great lengths to quote only evolutionary scientists in the process. What better way to prove a point than to use the other sides supporters words against them. .

    But you don’t even understand what you’ve quoted. All the quotes you used were either taken out of context or misunderstood by you. I addressed each one individually and explained why they don’t help your position.

    I’ve also made it clear that just because they cast certain “evidence” of evolution in a more negative light than you’d like, doesn’t mean they’ve given up on evolution. Quite the contrary. To my knowledge, they remain or remained evolutionist to this day.

    They didn’t give up on evolution because none the evidence casts doubt on evolution. If you had a descent understanding of evolutionary theory you’d be able to see that yourself.

    You hate the words “blind chance”, but aren’t they more accurate than “natural selection”.

    We’ve gone to great lengths to try and explain the basics of evolution, but after a month and a half you still fail to grasp some pretty simple concepts. You keep making the dumbest points and gloating like you’ve won a great victory. I can understand how someone with only a cursory knowledge of evolution could think it’s blind chance, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out how you could still think that after we’ve explained why it’s not so many times. It’s almost like the harder we try, the dumber you get.

  352. José

    @chuck
    I think this should have been directed at me, not Ivan.

    I mean, in spite of the fact that you’re a hypocritical whining baby, and a liar to boot,(just “calling you out”)

    Please explain how I’m hypocritical whining baby and a liar.

    Who do I think I am? Who do you think you are? Quit lying to yourself!! With the venomous pablum that spills from your mouth whenever you refer to God, or Jesus, you obviously are ticked off with Him.

    There’s no venom spilling from my mouth. As I said, I don’t think God exists, so there’s nothing to be angry at. It would be like being angry at Darth Vader. If the Biblical God did exist, then the venom would be spilling from my mouth.

    Nice try on the back-up with “this supposed God”. Hey, if you don’t like Him, tell Him. Challenge Him to prove himself to you.

    OK, God. I challenge you. Prove your existence to me! And while your at it, explain how you could have done such horrific things and still consider yourself just and loving. And why haven’t you explained how evolution works to Chuck! We’re not getting through to him.

    I’ve read my words over and over again, and I’m sorry, I must throw your own words back at you in reference to not being able to understand something. In NOT ONE PLACE did I even intimate that you are not living a “good life” because you don’t believe in Christ. Read the words, man!! My statement was that (as I said, “good for you”) doing good works is not what gets you into heaven, faith in Christ is.

    You did say good for you, but you followed it up with “But living a good life FOLLOWS salvation, it does not precede it. Belief in Christ does.” What the heck am I supposed to think?

    And if you knew the bible, and all it teaches about the flood, you would understand that the world had become so corrupt, so demonically evil, that yes, God was doing a good thing. He could only find Noah and his family to follow and obey Him.

    No! It really says that? Well, I suppose all those children, babies and bunnies who also must have died in the flood had it coming. You really have no problem worshiping a god who drowns children, babies and bunnies? You’re sick.

    None of you seem to believe in evil (bet you really do), but it’s real, in front of your face, everyday.

    Why wouldn’t we believe in evil. That’s just a weird thing to say.

    You would spit in the face of God. Who do you think you are?

    Yes I would. Who do I think I am? I’m someone who thinks that something responsible for such evil acts should be despised, not worshiped.

    And please,please, point out to me where I have lied. Is it where I told you what I believe or reject? No lies there, I’ve been upfront with you there. Is it when I quote other evolutionists who aren’t in lock-step with your opinions? Then your problem is with them, not me. I merely quote them.
    Where have you caught me in a lie?

    OK. here’s some.

    For those of you who followed debates between evolutionist and creationists, the evol boys regularly got their asses kicked. thats why they no longer want a debate.

    i love your answers. you have none, so you just toss the challenge back, kind of a “nanny nanny boo boo” response.

    if you can give me an established fact, i shall devour it as if starved.

    let me make it easy for you guys, seeing as how all you do is avoid the questions and ramble on about fear, blah blah.

    When i was in school, our biggest scientific fear was the coming ICE AGE.

    there are NO transitional fossils

    You must understand that when some staunch evolutionists are so disturbed by the paucity of proof or the impossibility of it happening by chance that they take this road, why are you shocked or irritated when i do the same. They go for aliens or accidental seeding.

    It’s the facts i’m interested in.

    While many have used religion as a catalyst for wrong, many more have used it’s absence as excuse for great evil.

    And no, I’m not challenging anyone’s scientific credentials.

    To be fair though, some of what I thought were flat out lies may in fact just be really dumb statements you should have known better than to make.

    So let’s see, if someone is of the mind that the more courteous the exchange the better, you call that whining?? Fine, call me anything you want.

    No. You acted like an arrogant jerk from your very first comment, and then had the gall to complain about other peoples manners. That’s why your a whining hypocrite.

    Attacking your credentials? I merely ask to see them, and you’re offended. Now who’s whining?

    You said something to the effect of “How dare you challenge a genius like Hoyle” and then asked for my credentials rather than respond to my criticism.

    Seeing as how none of us were there, seeing as how many evolutionary scientist point out the impossibility of life via spontaneous generation, and seeing as how no one knows how simple or complicated this first organism would be, I think a scientist such as Hoyle deserves the same benefit of a doubt you would give to anyone else.

    He gets the same benefit of the doubt as anyone else. If his reasoning holds up, it holds up. As I’ve explained, it clearly doesn’t hold up. That you insist on using this as evidence against evolution just shows how intellectually dishonest you are.

    And I am sorry, but you havent given any evidence of transitional fossils. But don’t fret, I’ve got one for you!!!

    You claimed you could find quotes from evolutionary biologists who believe that there are no examples of transitional fossils. Instead you quote mined. That’s not a failure on our part. It’s just more evidence of how dishonest you are.

  353. Though you reject the bible as myth, I think it actually is a sign of its’ truthfulness if archaeology hasn’t found definitive proof yet of the Hebrew stay in Egypt. If only a small part of the Exodus story is true, then the non-mention of it on tablets or temples falls right in line with the pattern of omitting or erasing the mention of a people or individual that might embarrass or anger the current king, pharoah, emporer, whatever. Its a pattern noted frequently in history.

    Here we see pure ignorance at work.

    “You haven’t found evidence for my fairy tale” therefore it’s true. Hey, I bet you can’t find evidence of leprechauns, either! THEY MUST EXISTS! CHUCK’S LINE OF REASONING SAYS SO!

    Stupid f-tard! The Egyptians mentioned the Hyksos and the Hebiru countless times, you moron! What they don’t mention is the mass enslavement of people who were never enslaved! Frak, can you be any more obtuse?

    Krikey, what would you expect from a former “warlock?” What did you do, go down the list of stupid and assume you had to check off each one in turn? Hey, I was a warlock yesterday! Today I’m going to be a magical fairy! Tomorrow I get to be a flying nun!

    Give up, imbecile! Take your stinking Levantine mythology and stay the hell out of science classes!

  354. @chuck

    If only a small part of the Exodus story is true, then the non-mention of it on tablets or temples falls right in line with the pattern of omitting or erasing the mention of a people or individual that might embarrass or anger the current king, pharoah, emporer, whatever. Its a pattern noted frequently in history.

    Sounds like conspiracy speak. It’s like saying that we know that it is true that the Twin Towers were brought down by dynamite, not by the planes, because we know that they fell and that there were clouds of smoke, but there’s no mention of dynamite anywhere. To mention that dynamite was used would cast doubt and embarrassment on the government. Therefore, dynamite must have been used.

  355. @ chuck:

    Thutmose 111 reports returning from Canaan with 90,000 of them.

    Try sources other than a “world view” biblical literalist website, moron. James Hoffmeier is a well known literalist. His take on Egyptian history is not supported by others in the field who hold, shall we say, less filtered, opinions.

    Maybe they were treated better in Egypt than they would have been elsewhere, but they were still slaves. If you can’t leave when you want, if someone else holds ultimate control over your life, if you can be executed for trying to leave the country, then I call that slavery.

    Call it what you will. There is no evidence of an entire people enslaved in Egypt. But there is tons of evidence showing exactly how the Egyptians built their monuments.

    Oh, and tomb of Rekhmire you mentioned above, “proving” the existence of canaanites? I’ve been in that tomb, Chuck. I’ve stood in front of those painted reliefs. They also show crews of happy workers building Egyptian monuments.

    So just because no one has found a photograph of Moses parting the Red Sea doesnt mean it’s not true.

    You have no photographs of Paul Bunyon digging the grand canyon, either, moron. Doesn’t mean it’s not true?

    In the OT it is clear that the Jews considered themselves slaves.

    So? Trying to argue the validity of your point with the document in question? Again? God, you just get stupider and stupider.

    So if the Jews considered themselves slaves, which they did, and were in Egypt when they said they were (and archaeology gives us proof that they were indeed in Egypt about that time),

    No, a__wipe, it does not! Your “evidence” is a paraphrase from a biblical literalist website with nothing to back it up.

    Many biblical accounts have been verified by archaeological finds (I still have almost a hundred more I’ll gladly list for you)

    SO LIST THEM, idiot! That’s what I’ve been asking for for how many weeks now? And try digging them up from sources other than biblical literalist b.s. websites, you moron. And try something different from your earlier lamea__ attempt, because listing cities and people mentioned in the OT doesn’t make the OT any more real than modern historical fiction set in real places. Oh, wait…SAM SPADE THE DETECTIVE WORKED IN…LOS ANGELES…WHICH IS A REAL CITY…OH MY GOD! SAM SPADE WAS REAL!

    BTW, I’ll give you some extra info on Jericho, which–contrary to your statement way above, archaeologists have found. And guess what…they’ve also discovered signs of destruction of that ancient city.

    Of course that leads us to the following newsflash:

    ARCHAEOLOGISTS HAVE DISCOVERD SIGNS OF DESTRUCTION IN THE ANCIENT CITY OF TROY, THUS PROVING THE GREEK GODS EXIST! ACHILLEUS IS THE SON OF THETIS AND PELEUS! ALL HAIL THE OLYMPIANS!

  356. Second news flash! SAM SPADE THE DETECTIVE WORKED IN…SAN FRANCISCO! WHICH IS ALSO A REAL CITY! MY GOD, SAM SPADE WAS BOTH REAL AND GAY!

  357. chuck

    Jose, april 19th cont.- No, I don’t have Hoyles notes. Neither do you. So how do you know he calculated incorrectly?

    You called me a liar. Must take one to know one, right.? I mean, if you said it, then it must be true.Am I getting it right. If you can’t resist calling someone a liar, at least point out what he lied (in your opinion) about.

    The individual quoted stated that there are no fossils that form any kind of lineage, which if it actually existed could be used to find all those missing links. He equates such a supposed lineage with fairy tales. Oh wait, I forget. Some of you think this took a long time, others, time is irrelevant, because these quantum leaps just “happened”. Once upon a time……

    Oh, i forgot. Y’all don’t believe in evil. And if you really think that deaths resulting from “religious” wars exceeds those caused by godless rulers and societies, I’m afraid you are the one lying to yourself. And yes, if the unknowable is being discussed, all assumptions should be heard out, tested when and where possible, and rejected because the theory doesn’t prove itself out. A persons premises and assumptions should not be rejected just because you personally don’t agree with him. Let the facts fall where they may.

    You all seem upset that I asked about your credentials (which can’t be challenged if they don’t exist). Few on this site seem to acknowledge anyone as having viewpoints with any merit (but only if they disagree with your theory), so a reasonable man might assume there is a reason for that. Either your achievements put you on equal footing of respect, or your lack thereof should express itself in some degree of humility, which I find lacking on this site. I at least gave all of you a chance to explain why you so easily dismiss the statements I quote (almost exclusively evolutionists). Your petulant diatribes in response are far more telling than you know.

    What would be the “evidence” that showed that God “needed” to create the universe. What if He just “wanted” to do it. You can’t explain how all this matter got here(and I don’t hold that against you), so until that matter is settled, you might not want to close the door on there being a God(whether you like Him or not is irrelevant).

    Are you mistaking incredulity with arrogance. I dismiss the fairy tale known as evolution with the same distain with which you dismiss the notion of God. If I’m being arrogant, then so are you.

    In reference to Archie, my only point was that it was not a transitional fossil, which the individual quoted(a world renown expert on birds, and still an evolutionist) agreed with. No more or no less. I have neither the space or the time to quote each authors life works. I”ve already explained why I quote them, and what my intention is in doing so. If you can quit reading more into them, this will go easier.

    Gee whiz, guys. Denton doesn’t agree with you, and that makes him dishonest”. If you’re going to accuse these people, and myself, substantiate your reasons for doing so and allow for response. Otherwise it’s just name calling.

  358. @chuck
    I dismiss the fairy tale known as evolution with the same distain with which you dismiss the notion of God. If I’m being arrogant, then so are you./i>
    No. There is evidence for evolution. God? Not so much.

    Again, you’re quote mining. Using quotes that fit your very narrow world view. The individuals you mentioned have dissident views with the mainstream scientific community. However practically anything else these scientists say you would disagree with.

    No, I don’t have Hoyles notes. Neither do you. So how do you know he calculated incorrectly?
    What?

  359. Oops, didn’t close a tag properly. Sorry.
    @chuck
    I dismiss the fairy tale known as evolution with the same distain with which you dismiss the notion of God. If I’m being arrogant, then so are you.
    No. There is evidence for evolution. God? Not so much.

    Again, you’re quote mining. Using quotes that fit your very narrow world view. The individuals you mentioned have dissident views with the mainstream scientific community. However practically anything else these scientists say you would disagree with.

    No, I don’t have Hoyles notes. Neither do you. So how do you know he calculated incorrectly?
    What?

  360. chuck

    Ivan, april 20th. Thanks for the history lesson. Was aware of the hideous nature of the crusades. Have never justified them. Hundreds of thousands a hundred millions does not make. I hate playing the “my evil is more eviler than your evil”. That’s dumb, and i’m not trying to do it. Yes, the Catholic church has royally screwed up. Terribly so, with crusades, prejedice, bigotry, molestation. But youre bringing it up has little effect on me. You’re preaching to the choir. Part of the problem on this site is few seem to accept the concept of evil. Most of you seem not to believe in it. I do. I can’t deny it. Childhood enviroment, sucky high school experience, being raised with the crusading crips just doesn’t explain why humanity has done what it has done. For the final time, evil existed from the beginning, all of us are prone to it, some just control their impulses better than others. Once you degrade the sanctity and value of life, it opens a pandoras box. Try to remember it was the church that led the abolitionist movement in England, and was behind the same in america. Tens of thousands of christians have given their lives to help other peoples, to take care of their physical needs, not just their spiritual. Christian charities and churches give billions in aid to other peoples, whether they are christian or not. I know, the mega-churches appear to be more interested in soaking the rich rather than helping the poor. I belong to no denomination. To me the christian message is about having a relationship, not practicing religion. How people distort a teaching should not keep you from hearing its true message, and appreciating the good in it. Thanks for the research, though. It was sincerely appreciated. Information is far more enjoyable to read than name calling.

  361. chuck

    Sorry Todd. Not trying to ignore you, just lose track sometimes. Part of my response to you is in my post to Ivan above. The ID part will come shortly. Answer me this, though. Is anything I’m going to say or type going to mean anything to you? I’m not asking you to agree with it beforehand. By all means, scrutinize and skepticize. I do that myself. If you’re just going to wait while I type five or ten or twenty points (which takes time), and then respond to few if any of them, and just label me an idiot, or a five year old, or call me arrogant, please let me know. You can even insult me when you answer my question. No, no, I’m not feeling sorry for myself. I love a good debate, with the emphasis on GOOD. You know, meaningful, respectful, factual. I also love humor, sarcasm, skepticism. I enjoy being proven wrong. I’ve been wrong too many times to be afraid of it now. And hitler, while employing some of the mystical aspects of religions (most notably the east, note the swastika), he was far more interested in the occult. Anyway, my apologies Todd. I’ll get busy on my response. Thank you for your patience.

  362. José

    @chuck

    No, I don’t have Hoyles notes. Neither do you. So how do you know he calculated incorrectly?

    I don’t. You insisted that he calculated correctly, which is a ridiculous assertion considering he never revealed his calculations. You just made something up because you thought it supported your argument, and I pointed it out. Whether he calculated correctly is irrelevant. What matters is that what he was calculating was incorrect.

    You called me a liar. Must take one to know one, right.? I mean, if you said it, then it must be true.Am I getting it right.

    Yes. The only way a person can recognize a lie is if they are themselves are lying. You nailed it.

    If you can’t resist calling someone a liar, at least point out what he lied (in your opinion) about.

    I already did. But I should add to the list your statement about Hoyle calculating correctly, since you made it not having a clue whether it was true or not.

    The individual quoted stated that there are no fossils that form any kind of lineage, which if it actually existed could be used to find all those missing links.

    What he was saying is that there is no way to know precisely how the fossil record fits together. Big deal. He’s not saying there are no transitional fossils.

    Oh, i forgot. Y’all don’t believe in evil. And if you really think that deaths resulting from “religious” wars exceeds those caused by godless rulers and societies, I’m afraid you are the one lying to yourself.

    What are you talking about? Why do you think we don’t believe in evil? What a bizarre notion. And even if we didn’t believe in evil, how is it relevant?

    And yes, if the unknowable is being discussed, all assumptions should be heard out, tested when and where possible, and rejected because the theory doesn’t prove itself out. A persons premises and assumptions should not be rejected just because you personally don’t agree with him. Let the facts fall where they may.

    The facts have fallen, and they’re not on your side. If they were, we would agree with you.

    You all seem upset that I asked about your credentials (which can’t be challenged if they don’t exist).

    Nope. I’m amused that you think you can win an argument by attacking my credentials instead of attacking the points I made.

    I at least gave all of you a chance to explain why you so easily dismiss the statements I quote (almost exclusively evolutionists).

    I explained each of them. But you won’t acknowledge that because you’re a liar.

    Are you mistaking incredulity with arrogance. I dismiss the fairy tale known as evolution with the same distain with which you dismiss the notion of God. If I’m being arrogant, then so are you.

    Nope. You were definitely being arrogant.

    I”ve already explained why I quote them, and what my intention is in doing so. If you can quit reading more into them, this will go easier.

    I didn’t read into them. I explained what they actually meant.

    If you’re going to accuse these people, and myself, substantiate your reasons for doing so and allow for response. Otherwise it’s just name calling.

    Since I did take the time to point out your lying and quote mining, I guess it’s not just name calling. Honestly, do you have some weird brain condition that doesn’t allow you to retain information that doesn’t make you happy?

    Once you degrade the sanctity and value of life, it opens a pandoras box.

    The only person here degrading the sanctity of life is the one who defends a god that has no qualms about murdering innocent babies. That’s you Chuck.

    How people distort a teaching should not keep you from hearing its true message, and appreciating the good in it.

    Are you referring to how you blatantly misrepresent evolution and atheism?

    If you’re just going to wait while I type five or ten or twenty points (which takes time), and then respond to few if any of them, and just label me an idiot, or a five year old, or call me arrogant, please let me know.

    I called you arrogant because of your behavior. I called you a hypocrite because you took people to task for things you were guilty of.

    You can even insult me when you answer my question.

    Despite your rude, childish behavior, I’ve continued to answer your questions in good faith.

    I love a good debate, with the emphasis on GOOD. You know, meaningful, respectful, factual.

    Then why can’t you do it? Why did you show up here and immediately act like you did? Why do you ignore our responses? Why do you continue to pretend we’ve avoided the issues you’ve raised?

  363. @chuck

    Not sure why you think that I would insult you or be rude. I don’t recall such behavior in any of my previous posts.

    Regarding your response to Ivan, you addressed the crusades, but not any of the other people I brought up. Our point, however, is not that people calling themselves Christians are more evil than atheists (though you seem to be of the opinion that atheists are more evil than anyone else). Rather, we were trying to show that people do bad stuff, and they use whatever is most convenient to justify it and whip up support, though fanaticism plays a role more often in religion. For some, that’s religion. For others, it’s applying a scientific tool to a non-scientific situation. It’s like using a hammer to try to cut lumber; wrong tool for the job.

    As regards ID, present your answers to my questions. Support your answers with evidence, and we will then discuss the merits of the evidence.

  364. Oh, and Chuck?

    Stop accusing the others of calling you names. I’M the one doing that, moron.

    And why am I doing that? Because you try to argue subjects that you don’t understand. Because you grab quotes and unsubstantiated “facts” from biblical literalist websites and pretend you know what they’re talking about when clearly you don’t. Because you keep saying you have all kinds of evidence for your opinions but you don’t. Because you lie about stuff. Because you’re the sort of person who “used to be a warlock.” (What’s the matter, did you roll your octagonal die and use up all your spirit points fighting some nasty evolutionist ogre?) Because you’re arrogant and try to hide it by accusing others of arrogance. Because you appear to be stupid.

    Still waiting for those 100 archaeological proofs that the Bible is true, BTW. You know, the ones you said you had way up thread there? I’ve found several bible thumping websites that claim to have them. I’m sure you’ll be quote mining. Do try to understand what it is you are quoting, though, before you post it. Otherwise you come across as, well, stupid.

    BTW2, a really, really great way to respond to this post would be to parrot it right back at me. Or, better yet, why not just go away and leave everybody hanging?

  365. chuck

    nigget, posting april 26th- your babblings about love seemed non-sensical to me. And I think you meant omnipotent. The question posed here wasn’t “what” God could do, but “why”. As to definitions of love, I’m just using the one most people believe in. I know there are probably different types of “love”, etc. etc. blah blah, I was merely trying to, in I’m sure an incomplete and imperfect manner, explain why God might have done things this way. By the way, where are your answers bound, in “origin of the species”? Why do you guys even ask questions if you already know all the answers? Boy, am I just kidding.

    Sorry nigget, He did make you. At least thank Him for the gift of life. And the freedom to waste it if you prefer. I know, that seems harsh and judgemental, but there’s so much more to be lived, here and there (in heaven). If I understand anything about God from Scripture, He is saddened by your attitude, yet still loves you, and will gladly welcome you back.(the prodigal son).

    As to your abilities, I did not say you were superior in every way to any animal. I was referring to your reasoning abilities, the ability to make moral and ethical decisions. I think you know what I meant. I hope you don’t smoke, because those straw men you keep building may catch fire.

    And I wish you would keep your religion out of the schools, also.

    The process of science has not answered any of those questions. They are still being asked. Most honest scientists will admit that the topic of “beginnings” lay outside the abilities of science to answer.

    Wow, you guys finally get it! The majority can be wrong. Ding dong, the witch is dead, the wicked witch, the witch is dead. Hallelujah!!!

    Look, proving the bible or christianity is “better” is actually a dumb question. Is the water in your glass wetter than mine? It’s true or it isn’t. I have not read ALL eastern writings. If you would give the bible a fair reading, without pre-conceived notions (no, don’t be gullible), it deals very honestly with it’s subjects. The foibles of the Jews and others are often highlighted, not hidden. The bible is honest with the sinfulness of it’s characters. This just makes the grace of God all the more abundant.

    And please, I in no way condoned living any way you want regardless of others or morals, and still get to heaven. Are you being a twit? (Calling you out). I am emphasizing the willingness of God to forgive. If you think you can “accept” Christ, then go on living a life dedicated to sin, then the bible would rightly question your so-called belief in Christ, or whether you have a correct understanding of salvation. Just another straw man. If you really can’t think deeper than that I’ll slow down for you. If you’re being facetious, then quit acting like this is such a tedious exchange for you. You’re the one extending it with avoiding the real issues.

  366. chuck

    nigget-addendum- in your post you stated that you understood the purpose of Christs life, death, and resurrection. Then you postulate the straw man of licentious living being compatible with salvation. I think your own words prove that you in no way understand the message of salvation. If you did, you would not have offered such an argument. But I understand the difficulty. Paul argues (1) that one must have the Spirit of God within him or her in order to understand the message, and (2) that the salvation message is foolishness to those who are perishing (and by their own choice). I’ll offer my previous statement again. Every other religious system, to the extent it posits a heaven(or nirvana, etc). will teach that the way to get there is through good works (as defined by each individual system). The biblical message is that man could never do enough on his or her own to merit such reward. Nor does He offer punishment of sins as the only outcome of said sins. For those who will believe in something or someone other than themselves, Christ death is full payment for sins, and His perfect life is attributed to all who believe. It is A GIFT. It is GRACE. For those aware of the imperfection(or sinfulness) of their nature, who, by the help of the Spirit, grasp the helplessness of their situation and cry out for rescue, salvation is given. If you have truly done these things, then you will be forever grateful for the bequeathing of such an awesome gift. THIS is what motivates the christian to do good works. Not so he or she can say “I deserve it”, but “I hope my life was an example of my gratitude”. Being imperfect (for now), the christian will still fall, but I John tells us that the shed blood of Christ is sufficient for forgiveness of sins. We do not lose salvation if we sin, but fellowship. Upon confession and desire for forgiveness, we are restored. For those in this world who still persist in believing the lie (as called in scripture) that there is no God, or (as Satan did) who exalt themselves as equal or superior to God, who take all credit for their abilities and gifts, then the message of grace is repugnant. Paul again says “to those who are being saved, we (christians) are a sweet savor. To those who are perishing, we are repugnant.”

    Being christian does not mean leaving our intellect behind, nor is our faith a blind one. Honest scholarship accepts that Jesus lived, and was crucified, and this even from extra-biblical sources. The bible says He rose. You would, of course, eliminate that witness. Let me ask you this. If Darwin had written an auto-biography, and you wanted to learn as much as you could about him, would you check every other source referring to him, but leave out his own book. The bible is a compilation (yes, by imperfect men) of stories and eye-witness accounts. You reject them out of hand, not because you have sufficient cause, but because you reject out of hand the miraculous (except for the big bang and evolution) or find a couple of supposed contradictions and use this as an excuse to reject the message. Yet you accept a belief system with no real proof, filled with presumption and assumption, and one that, mathmatically, is impossible. If evolution has been happening for millions and millions of years, there should have been thousands and millions of transitions. Yet you have but a few that you can offer. Everything that is observable says that creatures reproduce after their own kind, as the bible states. Most of you think christians are way behind mentally, but it was science that told us the sun orbited the earth. The church just followed suit. The church never taught, as a cardinal(not catholic) edict, that the earth was flat. That was because the book of Psalms describes the earth as “a sphere that hangs on nothing.” Pretty far ahead of it’s time, eh.

    All of you asks for “proof of design”. That’s like asking for proof of sunlight. It is everywhere, from simplest lifeforms to those most complex organisms. The delicate balance of life (aren’t we worried about the earth warming a couple of degrees?). Our being just in the right place in our own solar system. Etc. etc. Even Dawkins admits it at least “appears as if things were designed”. Yet he rejects a designer. Will any one of you be any different? If I list examples of design, will you just say, “well, that’s just an illusion”, or “I don’t accept that explanation?” I’ll still be glad to list some. But why do you want me to? Are you open? Or do you just want to explain them away? That’s cool if you do, cause I would really love to hear some of those explanations.

    And nigget, no one is forcing you to respond. You may drop out at any time. I don’t want you to. I enjoy the give and take.

  367. chuck

    no todd, i haven’t forgotten you. i don’t want to treat your question simplistically. I will get to you.

  368. nigget, posting april 26th- your babblings about love seemed non-sensical to me. And I think you meant omnipotent. The question posed here wasn’t “what” God could do, but “why”.

    Omnipotent/omniscient… the argument is the same. And the question is still “what” not why. An omnipotent being can do anything. Therefore, Yahweh deliberately created his beloved peoples knowing (being omniscient) a large percentage of them would choose to go against his petty wishes and therefore he would be torturing them for all eternity. Being omnipotent, he could have created a universe in which they could both have free will and follow his rules. That is not a definition of “love”…it is a definition of ugly perversion.

    By the way, where are your answers bound, in “origin of the species”?

    No. That’s what sets me apart from you. My answers are found in evidence. Supportable, testable, evidence, not holy writ.

    Why do you guys even ask questions if you already know all the answers?

    Once again, your stupidity with regards to the most basic features of the scientific method astound me. Scientists don’t know all the answers. Just a few of them. That’s why they keep on investigating, keep on asking more questions, as opposed to sticking their fingers in their ears, shutting their eyes, mumbling “lalalalalala” and saying Yahweh did it.

    Sorry nigget, He did make you. At least thank Him for the gift of life. And the freedom to waste it if you prefer.

    No he didn’t. No I won’t. And I’m not wasting my life in the slightest. I lead a very good life, thank you very much. And….

    I know, that seems harsh and judgemental,

    Yes, it does. And one of the very first things that Jesus commands in the New Testament is, Judge not, lest ye be judged in turn. Followed by, Before you whine about the sty in your neighbor’s eye, remove the frakkin’ log from your own. I guess I’ll see you in Hell…oh, wait…you have a get out of jail free card, don’t you?

    As to your abilities, I did not say you were superior in every way to any animal. I was referring to your reasoning abilities, the ability to make moral and ethical decisions.

    Morals are a human invention. Furthermore, they are not dependent upon religion to back them up. That is why human morals remain remarkably consistent across cultures, even though those cultures worship countless different gods. And no, those gods are not all the same. If you’d do a little more reading outside your own ouvre, you’d figure that out.

    . I hope you don’t smoke, because those straw men you keep building may catch fire.

    If so, perhaps they will serve as a backfire to stop the blaze you keep trying to build. To wit…

    And I wish you would keep your religion out of the schools, also.

    Science is not religion, moron. The fact that you keep mistaking it for such is just continuing evidence of how pathetically stupid you are. Scientists do not worship Darwin, or Einstein, or any other manufactured “deity” as you dumb creationists claim. Scientists follow the evidence. Scientific “truth” is always open to modification, unlike religious “Truth” which religious nuts are more than willing to slaughter each other over.

    The process of science has not answered any of those questions.

    Yes it has, you are just too stupid to realize it. Just because you are uneducated and don’t understand the most basic scientific processes, doesn’t mean everybody else is equally stupid. Can’t you get that at least? Not everyone is as stupid as you are! Your stupidity does not act as evidence against theories that are supported by thousands, millions of observations. Get it? Just because you are dumb and don’t understand something, does not mean it’s wrong. It means you are stupid, chuck. Ignorant! Moronic! Pathetic! So ignorant, moronic and pathetic you don’t even realize how stupid you are! Yes, you are that stupid! I just hope you don’t breed so the world has to deal with children who are equally stupid.

    Most honest scientists will admit that the topic of “beginnings” lay outside the abilities of science to answer.

    Most honest scientists will do no such thing. Anything having to do with this universe can be studied. Just because we don’t have all the answers–we don’t have all the questions!–doesn’t mean we won’t someday have them. Except you, because you are too stupid.

    Wow, you guys finally get it! The majority can be wrong.

    F-tard! Again, there is nothing in the scientific method that speaks otherwise. The majority is frequently wrong…witness the acceptance of geocentric astronomy, or heliocentric astronomy, or galacto-centric astronomy. If you were not so stupid you would understand this, but since you have the intellect of a sun-dried brick, I guess you never will. And sorry, to all the sun-dried bricks out there for comparing you to chuck.

    Look, proving the bible or christianity is “better” is actually a dumb question.

    Yet you want bible-based creationism taught in science classes. That is dumb.

    If you would give the bible a fair reading, without pre-conceived notions (no, don’t be gullible), it deals very honestly with it’s subjects.

    Add presumptuousness to your stupidity, moron. As I’ve stated several times, I was raised in a Catholic and Greek Orthodox household. I was reading the bible in the second grade. Only an egotistical f-wad like yourself assumes that just because a person doesn’t agree with your opinion of the bible, they somehow have “pre-conceived notions” about it. Yet again, your stupidity is matched only by your arrogance, chuck. What does Yahweh have to say about that? Here’s a hint. Psalm #5. Read it, jerk.

    And please, I in no way condoned living any way you want regardless of others or morals, and still get to heaven.

    It doesn’t matter what you condone. That is what your religion condones! Commit the most heinous crime, the most unspeakable atrocity, and all you need do is say, Jeebus forgive me, I repent, and viola! You are given the keys to the kingdom. Sick. Sick. Sick. This is your morality? Sick. Sick. Sick.

    quit acting like this is such a tedious exchange for you. You’re the one extending it with avoiding the real issues.

    No, dipf__k, the real issue is the one that set off this post: morons like you pushing their stupid, hateful, ignorant fantasies into science classes. THAT is the issue, chuck. RELIGION IS NOT SCIENCE, chuck. That is the issue. YOUR RELIGION IS NOT SCIENCE. IT DOES NOT BELONG IN A SCIENCE CLASS.

    By the way, those “hundreds” of archaeological proofs of the bible you keep promising….never mind chuck. Don’t embarrass yourself any more. Just go away and stop wasting bandwidth.

  369. Davidlpf

    I don’t think even a buddhists gets reincarnated as much as this thread has.

  370. Honest scholarship accepts that Jesus lived, and was crucified, and this even from extra-biblical sources.

    Yup.

    The bible says He rose. You would, of course, eliminate that witness.

    Yup. For the same reason I would eliminate a biography of George Washington that included the made-up fable about chopping down the cherry tree. The cherry tree story was a fabrication added to biographies aimed at school children, intended to make the first president seem like a man born to greatness.

    It is the same essential process going on in the texts gathered together into the new testament. Each has its own spin, its own “facts,” its own emphasis because those facts and emphases were directed toward specific audiences and times.

    Let me ask you this. If Darwin had written an auto-biography, and you wanted to learn as much as you could about him, would you check every other source referring to him, but leave out his own book.

    No, I would include that in my readings. But I would also realize that the subject of an autobiography might want to spin his story a particular way in order to influence my opinion of him. That is what people do. 2000 year old Jews were no different.

    The bible is a compilation (yes, by imperfect men) of stories and eye-witness accounts.

    Accent on stories. The “eye-witness accounts” are, as is typical, often contradictory, and open to the same filtering process mentioned above.

    You reject them out of hand, not because you have sufficient cause, but because you reject out of hand the miraculous (except for the big bang and evolution) or find a couple of supposed contradictions and use this as an excuse to reject the message.

    “Miraculous” is sufficient cause to reject them. Evolution and the Big Bang are not miraculous. Evolution is an observable phenomenon. If you were not so stupid, you would realize that, as there are plenty of resources available to you that could educate you on that fact. The Big Bang is consistent with the universe we can observe and the quantum effects that seem to shape it. If evidence of a miracle shows up, however, I’d be glad to study it.

    <i?Yet you accept a belief system with no real proof, filled with presumption and assumption, and one that, mathmatically, is impossible. As I stated in my earlier post, just because you are too stupid to understand the evidence does not mean it is not there. Get over yourself.

    If evolution has been happening for millions and millions of years, there should have been thousands and millions of transitions.

    There were. Although the number is more likely trillions.

    Yet you have but a few that you can offer.

    Bulls__t. Every fossil is a transition. There are millions of them. What you will NOT see is a “crocoduck” or other stupid fantasy dreamed up by ignorant creationists, for the simple reason that such creatures never evolved. But there are countless examples of transitory fossils. Read “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne for a terrific summary.

    Most of you think christians are way behind mentally, but it was science that told us the sun orbited the earth. The church just followed suit.

    Yes, but science moved on. The church had to be dragged, kicking and screaming away from its holy writ.

    The church never taught, as a cardinal(not catholic) edict, that the earth was flat. That was because the book of Psalms describes the earth as “a sphere that hangs on nothing.” Pretty far ahead of it’s time, eh.

    No, not really. The Greeks knew the world was a sphere and even did a pretty good job of measuring its circumference. BTW, I think you have your quote wrong. I believe the “hanging on nothing” line is from the book of Job.

    All of you asks for “proof of design”. That’s like asking for proof of sunlight. It is everywhere, from simplest lifeforms to those most complex organisms.

    Your aesthetic appreciation is not proof of design.

    Even Dawkins admits it at least “appears as if things were designed”.

    He admits no such thing, liar. Stop lying. Jesus doesn’t like it. Dawkins says the biological world appears to be designed. But it is not, and he goes on to show exactly why. Read his books, not the misquoted blurbs in your stupid creationist websites.

    If I list examples of design, will you just say, “well, that’s just an illusion”, or “I don’t accept that explanation?” I’ll still be glad to list some.

    Like those archaeological proofs of yours? Yeah. Hey, why don’t you start with the banana designed to fit the human hand. That’s a fun one.

    Are you open? Or do you just want to explain them away? That’s cool if you do, cause I would really love to hear some of those explanations.

    If I can explain them away, will you go away? Will you change your mind? Who is really the open one and who is the closed one?

  371. chuck

    ivan, posting of the 20th-

    Genesis- this punishment is a result of disobedience. The man’s punishment was that life was no longer a free ride. Whereas before the fall food, et. al., was there for the taking, or picking. Now the ground is cursed also, and would resist his efforts to produce fruit. He would SWEAT. For the woman, childbirth would now be painful. If you study the Hebrew here, you will still that Eves’ “desire for” her husband carries with it the sense of “desiring to control”. So the sinful man will control with his strength, the sinful woman will control with her wiles. It’s all about control. Remember, it didn’t have to be this way. They chose it. They were warned. You think that’s unfair, even tempting. Only for the disobedient. Only for those who want to be in control.

    Corinthians and Timothy- taken in social context, these are not as outlandish, or chauvinistic as they initially seem. Certainly no other religions exalted women,except as temple prostitutes or priestesses. Corinth and Ephesus were also centers of many mystery religions. Some of these involved trances, drugs, tongues, and prophecy. If you read Corithians, tongues and prophecy are mentioned as two gifts of the spirit. Pauls concern was that (1)these gifts be genuine, not occultic counterfeits (2) not be used to glorify or exalt oneself (3) not be used to cause disruption or confusion. Certainly you’re not suggesting that the biblical teaching of the man being the authority of last resort in a marriage was something exclusive to christianity. The references to hair (along with jewelry and dress) was to encourage modesty, in appearance and behavior.

    Your reference to ot stories leaves out a few important details. First, God makes it clear that He “hates divorce”. Jesus adds that Moses (not God) allowed divorce because of the hardness of the peoples hearts. It was his attempt at compromise between Gods’ desire and mans’ sinfulness. The fact that these things were practiced must be balanced with the knowledge that few (if any) were given by God (note that in the case of adultery, both were to be stoned. I believe that the “crying out” does not refer to the decible level, but to whether the woman was really being raped. It would be very easy to have her enjoy a sexual romp, then falsely accuse the man of rape). The guy chopping up his concubine is not offered as some shining example of God’s desire for relationships. God did not approve of concubines. Those who had them were sinning (including Solomon). God did not tell this man to have one, or to offer her to others, or to kill her. The exhortation at the end is given as a warning and lesson, not as an endorsement.

    I was glad you quoted from the NT. I was beginning to wonder if you guys knew there were two parts. Try to balance Pauls attempting to induce social constraints and differentiate the church’s behavior from the cults, and his other teachings. The statement that Adam was not deceived is not a ringing endorsement of him, but rather a more severe condemnation. Eve at least was overwhelmed by the serpents temptations (and her own sinful desires). Adam chose Eve over God. Companionship and sex over obedience to God. He had no excuse whatsoever.

    While Paul does teach the authority of the man in marriage and church position, try to balance this with the fact that (1) while the woman is told in Ephesians to submit to her husband, the husband is told to be willing to die for his wife. (2) If one reads all of Ephesians, the husband and wife are BOTH told to submit to one another out of reverence to God (3) Paul teaches there is no male or female (better or worse, superior or inferior) in the body of Christ. While the woman is told to defer to her husband in authority, this also removes her from blame if, in that obedience, her husband makes a decision that displeases God. (4) Allowing only men to teach in the church was an issue of order and authority, and refered only to women exercising authority over men. Women were told to mentor other women, and should be their only counsellors. Men should leave the individual teaching of women to women. That would head off alot of potential problems. (5) There were deaconesses in the early church. This was by Gods’ design. The oppression of women is by mans’ design. (6) There were also female apostles in the early church (Romans). This was the highest position of authority, and the foundation of the church. Hardly a demeaning position.

    Properly understood, the bible teaches the equality of male and female. Offices held are positions of proper function, not determination of superiority. Christian men are called to greater sacrifice for their wives. Some of Pauls imperatives are inspired, others are personal guidelines. The context shows which is which. If we are truly made in Gods’ image, then that applies to male and female. They both reflect attributes of God. Strength and gentleness. Compassion and judgement. Wrath and mercy. No one trumps over the other. Even Christ is said to have made Himself subservient to the Father for the purpose of His life on earth, yet is still said to be “equal(ity) with God”. Phil.2:6-8.

    Weird and cruel stories from the ot aside, the bible does not teach the inferiority of female to male, nor does it ever defend arbitrary cruelty or abuse toward the female, or anyone for that matter.

  372. José

    @chuck

    If you would give the bible a fair reading, without pre-conceived notions (no, don’t be gullible), it deals very honestly with it’s subjects.

    Like many other people, my pre-conceived notions were that the Bible was the pinnacle of truth and morality. That’s how I was raised. It was reading the Bible that caused me to question that. That’s being open to new ideas, not being gullible. A gullible person is someone who flits about from believing one silly thing (like Wicca) to believing in another (like Christianity). Just to be clear, I’m talking about you again, Chuck.

    You reject them out of hand, not because you have sufficient cause, but because you reject out of hand the miraculous (except for the big bang and evolution) or find a couple of supposed contradictions and use this as an excuse to reject the message.

    I reject the Bible because of the awful behavior it condones. I use the contradictions as evidence for blind people who accept the Bible as infallible. I don’t need contradictions to know the Bible is wrong.

    If I list examples of design, will you just say, “well, that’s just an illusion”, or “I don’t accept that explanation?” I’ll still be glad to list some.

    You’ve already listed some, and we were kind enough to carefully explain how evolution could easily be responsible them. You’re just not open to accepting that.

    But why do you want me to? Are you open? Or do you just want to explain them away?

    You can’t use the fact that we have reasonable explanations for your points as evidence that we’re close minded. How about you present some supposed evidence for design that isn’t crap? I thought evolutionary scientists regularly get their asses kicked (your words) by creationists, so much so that they won’t even debate them anymore. Or was that just more of your playful (but certainly not arrogant) banter?

    I was glad you quoted from the NT. I was beginning to wonder if you guys knew there were two parts.

    If you want to debate the New Testament, stop defending the Old Testament . There are plenty of people who accept most or all of what the New Testament says and reject some or all of the Old Testament says, Jesus included. But remember, Creationism is based solely on what the Old Testament says. Since that’s what your defending, it doesn’t make much sense for us to bring up the New Testament.

  373. @chuck

    Certainly no other religions exalted women,except as temple prostitutes or priestesses.

    Actually, the ancient Celts, particularly in Ireland, esteemed women as teachers and warriors.

  374. IVAN3MAN

    *Crickets* *Crickets* *Crickets*
  375. chuck

    Hi guys. Forces of darkness kept me occupied on other fronts. Have missed you oh so much. Jose, I asked you for examples of lies. All you did is either repeat what I said or disagreed with what I said. I know proof isn’t very relevant on this site, but I am afraid that’s a rather lame response. I disagree with little of what you say, but I don’t think your a liar. And in reference to the quotes I use, you may repeat the accusation that I took them out of context or misunderstood them, but until you prove that I did, your accusation is without any foundation, except in your own imagination. Making an accusation does not in of itself validate it.

    Shane, April 28th. “go with the consensus” you say. I thought the consensus carried no weight on this site. Oh I forgot, unless you agree with it. So very sorry.

    Nigget- you do not believe in intelligent design. What do you believe in then, stupid design?? Why do you struggle (aside from personal enmity) with the concept of an intelligent being creating something, but have no trouble with a blind process designing something. Natural selection selects, right? How? By chance? That’s not selection. Call it natural random accidents, more accurate. If something can select, then it can design. It is a designer. If it really is just an accumalation of random occurances or mutations, there is no selection process. It may be natural, but it’s not selection.

    Jose- my insults followed by “just calling you out” were a tongue in cheek response to insults directed my way with “just calling you out” offered as a lame excuse. Your swimmer analogy, though interesting, left me somewhat unsatisfied. Who decided it would be 50 of each? Why were some excellent swimmers and others not. Blind chance? Was it designed that way? You guys start with what you think is the beginning of an argument or example, but don’t seem to realize you leave more questions unanswered than the one you started with. But it’s really just the result you’re interested in, no? Sorry, some of us are curious enough to go further back.

    Rogue-April 27th- So I misquoted Carl Sagan and Morowitz? Oh, what a wonderful sight this is!!! One need only wish something to be true, and it is. But really, can you prove it? Or is it true merely because you say so?

    Jose-April 27th- so you’re not saying(nor apparently, is anyone else, or so you say), that life popped into existance by chance? Well forgive me then, but it seems that no one here believes it came into being by design. then what’s left. Accident? Chance? Random(are they really) mutations. You guys may be good at science, but you sure suck at philosophy. Some of you have reacted to my usage of “blind chance”, but you’ve offered nothing better. Not really. I mean, you’ve grunted very hard and tried to make something true because in your enlightened state you believe it to be so, but no, you have failed. Either something has always been, or it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, something or someone created or started it. If not, than ……oh well, I don’t think you get the point or want to.

    My quotes about odds, though you have huffed and puffed and tried to blow them down, still stand. Either prove I took them out of context, or accept them for what they say. The possibility of life arising from your evolutionary theory are mathematically (which is a science) impossible. Thus scientifically impossible. Now if you want to have FAITH that it happened anyway, well good. I love meeting and talking with men of faith.

    Jose APR. 19th- so I’m “hopeless if I think this is a good point”? Wow, did you knock that one out of the park, or what. I don’t think I can answer that argument, because, well, it has no merit. It’s just another “nanny-nanny boo-boo” response. And in reference to Gould, I always say (and thus it is true) that if your theory has no proof, then make up another without any proof. Just overwhelm them with numbers!

    Ivan-April 18th- your reference to the “developement” of the Pentium processor being developed in small incremental steps. Did you regret that one after you gave it, or did you not realize that no one left the Pentium(hey, where did it come from?) lying on a table where over millions of years it developed into what we have today. Of course not, you were pulling my leg. I mean, we all know it was originally designed, by a designer, and other designers improved on it. Not chance. Not mutations. And not time. DESIGNERS.

    And please, as I sign off from another day of broadcasting, why does a theory with so much irrefutable proof, deigned by some as fact, constantly have to keep finding “missing links” every few months, all trumpeted as the final nail in the coffin of we skeptics, only to eventually be thrown, with so many others, on the mound titled “OOOPPSS”.

    Again, missed you all, and your hatred only makes me love you more.

  376. chuck

    nigget May 5th. Boy, when you throw up, demons must come out. What kind of cancer you got inside there, son?
    Your point about Washington doesn’t hold. Not unless you could prove, at that time, that the story wasn’t real. And if Washington included it in his own biography, you might have a tough time discounting it. Of course, as is often done on this site, you can just arbritarily decide something isn’t true, whether you have evidence or not.

    And you’re right, authors often have a view they spin towards, as scientists often have a prejudice when they investigate something. That the bible authors had a spin is probably true. That’s not good or bad in and of itself. The real issue is whether it’s true or not.

    And no nigget, maybe it’s you who’s stupid. Evolution is not observable. You don’t have transitional fossils (please, chuck those few you keep pointing to), no one sees any transition in the present, and no ones see punctuated equilibrium in action. Again, it’s your own, and only your own, decision to call them stories. There is no reason to. And about those archeological proofs: I give you guys a dozen or so, only one of you respond, and he just focuses on the one example that may still be in any way debatable, and ignores the rest. So do you really want another 85 of them. Why, so you can find one or two that is still debatable and ignore the other 83, even going so far as to act like they weren’t even given? Cut the crap. Based on what is often defined as “proof” on this site, I don’t think many of you even know what it is.

    Back to you good life- I don’t doubt you think you live a good life. Many do. That’s okay. Think what you will. Just don’t posit that christianity teaches good works gets you somewhere. They may make you feel better about yourself, but they get you nowhere. Besides, if the only criteria for deciding whether or not one is living an acceptable life is that persons own definition of what a good life is, then i guess we all could say we live a good live. You reject morals, absolute truth, so everything is relative. Be that as it may, if there is a God, and if the only way to get to Him is the way He declares, you and I are lost if we are relying solely on our own relativistic ethics.

    Why do you guys get your pants in such an uproar over some imagined “crime” committed by God (be fair, if you can decide what is right or wrong,then so can He), but you place such faith in a theory that, by definition, requires billions and billions of instances of suffering and death as everything “evolves”. What’s the big deal? Oh wait, I remember. Death is cool if some blind random process causes it. But if God, who created and owns the universe, interferes and causes the death of “innocents”, that is horrible, just horrible.

    And no, God cannot MAKE you love Him and call it free will. That is a STUPID argument, contradictory in it’s very presentation. If you think that is logical, I see why you buy into evolutionary theory.

    And yes, to the degree that it requires faith, which it most certainly does (even some evolutionists are honest enough to admit that), to that degree it is religious in nature. And the fear is unfounded. If evolutionary theory is indeed “fact”, then putting the two side by side in a classroom should solidify your position, proving your side very scientific, and creationist viewpoint silly and juvenile. Your vehemence against such a possibility belies something deeper. And no, everyone doesn’t need your brilliance and enlightenment to protect them from the dark ages christian thought. I think people can do that for themselves. It’s the knowledge that there are so many holes in Darwinism teaching, I think, that raises the fear level. Evolution is so intertwined with the education system, and so much money is handed out in grants, and so much power is held by those who promulgate this “philosophy”, it’s easy to understand the fear caused by even imagining the loss of such control.

    Maybe you are the ‘tard. Validation by consensus has been appealed to directly or indirectly on this site many times. So is consensus a good thing when it sides with you, and irrelevant when it does not. Be consistent. And by the way, those scientists who “lead the way” were predominately christian by faith. It’s amazing, apparently being wrong by consensus is okay as long as you eventually get it right, right? Most of your preiminent scientist back in that time worshipped the christian God, even giving credit to scripture as inspiration for their discoveries. So yes, science led the way. Science that had christian teaching as it’s platform and inspiration. Tell the whole story, dude.

    No, I was not involved in Wicca. You guys should know that by now. Besides, aren’t you all Wikipeadians? Didn’t you yourself “flit” from being
    “religious” to atheism?

    About “judging”. The only thing judging you is God and His scripture. I just quote it. Your real argument is with Him. I’m not judging you. I have no idea whether you are a “good” person or a “bad” person. The bible just makes it clear that whether you are or not is not the ultimate criteria for obtaining heaven. That would be “forgiveness”. God’s forgiveness for your sins. The bible says “the wages of sin is death”. The penalty of sins is death. The payment for those sins is Jesus Christ, God incarnate in the flesh. faith and belief in Him is the way to salvation. Good works are nice, but are as “filthy rags” compared to God’s holiness and righteousness. They are NOT ENOUGH!! If you have a problem with that, nigget, talk to God. Don’t kill the messanger. I find it ironic, and, to use a word you guys like to toss out, “hypocritical”, to begrudge God the right to act in judgement or anger, yet you fill your responses with hatred and vitriolic language. Might want to look at that “remove the plank” passage again. I don’t think you understood it at all.

  377. chuck

    nigget, april 28th. You are such a child. I can picture you stomping around in front of your computer, grape juice on your child size 3 teeshirt, spittle spraying your computer screen…..wait, that’s why you don’t get it. You can’t even see your screen, much less read it correctly. I didn’t use a literalist website, I used your stupid Wiki site you all seem to worship, when I referenced the Thutmose 111 claim.

    Wow, you stood in the tomb. And it showed “happy workers”. Now you can analyze the moods of those on heiros. Were they all standing around the site(much like govt. workers do today), you know, staring at pharoahs wife, drinking beer, knee-slapping over some sexual inuendo? Were they smiling? Do you think, even if this was true(the smiling and all) , that the workers would put anything on the walls not authorized by ruling authorities? Could those happy pictures be a political spin job? Huh? Duh? I know, you put much more credence in wall drawings ( political cartoons) than actual history. And again, I didn’t just reference the bible, but the O.T., jewish authorities, early church fathers. Heeeelllllllooooo out there. Your point seems to be that NOTHING in the bible is true!! That’s a leap, even for the supposed scientific mind. So I’m supposed to take the word of a tourist(that would be you) over hundreds of years of oral and written tradition. Sorry. You lose.

    Your juvenile aside about sam spade reveals more about your emotional maturity than it does your limited reasoning abilities. My showing that there are accurate historical references in scripture is not offered to show it’s right about everything, but to protect it against claims that’s it’s just a book of stories or myths. Here, let me offer you a snide aside:

    NEWS FLASH; NIGGET FINDS PICTURE OF BLACK MAN FROM 1863 SMILING. SLAVERY PROVEN TO BE A LIE! CIVIL WAR A FRAUD!!! ALL BLACK SERVICE OFFERED WITH A SMILE!!!! Praise be to Nigget!!!

    Your self-delusions are overwhelming you. I looked to see where you’ve been virtually begging me for more archaelogical examples, and couldn’t find it anywhere. As I said above, I gave some, you ignored them all but one, and in your mind that qualifies as some sort of rebuttal of all of them. Why do you want more? You seem to be alot more famaliar with “literalist” bible sites than I am ( as though your designation of them as such also qualifies as some sort of proof against their accuracy). Go find them yourself, oh arrogant one. You know, you guys rail against the “prejudices” and “hatred” of christians and even of their God, yet your little childish diatribes carry all the marks of immature haters of all things not their own. If I were to substitute christian teachings for your secular ones, and then include your invectives, you, my little nigget, would meet all the criteria for a “christian bigot”, the ones you seem to hate so much. You are the one losing it. You can make my so called stupidity your reason, but you know better. You believe you are the ultimate judge of all things, and anyone who rocks your little self-made world will be attacked with the wrath of Khan. Read your own words. They make a lot of noise, but hold no substance. It’s just a “if you don’t see my point, you’re an idiot” whine. If that makes you proud, good for you, but keep an eye out for the “fall”.

  378. @chuck

    Cutting through all the rants, insults (frankly, I’m surprised that Phil doesn’t ban you for violating his commenting policy…not that that excuses the behavior of others in the thread) and comments that don’t apply at all to the main topic of the original post, you still haven’t answered some questions posed to you way, way up in the thread. Namely:

    Exactly how is ID/Creationism science, and why should it be taught in science classes? Please inform us of what, as far as you understand, is the supposed theory; what predictions does that “theory” make; what research has been done and where can that research be found; how can it be falsified; and, if ID/Creationism is not religion, then who or what is the Designer and where can we find evidence of its existence?

  379. chuck,

    Rogue-April 27th- So I misquoted Carl Sagan and Morowitz? Oh, what a wonderful sight this is!!! One need only wish something to be true, and it is. But really, can you prove it? Or is it true merely because you say so?

    A quote taken out of context is a misquote. It is bearing false witness. This is something you seem to be very good at. Let’s hope you are a bit less accomplished at violating the other Commandments.

    Why don’t you provide the source of the quote? The full statement, not just some reference to some Creationist web page.

    Here are some things that Carl Sagan has stated. These include the source, so that anyone may go and read them in their full context.

    “In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?” — Cosmos (1980), p.257

    The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what’s true. We have a method, and that method helps us to reach not absolute truth, only asymptotic approaches to the truth — never there, just closer and closer, always finding vast new oceans of undiscovered possibilities. Cleverly designed experiments are the key.
    “Wonder and Skepticism”, Skeptical Enquirer Volume 19, Issue 1, (January-February 1995)

    “The evolution of life on Earth is a product of random events, chance mutations, and individually unlikely steps.” The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43.

    “How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'” The Pale Blue Dot (1994), P. 50

    Carl Sagan was one of the proponents of SETI. He was one of the authors of the Arecibo Message. Although he believed the odds were long, he did not believe the odds to be impossible.

  380. chuck

    Todd- you’re kidding, right? you actually make it a point to comment about my response, it’s tone, even it’s language? One, if they had been following this thread for months, would never have surmised there is a code for anything!! Not to garner sympathy, but I have been insults dozens of time, not through satire or innuendo, but directly and abusively. Stupid, retard, dumb, dumber, stupider, bigot, moron, imbecile, loon, etc. I’ve been called all of these things. Where were you then? Are you really bothered by the tone of this thread, or are you just bothered that I sometimes fight fire with fire. Seems insincere that you’ve ignored everyone else’s tirades and insults that were hurled in my direction, and chose just now to comment on mind. Don’t worry. I haven’t noticed any degree of fairness on this site so far, so I don’t expect any now.

    Though some of you seem to really believe that science can or will eventually answer all questions, I’m afraid there will always be some things outside the pervue of science. As wonderful and exciting as science is and can be, it is not capable of all things. What test would you propose to disprove there is a god? What would you suggest? Don’t just throw out a sarcastic or trivial comment here. Think it through. If there is a creator, then any realistic test, if it purports to prove one does not exist, will be incorrect, even if those performing it are convinced it is right. If someone created this incredibly large and complex universe, he is obviously, I would propose, much larger and capable of far greater things than what we witness happening as we study the cosmos. How would you propose to “prove” He exists? How would you control Him? How would you channel or modulate His power? How would you even know if you were doing it correctly?

    When I hear the term Intelligent Design, I do not think of the christian God. I know any christian who claims to believe the teaching of the bible would, if neccesary, confess that they clearly believe in a God who designed this universe, and that He is intelligent. So I guess all christians believe in intelligent design. However, I have read books and articles by many who would claim adherence to intelligent design, and many clearly do not believe in the “christian God.” They do not adhere to the basic tenets of that faith, i.e., the death and resurection of Christ, atonement by faith in such, the return of Christ, heaven or a hell, and so on. Most of you on this site seem to have an intense abhorrence of all things christian, so by lumping id’ers in with them, you feel free to consider them idiots also, often, if ever, doing any kind of objective research into valid points or questions they raise. More often than not nothing more than name calling or labelling if offered in the place of scientific objectivity. As I said above, while most of you insist christians are scientifically ignorant and capable only of fantasy, threats, and name calling, it has been on this thread where most every blogger, in attempting to refute id, has resorted to the very thing they accuse christians of.

    What would you consider “evidence of His existence”. If the fingerprints of design (again, even Dawkins admits it APPEARS things are designed), which are everywhere(you well know this, you just decide the implications of it are too traumatic for you to live with) are not enough, what would be? Could He have left us a note or something (or maybe a “book”, that explains what He did, why He did it, and what He intends to do with it)? Do you really look at obvious design hundreds of times a day and imagine it was all an accident. You don’t do it, I’m sure, with tv’s, computers, cars, stoves, highways, signs, clothes, etc, yet you can see incredible complexity in nature, where life hangs in the balance by the nth of a degree, where any variation in temperature, or distances, or compositions negates the very existence of things, and you can “have faith” that it’s all because of a chain of accidental occurences or mutations, although there is no proof of any such thing.

    I have asked for transitional fossils examples, and the most you could do was trot out the usual one or two every one does, and then ignore, of course, the fact that even many evolutionist do not believe they truly are just that. Why don’t you all go the way of Kughnigget above, and just claim that “all fossils are transitional fossils”!!! Wow!! Abracadabra, presto. And you say christians are weak on science. If wishful thinking is the best you can offer, give up. As I said before, when you have no proof for your theory, just make up another one with no proof. Make um dizzy! Keep em confused! Though I jest, such a claim shows desperation caused by lack of evidence.

    There are many hundreds, maybe by now, thousands, of scientist who, based solely on what they see as scientific evidence of design, continue to fight upstream against “consensus” validation. When I showed earlier that science has often been on the wrong side of “consensus”, leading both laity and clergy in the wrong direction, you guys responded with “celebration”! See, you say, science can change it’s mind. It’s open to new theories, new directions.
    Rarely. It usually has to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the next level of revelation. Yes, it is good that it eventually gets there, but my point was that it has often been WRONG. Blind faith, therefore, in consensus, is unjustified, and often embarrasing.

    ID scientists don’t want to exclude evolutionary teaching (like that can happen anyway, you know, the consensus and all that). They just want the opportunity to, scientifically, tender what they believe to be evidence of such design. They have no dog in the religion fight. They believe that if the evidence points to design, then consider it. The signs of design are everywhere. You guys think that you have disproven that claim by challenging us to “prove” that God exists. Whether we can or not, you still haven’t rebutted the original claim. I can’t prove that the person or persons who made my computer exist, but you wouldnt challenge my claim to design for it. Why? Because to consider the existence of God brings up some difficult questions, questions most of us don’t want to deal with. ID science!!?? Just call it “christian”! There, we’ve dealt with it now, haven’t we. How shallow. Why shouldn’t it be offered in the classroom? Can’t people see both sides and decide for themselves? If id is such a sham, what better place to defeat it once and for all than in the arena of critical thinking. Destroy it! Shame those who teach it!! Eliminate it once and for all!! Which leads me back to very first original question….why the fear? Why fear something untrue and easily proven to be so? The vehemence and hatred with which it is attacked on this site gives proof itself that your evolution is not the “fact” you claim it to be, and is not overwhelmingly supported by critical science. Otherwise I would not read every couple of months about a new “missing link”, the latest “transitional” be all, do all. We have millions of fossils, and not one indisputable transitional (unless you count them ALL as transitional, i.e. nigget above). Why is evidence offered by scientists to “prove” evolution if it is already an established fact? And why are these great “finds” almost always consigned to the trash heap of error (a fact rarely if ever reported it the media and press).Many scientists are bothered by this, and bothered more by the censoring of any alternative in education.

  381. chuck

    A note again about my “many quotes”. I have never claimed that any of the authors are anything other than evolutionary in their thinking. The quotes were never intended or labelled as such. Your protest to the contrary not withstanding. Your quoting of Sagan again proves to me you just are not getting it. Why are you giving me quotes to show that he is evolutionary?? I already know this, have acknowledged it, and have made no claims to the contrary. You miss the point. Evolutionary or not, mathematicians who have cared to do the math, have consistently shown that the odds of “spontaneous life” (you may protest, but that is indeed what you believe it is) occuring are MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!! Understand?? MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!! Not just barely. Not almost impossible. But impossible times thousands and millions of times. For it to occur even once, let alone over and over again until life is established. Forget the myriad of questions evolution does not and cannot answer about the hows and whys of this impossible situation. Or about the incredible complexity of life in its’ simplest, original form.
    That’s why I attribute “faith” to all of you. If it were related to anything other than evolution, you would laugh and mock anyone for believing an event could occur with those odds against it. But it’s desperately needed for evolution to occur, so to hell with the odds. What once was impossible beyond all doubt will suddenly become LIKELY TO HAPPEN in the case of evol. Why don’t you show me “proof” that this has happened. I already know no one has duplicated (actually) this event in the lab, and even if they did, well, wouldn’t the scientist involvement in the experiment point more to a “designer” than an accident, more toward direction than randomness?

    Again, mathematical quotes are offered not to identify or label the individual, but are exactly what they appear to be. Statements of believe, or in the case of odds, mathematical possibilities (or impossibilities). Nothing more. Nothing less. They stand and state clearly on their own.

  382. chuck,

    You still do not appear to understand the concept of evolution. You do not appear to understand that events progress serially.

    You also seem to assume that because some mathematician claims that the odds of something are impossible, that they favor the even longer odds of Creationism.

    You keep claiming to understand evolution, although you constantly make statements that contradict any understanding of evolution.

    If the odds of evolution are as long as you claim, what are the odds of the spontaneous existence of even an imperfect being?

    The God you believe in is not anywhere near perfect, since your God has to check with the modern Bible interpreters to see what is permitted.

    But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that you do believe in a perfect God, what are the odds that that God always existed? Certainly much larger than the odds that your imperfect God always existed. These odds are much larger than the odds of evolution occurring.

    If you claim that the existence of God means that you do not have to calculate those odds, then the same applies to evolution.

    Why should schools pay attention to the religious teaching of your particular sect, in violation of the Constitution, rather than recognize that there is no teaching here that is not religious.

    You know I do not have any problem with an intelligent design, but the introduction of the intelligent design was billions of years ago in the form of the precursors of life – as all of the evidence demonstrates.

    Intelligent Design as is introduced into schools is nothing but an attempt to get around the law. It is a fraud. The Discovery Institute is nothing but a bunch of liars pushing their politics in order to make a profit.

    Quotes do not stand on their own. Quotes have a context, otherwise they would not be so often taken out of books, books that elucidate the meaning of the quotes. Throwing out a quote without context is misrepresenting it.

  383. IVAN3MAN

    Jesus H. Christ, Chuck! We are fast approaching the 40th anniversary of the Apollo XI Moon landing, and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is sending back fantastic pictures of the Apollo landing sites from the Moon, but you have nothing better to do than to rant and rave here about your imagined persecution of, and bias against, Christians by people on this website.

    If you would only bother to observe the other threads on this website, you would then see that it is not just Christians in general, but anyone — creationists, Intelligent Design proponents, Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology proponents, anti-vaxxers, homeopathy proponents, UFO/government conspiracy nutters, Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy nutters, Moon Landing Hoax conspiracy nutters, ad infinitumwho comes here without a shred of evidence to back up their assertions, then they will definitely have their argument torn to shreds. As Dr. Phil Plait has often said, it is nothing personal against Christians or any other religious group for that matter — as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves.

  384. chuck

    Rogue- again, the quotes are NOT taken out of context. I purport that they say nothing more than what they say. Your argument is like saying that I am taking someone out of context when I claim that he said that many many people were at an event, and then quote him..”there were half a million gathered there”. That is not out of context. I am not saying he believes in fairies, or that he is saying the weather is hot, or even that he doesn’t believe in people. The same with the odds. I merely state, without mentioning intent, that the quotes show how impossible it is for evolution to have even started, even the very first step. It is you who read something other into it. If you want to believe in it in spite of those odds, go right ahead.

    Do you believe the universe is eternal? Then you will be right at home in many religious systems. If not, I assume you believe it had a beginning. It seems that most scientists do. If it did, then the question “how did it begin” is quite logical and reasonable. Most religious systems, not all, but most, believe that God is eternal. He has no beginning. To try and figure out how something eternal began is, well, non-sensical.It amazes me(no, not really) how you can call hundreds of scientists a “bunch of liars” just because they see something in science that you don’t, or won’t. Trying to make a profit? I think that would refer more accurately to scientists who echo or toe the party line in order to obtain government grants to continue their research. If these id scientists were instead evolutionary ones, would you automatically assume they were more intelligent or correct? Merely because of a classification. There are 100’s of them, most if not all with phd’s in their respective fields, who went to respected and renown universities to obtain them. Why are they suddenly stupid because they don’t agree with your beliefs? Evolutionary scientists don’t agree with mine, but that doesn’t cause me to call them stupid, or idiots. I respect their right to differ, acknowledge their intelligence, and continue to read materials from evol. scientists. I just don’t think that they see the whole picture. They confer on evolution powers that it cannot and does not have. But they must believe it, for the alternative is not acceptable, at least to some. Again, if id theory is that void of evidence, what better way to abolish it’s challenge once and for all by exposing those weaknesses in the court of learning. If it really is void. No, with hysteria and abject fear, those who oppose it do not even want it mentioned in school. How childish and lame. Under the banner of “keep religion out of the schools” you oppose even the very presentation of an alternative proposal. If you have really read id literature, then you know that most of them(not all, but most) do not have to posit the christian God into the theory. Just a designer. And that’s the rub. It isn’t really about the evidence, it’s where the evidence might lead. God. Designer. That is the rub. What difference does it make what,if anything,you call Him. The evidence for design can be presented without calling on students to accept anyone’s God. Just substitue Designer. Heck, just leave that out. Just use design, and let students ask their own questions. Is that what you’re afraid of? That they will ask the “wrong” questions. Ones that don’t cater to the religion of evolution? I mean, you do have to have faith to believe in evol. To accept something impossible as true, without indisputable facts to substantiate it, is indeed an act of faith. The bible defines faith as “the substance of things hoped(by belief) for, things unseen.” Evolution was not seen in the beginning, does not present evidence from the past (fossils, and if true, we should have thousands if not millions of transitional ones), and is not being observed today (I mean it’s so gradual. Or is it too fast?). Yet you believe in it. Why am I an idiot or fool for believing in something unseen, yet you are enlightened for doing the same? See the inconsistency?

    Again, you miss the point on eternal. If something is eternal, it has no spontaneous existence. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think evol. believers consider it an eternal process. It had a beginning. Therefore, calculating odds on its possibility is quite reasonable. Calculating the odds of the eternal having a beginning is, again, non-sensical.
    Appreciate the exchange.

  385. chuck

    Rogue, help me out here. What do you mean by “God has to check with the biblical interpretors”? Every time I point out the impossibility of life occuring spontaneously, or the paucity of evidence to support this theory, we end up with the “attack the evil God and stupid christians” tact. You believe God is imperfect? Wait, do you even believe in God? If not, why the banal arguments? Why bother insulting or attacking something or someone you don’t even believe in? And how does this argument, even if it were correct, “prove” anything about evolution? I didn’t arrive here trying to affirm christianity or save anyone. My challenge was to evolution itself. You responders were the ones who challenged christian beliefs or biblical veracity. Todd seems to think we have not stuck to the original subject. All references to the bible or christian faith have only been offered because both were attacked or insulted. Therefore, I think Todd is wrong. These two things were made relevant by most of you, and have become part of the debate. That’s the point. Rather than debate design itself, it seems easier for most to just call it “christian”, or “religious”, then insult christians and attack the bible, and then consider that some sort of answer.

    And why do you guys think the constitution prohibits the practice of religion? Seperation of church and state? Nowhere in the constitution. That clause was for the explicit intent of not allowing governments to establish an official state religion (although several states did have official state charter denominations, because they could), and to insure against ANY government interference with the free practice of all religions. If you read about that time in history, you will understand the hows and whys this came about. The FEDERAL govt. could not interfer or endorse any religion. The states, however, could, and some did. The constitution was not written, nor ever intended, for the purpose of the fed.govt. interference or control of religion. Yet we have the Holy Justices constantly telling us where we can or cannot put a Menorah, or a manger scene, etc, often down to the micro detail. If what I’ve read about them is true, I think such meddling might have tempted them to another revolution (not to mention all the other areas of life the govt. seeks to control). To finalize, the constituion is not the enemy of religion, but the protector of it. But once the govt. got states to accept federal funds, the religion or God haters saw a wonderful loophole that allowed them(not really) to get around such interference.

    You know, my tax dollars go towards education. I don’t have any objections to alternate views about any area of science being offered in schools, or religion, for that matter. And I don’t need arrogant, closed-minded, angry people to protect me or my children from such exposure.

    God is imperfect? On what basis do you make a claim (assuming you believe in him, which if you don’t, well…..hhhmmmmmm you know)? How could you possibly know such a thing. And with what criteria do you reach such a conclusion? Your own? Well then, if you’re capable and qualified to judge God, then that must make you(drum roll) an even GREATER god!!!! Good luck with that one.

  386. @chuck

    Again, cutting through all the ranting (and note that I said I did not excuse the behavior of others – much as I agree with what kuhnigget [not “nigget”] says, I feel he can get rather out of line and should also not be insulting or rude), I see that, yet again, you have not answered a single question I posed to you. Here they are again, in case you forgot, with numbers this time for easier reading:

    1) Exactly how is ID/Creationism science, and why should it be taught in science classes?
    2) Please inform us of what, as far as you understand, is the supposed theory?
    3) What predictions does that “theory” make?
    4) What research has been done and where can that research be found?
    5) How can it be falsified?
    6) If ID/Creationism is not religion, then who or what is the Designer and where can we find evidence of its existence?

    I’ll actually add one more question that occurred to me:

    7) Once we find evidence that purports to show the existence of a designer, how can it be determined that it points exclusively to a designer, rather than some other phenomenon?

    You bring up examples of TVs, computers, etc. for design by intelligent beings. Where your example fails, however, is that we have ample evidence to point to those designers. We can see the very people engaged in the act of designing and building something. We have ample evidence of people (to whom we can point and even touch) currently creating things and can extrapolate from that people in the past (who we cannot touch) creating things. The same thing does not exist for a designer.

    Let me give you an example of how the mere presence of complexity is insufficient to claim a designer was involved. Suppose you come upon a pile of rocks near the base of a cliff. This pile is incredibly complex. Change the position of or remove a single stone, and the whole structure could change or collapse entirely. Looking at this pile of rocks, is it the result of design or the result of a series of occurrences with no intelligence behind them? And, I’m talking about the final result (the pile) just as IDers/Creationists talk about the final result (the animal/organ), rather than any initial starting point.

    Regarding transitional fossils: did you even bother to look up Tiktallik, as was suggested way up toward the top of the thread? It’s a recent example, which just happened to be found by using evolutionary theory to figure out where it would likely be and what it would likely look like.

    In closing, please just answer my 7 questions above. I’m not interested in your feelings of persecution of either yourself or Christians in general. I have not been insulting. I have not called all Christians idiots. I have just asked for answers to a few questions, which you have repeatedly ignored. So, in your response to me, please just stick to answering those seven questions.

  387. chuck

    Todd- hate to answer a question with a question, but whose definition of science do we use. Hundreds of scientists, while practicing their science, believe they see evidence of design in most everything (by the way, your pile analogy cannot be accurately considered without answering the question “how did it get there?” Also, comparing the “complexity” of a pile of rocks with the complexity of the human eye, or why and how blood clots, or even the hundreds or thousands of things that make up the simplest life form, is not, in my humble estimation, close to being an accurate comparison. The comparison would be more accurate if you said the you came upon a wall of rocks, or a house built of rocks, or rocks that form the outline of a deer, etc. ID scientists aren’t claiming EVERYTHING is evidence of design (rocks and piles of sand as an example) but do point to life forms, for example, where the complexity and interaction is so clear, and so delicately balanced, that believing it is nothing more than an accident takes much more faith, or rejection of clear and rational reasoning, than accepting the obvious (based on observing things we all know are designed) conclusion…..design(not just pretty colors or 2 or more parts) is caused by a designer, whoever or whatever you call him or it.

    Do you accuse id scientists of being incapable of applying rules of observation in their studies? If they think they see design, should they just clam up and toe the party line? They really wouldn’t be scientists then, would they? You know, the ones who toe the party line just to get along, or continue their grant money. Those people probably stopped the process of objective observation a long time ago.

    Why is it science? I’m trying to think of an answer that would satisfy you, seeing as how you guys seem to reject any statement by an id’er or religious person. I can only offer that it is scientists, while practicing science, who claim to see design. Maybe they’re wrong, but that doesn’t mean it’s not science. The purpose of science is to discover things, and answers, and should be objective, open to any possible answers, and then through experiment and study zero in on the most probable answers or causes. My problem with most of you is that you no longer want to allow for this process. You have already decided the answers that make you comfortable, and usually attack with much venom any one who comes along to challenge them. Think of how useless science would have been if consensus had always ruled the day. But then you go further, with name calling and insults, even going so far as to intimate that they’re not REAL scientists, or are stupid ones, because they see things differently than you do (not necessary you, Todd, but in general).I’ve been asked “where is all their research and peer reviewed work”? First of all, tell me with a straight face that a scientist can go to a mainstream scientific journal and get anything published that purports to show scientific evidence of a designer. You and I know it ain’t happening. And then if word got around where this particular scientists was coming from, and how far off the party line(secular, humanist,atheistic) he had strayed, it really would be a miracle if he was allowed to retain his position at a school or university. There are examples of scientists experiencing just this type of persecution. All because they have a different viewpoint.

    What is so frightening about allowing students to hear both sides of the story? Why do you and the others just get to arbitrarily decide there is only one, and all others are outlawed? You evolutionists can present all of your so-called evidence and state that it points to chance, random events, mutations, etc. ID’ers can then present all of their so-called evidence, and state that they believe that it all points to some sort of design and thus a designer.To act as if there is no basis for their argument is specious at best. Your rejection of it is not proof that it isn’t correct. Good science should consider all reasonable possibilities, and I don’t think seeing design is unreasonable. In some of the material I’ve read, that conclusion makes much more sense than attributing it all to chance. You don’t need me to list it all for you. Just go to one of those intelligent design sites you accuse me of using (not once in all of my interchange with you guys have I ever visited such a web site. Never) and see for yourself why they believe what they believe. In the books I have read, I never got the feeling these scientists were just being stupid or unscientific. They give reasoned arguments. Arguments, if used in regards to anything in which we know the identity of a designer, that would not even be challenged. They would seem to state the obvious.

    However, if these arguments seem to be heading in the direction of a designer of life, then what seemed quite rational before now becomes idiotic. The humanist scientists use fear and name calling to cover the real problem- they don’t want to believe in design, because then the logical conclusion leads to a designer, i.e., God. Hide behind all the jargon you want to, but that is really the fear. The vehemence and insults reveal, at least to me, the uncontrollable reaction the consensus, shall we say, has against even the contemplation of a god, or first cause.

    And yes, I certainly have read id and creationist literature. What I read is always based on science and scientific methods. Their arguments against the consensus are given with scientific reasons undergirded by scientific observation. These men, all with phd’s, and even some with scientific awards, including the Nobel, are not simpletons. Calling them such may make it easier in your world to ignore them, but they are not what they are often made out to be. I personally could not believe in design and God if it were soley based on religious reasoning (although many christians would say I should believe solely on that basis). I cannot do that. If evol scientists (and many id’ers are still evolutionists, as far as the continuing processes are concerned) had clearly proven their case, I would have to accept it even if it went against my religious beliefs(many many christians do just that). I do not, however, see the proof. I see just as much faith in evolution as I do in religion. And I’m sorry, but when I see the designs inherent in nature, my rational mind tells me that it makes far more sense to accept what is clear, rather than believe in something that causes more questions that answers, and then can’t really address the questions it has raised.

    ID theory, at least from scientists, if offered with a scientific basis, with scientific arguments. That is why it should be allowed in a science class. Though to some it may ultimately lead to a designer, if that is where the evidence takes you, there’s no harm in going there. To use the possibility of a “designer” as cause to disqualify alternative ideas is not scientific at all. You have already decided what is NOT an acceptable answer, and will reject any evidence that points in that direction. That is not science. It’s more like the close-minded christians you guys often refer to. To the degree science is used in id theory, it belongs in the science classroom. To the degree evolution incorporates faith and belief in the unseen, it belongs in the religion class.

    Next question later.

  388. chuck,

    I never stated that God is imperfect. I stated that the Creationist version of God is imperfect, being restricted to some human’s interpretation of what is written in a Bible.

    A God having to ask, Interpreter, May I? is not a God worth worshiping. Such is the
    God of the Creationist sects.

    I have not attacked the Bible, only the misinterpretation of the Bible by Creationist sects.

    The FEDERAL govt. could not interfer or endorse any religion.

    That has been expanded to the states.

    14th Amendment (section 1):

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

    1st Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    The Constitution prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over others – establishing any one religion, such as that of the Creationist sects, over other religions. That means that the teaching, in science class, of the religion of Creationist sects, at the expense of other religions, is not permitted. The odd thing is that these Creationist sects insist on imposing their religious view on others. It is fortunate for those who are not members of these Creationist sects, that there is a Supreme Court to make these decisions. They do not seem to agree with your misinterpretation of the Constitution.

    Yes the Constitution is the protector of religion. The Constitution protects members of religions that are not politically powerful from those who are politically powerful.

    Well then, if you’re capable and qualified to judge God, then that must make you(drum roll) an even GREATER god!!!! Good luck with that one.

    I am not the one creating artificial restrictions for God. You and the other members of Creationist sects are the ones engaging in that blasphemy.

    ID is not science. ID is only a ploy by the deceitful to get Creationism into the science classroom.

  389. @Chuck

    Thank you for finally addressing some (though not all) of my questions, though you did go on at great length beyond merely answering my questions, as I asked.

    When I use the term “science”, here’s what I mean: the process of making observations of some phenomena, developing hypotheses to describe/explain those phenomena, developing predictions based on the hypotheses to point toward future observations, testing those hypotheses/predictions against additional data and observations to see if the hypotheses/predictions hold up to additional data and observations, and revision or elimination of the hypotheses as needed due to the testing. Further, the hypotheses that are developed must be able to be falsified if new data comes along. With this definition in mind, would you care to refine your answer at all? I’m still not clear on how you think that ID is science.

    Just because a scientist (which ones, by the way?) believes something does not make it “science”. To state that is to make an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

    Regarding my analogy, why is it different than the eye (you still don’t seem to understand that the eye is not irreducibly complex; that it can come about by a stepwise process – read the wikipedia article on the eye again)? Both structures are incredibly complex. Both can come about by stepwise processes. If I had said that the pile of rocks was pyramidal in structure, would that give the appearance of design you suggest? And does the lack of apparent design mean that it wasn’t? The pile of rocks could be the result of very careful planning and hard work by one or more individuals, so that, while it may not have the appearance of design, it was. Alternatively, it may have the appearance of design (e.g., having sides of equal length, with a very specific ratio between the height and width of the structure, etc.) yet be the result solely of rocks falling downhill, off a cliff and landing together.

    The main problem, as I see it, is that ID tends to argue from a perspective of personal incredulity (another logical fallacy). For example, looking at the eye, they see the appearance of design, have an a priori impression that something so complex could not possibly come about by chance or any other method besides purposeful design, and so conclude that some intelligence must have devised it and put it together. And that is where any further inquiry stops. However, if the person were to look around for other clues (e.g., other eye forms, DNA comparisons, etc. in the case of the eye, or scrape marks on the hillside above, broken foliage, other rocks strewn nearby, etc., in the case of the pile of rocks), they may come to other conclusions and find evidence that more clearly points to natural causes.

    A quick note on irreducible complexity. Even if it the eye were irreducibly complex (again, it’s not – take away the cones and it still functions as an eye; take away the rods and it still functions; take away the lens and, guess what, it still functions – just not necessarily as efficiently as it otherwise might), that still does not prove design. It says nothing about who or what the designer is, nothing about the process of how he/she/they/it came up with the design, nothing about how the design was implemented. We’re left only with “someone, somewhere, somehow did something and now we have an eye.” It’s akin to saying that the only reason we don’t go flying off the planet is because some invisible, unmeasruable, multi-limbed being is pressing down on our heads.

    Also, your protestations about those who accept evolution hate or fear or whatever ID/Creationism, Christians and the Christian god are unfounded. Evolution does not preclude belief in a deity. It does not rule out a deity from having some role in the development of life. Heck, there was one fellow involved in the Dover trial on ID who, in addition to being someone that accepts evolution as a fact also happens to be a Christian. You mention that scientists are being persecuted for believing in ID. Which ones? Please provide names and how they are being persecuted. Before doing so, though, I suggest going to the Expelled Exposed web site (http://www.expelledexposed.com/).

    Another suggestion is to visit Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/).

    Back to my main points. Again, what is scientific about ID? People with PhDs writing their religious beliefs down in a paper, using scientific terms, does not mean that it is science, remember. There is a process (see above) and features that separate science from pseudoscience.

  390. IVAN3MAN

    chuck:

    . . . your reference to the “developement” of the Pentium processor being developed in small incremental steps. Did you regret that one after you gave it, or did you not realize that no one left the Pentium(hey, where did it come from?) lying on a table where over millions of years it developed into what we have today. Of course not, you were pulling my leg. I mean, we all know it was originally designed, by a designer, and other designers improved on it. Not chance. Not mutations. And not time. DESIGNERS.

    Well, since you are so convinced of “Intelligent Design”, then you may find this article interesting.

  391. chuck

    Rogue-7/18

    Why do you guys keep using the “you don’t understand evolution” tact. Are you assuming that if I understood it I would have to believe in it? And whose version of evolution? There are differences among evol believers. I know what you believe. I just use hyperbole to make a point. And sorry, I just don’t buy the arguments. You seem to think that it is obvious that evolution has occured. Well, I think that it is obvious that the universe is filled with design, and no Todd, not just “apparent design”, but design and complexity that evolution cannot account for. So I do the obvious, as I’m sure you think you do, and believe in a designer. I’m not the one going against the obvious. You think that by posing the question “where is proof of a designer (eliminating evidence of design, of course)”, that you have refuted something. Not at all. Science, for example, can account for only about four percent of the universe. So you come up with somethings called dark matter and dark energy. You don’t see them, you don’t really know for sure it’s there (it just has to be), yet you believe in it. Because there are things we see and know that seemingly can’t be explained without them. So it’s okay to only see an indicator, or apparent evidence of something, and without really knowing for sure, give it a name and accept it as truth. That is science. Fine. I see things that can’t be explained without a designer. I can’t see him, I don’t know for sure if he’s really there, but I don’t think this universe can be understood without Him. So I give Him a name (God) and accept Him as true. You call that religion. OOOOOOOOkkkkkkaaaaaayyyyyy. I see.

    So things progress serially. Really. Show me. Irrefutably evidence. Don’t you know that’s why Punctuated equilibrium as an explanation came about. There is no prove of this gradual evolution, serial progression. And there should be thousands and millions of them. You escape the charge that we are not observing any at the moment by arguing that is is so gradual and takes so long that we can’t recognize it. Nigget above deals with the paucity of transitional fossils by arguing that ALL fossils are transitional fossils, the first time I’ve encountered that “argument”.

    You speak blithely about the “odds against God” without offering any example or research. Have you read somewhere where someone actually figured out the odds, or are you just making it true by saying it is.

    I’m not sure where you keep coming up with your “God has to check with the interpreters” line. I have stated before that if God had wanted to use evolution as His method, that would not bother me at all. I don’t care. He can do whatever He wants to. He is God, after all. I just don’t believe anyone has established, beyond reasonable doubt, that that is what He used. Many id scientists believe in evolution. They also believe what science and the bible point out…the universe had a beginning. The big bang. Where did the matter come from? That made this huge universe? What power held it in check (and scientists acknowledge that the laws of physics we see today could not have been in effect at that time). I believe God created it out of nothing (that is what the bible says “ex nihilo”, out of nothing. He held it together. It is wearing down. That is what the TWO Laws tell us. It is also what the bible tells us…”the firmament..will wear out”. Way back when most civilizations believed the universe was eternal and gave birth to the gods, the Hebrews taught that the universe was not eternal, and God gave birth (created) to the universe.

    And how, exactly, would you figure the odds of God having always existed. What method would you use. What would your parameters be. Show me the money. I have given you numbers for evolution. Figured out by evolutionists. Who still, in spite of impossible odds, still believe in evolution. That is faith. Again, as defined in the bible, faith is “the substance of things hoped for, things unseen”. I place no more faith in my God than you do in your evolution. Faith is religious. Whether the object of belief is a supreme being or some process, faith is religious. I can’t “prove” that God exists. I wouldn’t know where to begin. If He does, and exists outside of His creation, I’m not sure any methods we could devise would be valid, anyway. In my mind, you have not “proven” evolution. Lots of theories. No indisputable proof. How would you disprove evolution, anyway? Would proof of design do the trick? Is that why there is such an uproar about it.?

    Anyway, thank’s for coming.

  392. chuck

    Ivan, just read the comedic, juvenile article you referred to. Was I really supposed to find it interesting. By caricaturising and exaggerating id, was there any real attempt to offer a rebuttal? That was just someones lame attempt to make fun. Nothing scientific about it. I found it, intellectually, quite stupid. I hope you found it likewise. And I hope you found, as I did, that there was nothing scientific about it. If you were impressed by the article, well……never mind.

  393. chuck

    And Todd, I only attempted to deal with your first question (probably makes you sorry you asked more than one, lol). I may address it further. Anyway, got to go for tonight. As always, love and kisses. Glad to see you back, Ivan. You’ve always been my favorite.

  394. Why do you guys keep using the “you don’t understand evolution” tact.

    Tact?

    The reason I keep pointing out that you do not understand evolution is that you continually make serious errors when you try to describe evolution. When someone cannot repeat back to me, in his own words, what we are talking about, that is evidence that he does not understand what he is talking about.

    You keep describing something that is not evolution.

    Are you assuming that if I understood it I would have to believe in it?

    One step at a time. I do not know what it would take for you to understand evolution. It is not belief, but understanding. After months of conversations, you still keep ignoring the basics of evolution. You keep claiming that you understand. Then you repeat your original misrepresentations.

    The logical conclusion is that you are either incapable of understanding, or that you are just interested in creating disinformation. In other words that you are incapable of telling the truth.

    And whose version of evolution?

    Certainly not that of the frauds at the Discovery Institute.

    Since you can’t keep even the basics straight, why should we even begin to discuss any of the controversies of evolution, none of which discredit evolution. All science has controversy.

    Again, not the imaginary controversies dreamed up be the DI frauds.

    There are differences among evol believers.

    Evolution is not a belief. It is science. Of course, the way you misrepresent it, you make it whatever you want. Your misrepresentation does not make it true.

    Many id scientists believe in evolution.

    ID Scientists?

    What kind of a nonsense phrase is that? ID Scientist is an oxymoron.

    You speak blithely about the “odds against God” without offering any example or research. Have you read somewhere where someone actually figured out the odds, or are you just making it true by saying it is.

    You are the one who stated that the odds of a plane appearing intact in the middle of nowhere are astronomical. How are they less astronomical for a perfect God, or even your deformed version? Or are you saying that God is less complex than the universe?

    Either the complexity of God is an even greater than evolution, and therefore the odds of God existing are even more unlikely, or evolution is more complex than God.

    I am not the one who has difficulty with large numbers. You are.

    “How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’”

  395. @chuck

    I only attempted to deal with your first question

    And yet, you didn’t really answer it, unless you meant that ID is science because some scientists support it. It was hard to tell what your answer was, though, couched as it was in a lengthy diatribe complaining about the discussion. I think this was the part where you actually answered (or tried to):

    ID theory, at least from scientists, if offered with a scientific basis, with scientific arguments. That is why it should be allowed in a science class.

    The rest of your post was superfluous. So, some people who happen to be scientists offer it with a “scientific basis” (uh, what scientific basis?) and with “scientific arguments” (what arguments?)? This does not answer how it is a science. If some Nobel Prize winning biochemist started touting the humours as valid medical science, it still would not be science, just because he was using sciencey arguments. I think you’ll find by answering the other questions I asked will clarify whether ID actually is science or not.

    Please, be brief and leave the complaints to other postings. Simply answer the question.

  396. chuck

    Todd-

    Your posting was superfluous. No mention was made by me of scientists touting the humours as valid medical science, so I see that as the typical “raising the straw man” I encounter on this site continuously.

    Do you really need me to explain to you what science is? As I asked, which definition do you want me to use. Why don’t you pick one, the one most recited in science classes, and I’ll try to answer you. At least part of science, in my humble understanding, is observation. If you encounter something incredibly complex, irreducibly so, then why is it unscientific to posit design as one, and just one, possibly explanation? Even Crick, Hoyle, and yes, even Dawkins, when pressed, all fall back on some type of panspermia theory to explain how life started here. Even they feel compelled by the utter lack of scientific support for spontaneous generation to grasp for answers (which, as I have stated before, don’t really answer the question, and just bring up more questions). Why don’t you laugh at them, or challenge the scientific validity of such suppositions? Do they get a pass just because they are evoluionists? Anyway, again, why don’t you give me your definition of science, and I’ll answer according to that. Then I won’t have to chase around answering questions you didn’t ask. Thanks.

  397. IVAN3MAN

    Chuck, have you ever read the science fiction short story “Breeds There a Man…?” by Isaac Asimov?

    Well, it’s about a brilliant but psychologically disturbed physicist, Elwood Ralson, who becomes convinced that humanity is a kind of genetics experiment being run by an alien intelligence. His behaviour becomes more erratic and suicidal as his thoughts become more entrenched in this idea, and his health fails.

    He claims that the aliens want him to die before he can help produce a defence against atomic weapons, since a defence against atomic weapons would protect humanity against an extinction at the hands of the aliens, and humanity, analogous to bacteria when faced with the advanced technology and power of the aliens, would have developed an immunity against the penicillin that the aliens use to control the experiment.

    Under the care of a psychiatrist, Dr Blaustein, Ralson is able to provide guidance to the scientists carrying out the research. Once the experiment is complete and the defence — a force-field generator — is built and tested, he commits suicide.


    So then, Chuck, maybe there is an ‘Intelligent Designer’ out there, somewhere, and we are nothing more than an evolutionary ‘genetics experiment’ — mere ‘bacteria’ on some frigging alien ‘petri dish’ to be flushed down the bloody toilet when their funding runs out — and the next part of the experiment, since we have disappointed the aliens by not nuking ourselves as they had expected us to do, is that they will slam an asteroid/comet into the Earth, as they did to the dinosaurs, in order to see if we use our ingenuity to survive where the dinosaurs had failed.

    Think about it, Chuck… which would you prefer: an amoral ‘Intelligent Designer’ with a purpose, or an amoral evolutionary process without a purpose?

  398. @chuck

    Anyway, again, why don’t you give me your definition of science, and I’ll answer according to that.

    Apparently you did not read my posts. I gave you a definition for science. Here it is again for you:

    When I use the term “science”, here’s what I mean: the process of making observations of some phenomena, developing hypotheses to describe/explain those phenomena, developing predictions based on the hypotheses to point toward future observations, testing those hypotheses/predictions against additional data and observations to see if the hypotheses/predictions hold up to additional data and observations, and revision or elimination of the hypotheses as needed due to the testing. Further, the hypotheses that are developed must be able to be falsified if new data comes along.

    As to people touting the humours as valid medical science, I was drawing a comparison between your apparent stance on why ID is science (“some scientists say that it’s science”, essentially) and why that does not make it science. The comparison seems to have been lost on you.

    Even Crick, Hoyle, and yes, even Dawkins, when pressed, all fall back on some type of panspermia theory to explain how life started here.

    Irrelevant to the topic at hand. We are discussing evolution vs. ID, not origins of life. There is a distinction.

    So, back to my original questions. I await your answers. Please be brief and on topic.

  399. @IVAN3MAN

    Where are those crickets of yours?

  400. IVAN3MAN

    Here they are:

    *Crickets* *Crickets* *Crickets*

     

    Hint: Click on the center one.

  401. chuck

    oh stop it with the crickets, lol. Just cause I take a few days off to live doesn’t mean I won’t be back. You should know that by now. I’m out of town dealing with a family emergency. when I get back, I will pick up where I left off. Todd, I was hoping for a simpler def. of science, something we could agree on. Oh well, I will try to work with yours. And I’ll go back to your first question. Ivan. You make up a story, with your own plot, with your own definitions of the characters, you make it suck, then say it’s true, then offer me a choice based on that? Where did all of this hatred for God come from. I know, you’ll say its not hatred for God, but hatred for the distortions christians believe in concerning Him. But I think it goes deeper. People on this site grab some old testament story, comment on it and how it defines their conception of God while revealing little or no understanding of the passage in hand, and then use such illogic as a rationale for rejection of the “amoral designer”. I guess that makes sense to you, but not to me. I’m trying to figure out where the biblical God who so loved the world that He gave His only Son to save it went.And Jesus, who claimed to be deity, God in the flesh, and an accurate portrait of His Father in heaven, the one who taught to love above all things, to sacrifice, to give, to be humble,……where did He go? Y’all present such a myopic one sided view of what the bible teaches that, just as you doubt that I understand evol, I have serious doubts that you even read, much less understand, scripture. But maybe I’m wrong. I wouldn’t mind being so.
    Anyway, I’ll be back to take on Todd’s question(s), and whatever else you throw my way. Thank’s for stopping by. Y’all blog carefully now, hear?

  402. IVAN3MAN

    Chuck:

    Ivan. You make up a story, with your own plot, with your own definitions of the characters, you make it suck, then say it’s true, then offer me a choice based on that?

    At my post above, the synopsis is that of a sci-fi story by Isaac Asimov, not my own.

    People on this site grab some old testament story, comment on it and how it defines their conception of God while revealing little or no understanding of the passage in hand, and then use such illogic as a rationale for rejection of the “amoral designer”.

    What are you implying; that the Bible is written in some secret code that only “True Believers™” can understand?

    I’m trying to figure out where the biblical God who so loved the world that He gave His only Son to save it went.And Jesus, who claimed to be deity, God in the flesh, and an accurate portrait of His Father in heaven, the one who taught to love above all things, to sacrifice, to give, to be humble,……where did He go?

    The same place where these other mythologies went.

    Y’all present such a myopic one sided view of what the bible teaches that, just as you doubt that I understand evol, I have serious doubts that you even read, much less understand, scripture.

    Now, Chuck, don’t get me started again on ‘interpreting’ scripture!

  403. IVAN3MAN

    *Crickets* *Crickets* *Crickets*
  404. Nick

    I teach science in the UK and I don’t think it is right to bring any form of creation into the science room. In religios Education my colleague tells the kids about creation. In my class I tell them about evolution and the Big bang. I don’t step on her toes or she on mine. That sounds really fair to me. In fact even with this situation there are many who want evolution lessons to start with ‘this is only a theory’. I find that most Theists view taking creation out of evolution is unfair. If they can add creation into my science lessons then why can’t I subject teachings from the Bible to scientific analysis. Or maybe we should get the History teacher to talk about the validity of the sources. Come on… if you get freedom to teach religion then please give me the freedom to not be bothered by it.

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