Feed on Posts or Comments 28 July 2016

Christianity &Islam Thomas on 27 May 2011 12:02 am

Creationism in Louisiana classrooms, and its repeal

An excellent presentation by Zach Kopplin, age 17, who led the creationism repeal effort for Louisiana classrooms:

Zach Kopplin on Hardball

News Anchor: What’s this got to do with Michele Bachmann?

Zack Kopplin: Presidential candidates should not be allowed to make stuff up. So Michele Bachmann claimed that Nobel Laureates support creationism. Now, I’ve got 43 Nobel laureates who support my appeal, and I asked where hers are because she lends a lot of false authority being like, she elevates this to the national debate and gives lobbyists and politicians in my state who want to put creationism in the classroom a lot of false authority. If she makes these claims she should back them up.

More on the repeal here:

This week in awesome: Zach Kopplin

A high school student in the state capital is spearheading an effort to repeal a 2008 law that advocates of mainstream biology education characterize as a Trojan horse for creationism. Zach Kopplin, a senior at Baton Rouge Magnet High, is targeting the Louisiana Science Education Act in the upcoming legislative session that begins in April.

360 Responses to “Creationism in Louisiana classrooms, and its repeal”

  1. on 28 May 2011 at 4:06 pm 1.MrQ said …

    I am impressed!!
    What better way to run a school system than by teaching the facts. Good on Zach for braving the slings and arrows of the wack job fundies who no doubt resent his efforts.

  2. on 29 May 2011 at 1:46 pm 2.Jynx said …

    This young man’s bravery is inspiring. Although I was certainly outspoken at that age, I can’t imagine being confident enough to attend and openly challenge a local meeting dealing with such issues and then appearing on television to call out a well-publicised politician.

  3. on 29 May 2011 at 5:56 pm 3.Janice said …

    Oh well, another activist who doesn’t want students to think for themselves. I taught both as an educator and when I fill-in I continue to teach both. ID is not creationism and those who believe it is are just simply not educated on the subject.

    It is no wonder we have college students who cannot think for themselves and sign petitions banning free speech without reading the petition. What a mess.

  4. on 29 May 2011 at 6:15 pm 4.MrQ said …

    Janice, Where did you teach?

  5. on 29 May 2011 at 7:19 pm 5.DPK said …

    “ID is not creationism and those who believe it is are just simply not educated on the subject.”

    ID is creationism that simply leaves out defining “god” as the designer and leaves the identity of the “creator” open ended. Not a very satisfying theory because it still leaves the question of who designed the designer, and if you accept the theory, ultimately you must arrive at a complex intelligence that did not have an origin.
    In short, I think ID is just creationism in a clever disguise.

  6. on 29 May 2011 at 8:20 pm 6.Lou said …

    3.Janice said …

    “ID is not creationism and those who believe it is are just simply not educated on the subject.”

    Janice,

    Apparently you aren’t educated about what you “teach.”

    “What a mess.”

    No kidding – get of the school system

    “Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of “creation science” in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.[15][n 6][16] The first significant published use of intelligent design was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[17] From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the “intelligent design movement”.[18][n 1] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents”, and that the school district’s promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[19]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

  7. on 29 May 2011 at 11:33 pm 7.David said …

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/science_law_and_economics_come046871.html

    Louisiana Preserves Science Education Act That Encourages Academic Freedom
    to Discuss Criticisms of Darwinism
    Casey Luskin May 27, 2011 1:30 AM

  8. on 29 May 2011 at 11:35 pm 8.David said …

    I wonder how many students would say they have the academic freedom to critique evolution in their
    science classes? There should be school district and state polls of high-school and college/university students studying evolution, asking two questions:

    In this class: a) Is evolution taught as fact, theory, or both fact and theory? b) Do you have the academic freedom to critique evolution?
    [Students should answer anonymously.] The same two questions should be asked of their instructors.

    The article, “Valley of the Whales,” in the August 2010 issue of National Geographic, is a good example of an evolutionary article:

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2010/08/whale-evolution/mueller-text

    Teachers should be encouraged to distribute such articles and three different colored markers to each student, then ask them to mark the
    verified facts with one color, the opinions with another, and the suppositions with another. Students should be taught to weigh the factual
    evidence, evaluate statements, and recognize the writer’s purpose and point of view.

  9. on 30 May 2011 at 12:37 am 9.Jeff said …

    David

    You are exactly right. In the 70s I was in elementary and Jr High school I was taught evolution as fact. All points were presented as act. I was amazed years later when I realized just how little of evolution was actually verified fact. This was a number of years after college when I started studying on my own. I felt lied to.

    The problem is this matter has become politicized. Its not about evidence, facts and data. It is now about guarding ones POV at all cost. You see how true this is by some of the post above yours.

  10. on 30 May 2011 at 5:43 am 10.David said …

    Edward Blyth, English chemist/zoologist (and creationist), wrote his first of three major articles on natural selection in The Magazine of
    Natural History, 24 years before Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was published. Why then, do evolutionists think of natural selection as
    Darwin’s idea?

    Blyth didn’t attribute God-like qualities to natural selection, as some evolutionists do today. At least some are willing to admit: “Natural selection can only act on those biologic properties
    that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs.” Noble, et al., Parasitology, 6th ed. (Lea & Febiger,
    1989), p. 516.
    See:
    http://www.icr.org/article/natural-selection-creationists-idea
    http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild

    Teaching Evolution – Is There a Better Way?
    by Ian Taylor
    http://www.creationmoments.com/content/teaching-evolution-there-better-way

  11. on 30 May 2011 at 8:41 am 11.Lou said …

    9.Jeff said …

    “You are exactly right. In the 70s I was in elementary and Jr High school I was taught evolution as fact. All points were presented as act. I was amazed years later when I realized just how little of evolution was actually verified fact. This was a number of years after college when I started studying on my own. I felt lied to.

    The problem is this matter has become politicized. Its not about evidence, facts and data. It is now about guarding ones POV at all cost. You see how true this is by some of the post above yours.”

    Evolution is fact. Theories of how evolution happens may change, but evolution is fact. Even the pope has accepted that.

  12. on 30 May 2011 at 11:19 am 12.MrQ said …

    Jeff

    I was amazed years later when I realized just how little of evolution was actually verified fact. This was a number of years after college when I started studying on my own.

    Can you share with me the smoking gun(s) which changed your thinking? What were you studying?

  13. on 30 May 2011 at 7:50 pm 13.DPK said …

    “I was amazed years later when I realized just how little of evolution was actually verified fact.”

    Could you share with us what parts of intelligent design are then “verified facts”?

    While you’re at it, can you share with us which scientific theories you do consider to be “verified facts”?

    To my understanding of the scientific process, there is no such thing, there is only evidence that supports, and evidence that does not support.

    “Something magical happened” is not a theory, it’s a cop-out.

  14. on 30 May 2011 at 9:56 pm 14.Fran said …

    Jeff & David

    Same thing here. My and later professors spoke about this stuff as if it was unquestioned. Not once did I hear the criticisms and consequently the assumptions were never separated from the actual evidence. They just lumped in the assumptions with the actual evidence. I even learned about Haeckel in the 70s and 80s but no that it was faked!

    This is the one or two areas of science where challenges and criticisms are not allowed. We are told, as an example, the universe may look designed and created but the it was not. Why not consider it looks designed and created because it was? Until academic honesty comes back to the classroom we will not Evolve.

    http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

  15. on 31 May 2011 at 12:36 am 15.MrQ said …

    Fran #13,
    Excellent points, all!!
    Just recently it was explained to me that gravity is just a theory. Imagine my surprise!!…it’s just a THEORY!!!

    A counter idea proposes Intelligent Pushing as the force holding us affixed on our big blue orb. An intelligent (No, it’s not the big G :-)) force is pushing down on our tiny heads and keeping us from floating out into space. I am pushing the IP theory. What do you think?

  16. on 31 May 2011 at 2:13 am 16.Lou said …

    14.MrQ said …

    “Fran #13,
    Excellent points, all!!
    Just recently it was explained to me that gravity is just a theory. Imagine my surprise!!…it’s just a THEORY!!!?

    Hey, what’s wrong with you MrQ?! Everybody knows that gravity is only a theory.

    Read all about it here:

    http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

  17. on 31 May 2011 at 8:46 am 17.Severin said …

    3 Janice
    “It is no wonder we have college students who cannot think for themselves….”

    No wonder, indeed!
    After thousands of years of swallowing religious idiocies pushed down our throats, not only by pompous propaganda, but also by brutal force, without chance to say anything opposite and stay alive, it is not easy to start using brain again.
    Fear of thinking is deeply inplanted in people’s minds!
    Hush and move your head up-and-down was a recipe for surviving for milleniums.

    It is SAD that we are still wondering when someone is “courageus” to say something opposite to common opinion, but never wonder when millions of idiots make claims about things they have no clue about.

    Or, do you want to say that churches like and support free thinkers?

  18. on 31 May 2011 at 7:12 pm 18.Observer said …

    Janice, David, Jeff, Fran- Thank “God” you all showed up. It was getting a bit dull around here as the usual cretinous xtian filth was running their inevitable course to no where… I look forward to your contributions to this Schadenfreude fest.

    Actually, the lot of you seem so bereft of intelligence and spark you are likely dummies planted by the hosts of the website, but I hope not! Bring it on!

  19. on 31 May 2011 at 8:16 pm 19.Horatiio said …

    Nose Buster!!

    Glad to see you are back from your sabbatical to Mambia. Sadly you are still the psuedo-intellectual with only a glass a water and a hoe to ward off you intellectual superiors. The flint is dead and so are your contributions.

  20. on 31 May 2011 at 10:44 pm 20.Blogmaster said …

    It is true. I planted Observer to further this Schadenfreude fest. We haven’t had this much pleasure here since our last Spitzenfreude.

  21. on 01 Jun 2011 at 12:38 am 21.Fran said …

    Mr Q, Lou and Severin:

    For you.

    http://www.creationmoments.com/content/teaching-evolution-there-better-way

    “Just recently it was explained to me that gravity is just a theory.”

    So are you comparing the theory of gravity with macro or micro evolution? Two of the three are very strong. Are you going to bring up tensor mathematics as a point of comparison? If yes, then it makes sense to bring up the intricacies of evolution.

  22. on 01 Jun 2011 at 2:56 am 22.Lou said …

    21.Fran said …

    “So are you comparing the theory of gravity with macro or micro evolution?”

    Obviously not.

    Do you have a point?

  23. on 01 Jun 2011 at 2:59 am 23.Lou said …

    19.Horatiio said …

    “The flint is dead and so are your contributions.”

    And what of your (lack of) contributions? Where is your evidence for god? The flint is what?

  24. on 01 Jun 2011 at 3:17 am 24.MrQ said …

    Fran,
    I like agreeing with people…finding the common ground upon which we can begin analyzing. Fair?

    So, allow me to ask you the age of the planet Earth. Some theists on this site agree on a figure of 4+ Billion years old. Most theists here have a very difficult time in expressing a thought on this simplest of points/(facts?)….they ignore the question when asked.

    I am sure that we can both agree that there was absolutely no life on our planet at the time the Earth came to be. And we can likely agree that the initial primitive lifeforms which arose were single celled organisms.

  25. on 01 Jun 2011 at 10:39 am 25.Swede said …

    Fran

    I like to agree with people too. Fran can we agree that water is wet?

  26. on 01 Jun 2011 at 10:42 am 26.Swede said …

    Blogmaster,

    Awesome! I have not been to a good Spitzenfreude in years

  27. on 01 Jun 2011 at 4:19 pm 27.MrQ said …

    Excellent.
    The Swedish Fubik has joined the discussion. Every village needs an idiot.

  28. on 02 Jun 2011 at 1:29 am 28.Horatiio said …

    “Every village needs an idiot.”

    Thank you for filling that need MrQ.

  29. on 02 Jun 2011 at 2:52 am 29.Lou said …

    28.Horatiio said …

    “Every village needs an idiot.”

    “Thank you for filling that need MrQ.”

    Witty come back. I’m sure you get cooties from girls, and giggle when somebody farts – you juvenile little twit.

  30. on 02 Jun 2011 at 3:12 am 30.MrQ said …

    #28,
    Good one Hor.
    Looks like it took a long time for you to come up with that snappy and witty response.

    Hey, Hor, since you already know that the Earth is Billions of years old, could you explain to Swede/Fran/Jeff how you came to that conclusion. Might expedite our discussion and comfort those theists.

  31. on 02 Jun 2011 at 4:14 pm 31.Horatiio said …

    “could you explain to Swede/Fran/Jeff how you came to that conclusion.”

    Thank you MrQ. Since you have a propensity for calling others idiots, I thought I would spin the table.

    You have an unhealthy obsession with the age of the earth. It reminds me of the Obama uhs. If Fran/Swede/Jeff have questions about the age of the earth they are probably mature enough to seek it out on their own.

  32. on 02 Jun 2011 at 5:01 pm 32.Lou said …

    31.Horatiio said …

    “You have an unhealthy obsession with the age of the earth.”

    And “You have an unhealthy obsession with” dodging questions that challenge your delusions.

    “It reminds me of the Obama uhs.”

    Whatever that means.

    “If Fran/Swede/Jeff have questions about the age of the earth they are probably mature enough to seek it out on their own.”

    That wasn’t MrQ’s point, dolt.

  33. on 02 Jun 2011 at 5:12 pm 33.MrQ said …

    Thank-you Hor for covering my back. We both obsessively agree the age of the Earth is Billions of years old. It makes we feel warm and fuzzy on the inside that we can agree…hope you are sharing that feeling, old friend.

    When Ms Fran states/asks:

    So are you comparing the theory of gravity with macro or micro evolution? Two of the three are very strong.

    What better way to start the discussion than with where and when (macro/micro) evolution began. We can work our way from there and reach some solid conclusions…donchathink?

  34. on 02 Jun 2011 at 5:55 pm 34.Lou said …

    31.Horatiio said …

    “Thank you MrQ. Since you have a propensity for calling others idiots, I thought I would spin the table.”

    You couldn’t “spin the table” if it was mounted on swiveling casters.

  35. on 02 Jun 2011 at 8:19 pm 35.Horatiio said …

    “We can work our way from there and reach some solid conclusions…donchathink?”

    Nah, I don’t think so. I love ya babe but I don’t think you will be my source for origins, evolution and philosophical foundations. If I ever need a good magic show or great story I’ll give you jingle my brathar.

  36. on 02 Jun 2011 at 8:56 pm 36.MrQ said …

    #35 Hor,
    I was thinking Ms Fran would accept this dance.

    She seemed interested in a micro/macro evolution discussion. But, perhaps, speaking of magic, her origins story begins with “and then there was light…” and includes bones from rib cages, talking snakes, etc.

  37. on 02 Jun 2011 at 9:05 pm 37.Curmudgeon said …

    “You couldn’t “spin the table” if it was mounted on swiveling casters.”

    Huh???

    I think that was suppose to be a insult toward Horatio, well I think??

  38. on 03 Jun 2011 at 4:35 am 38.Joshua said …

    I have a looooooong drive from Texas to Tucson, AZ tomorrow. Ill look at all of David and Fran’s stuff and post a substantive response on Saturday. It should be fun!

  39. on 03 Jun 2011 at 12:48 pm 39.Horatiio said …

    “Ill look at all of David and Fran’s stuff and post a substantive response on Saturday”

    Oh please please! I can hardly wait! LOL!!!

  40. on 05 Jun 2011 at 8:48 pm 40.Joshua said …

    I’m on vacation so I got lazy. Sue me.

    @ Horatiio 39

    “Oh please please! I can hardly wait! LOL!!!”

    Given that you never provide responses to arguments that rise above grade-school taunts, I doubt that.

  41. on 05 Jun 2011 at 8:49 pm 41.Joshua said …

    @ Janice 3

    “Oh well, another activist who doesn’t want students to think for themselves. I taught both as an educator and when I fill-in I continue to teach both. ID is not creationism and those who believe it is are just simply not educated on the subject.”

    If you teach both than you are not thinking for yourself. The evidence for evolution is quite strong. Since ID is nothing but arguments against evolution it really is not an explanation on its own. As for the creationism /ID connection, that was demonstrated quite solidly during the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial. Lou’s comment at 6 is exactly right. In addition leaders of the ID movement and those pushing ID locally can’t help but to admit their religious motivation in the right places.

    This section of the Dover vs. Kitzmiller decision covers this problem nicely. Both national ID leaders and the local school board members had religious motivations. This happens again and again.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision3.html#p273
    Judge Jones:

    “Although Defendants attempt to persuade this Court that each Board member who voted for the biology curriculum change did so for the secular purposed of improving science education and to exercise critical thinking skills, their contentions are simply irreconcilable with the record evidence.”

    “The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC.”

    “As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake.”

    Follow the link and you can find many examples of the local school board members and ID leaders making such statements. If any of you theists are too lazy to do a little reading for yourselves, just ask and I will be happy to quote selections.

    Even leaving aside the evolution vs. ID issue, science classes are for teaching science. Right now ID is not accepted science and has no business being taught in science classes. If a student has a question/objection about evolution the teacher can of course answer the question and respond to the objection. But ID has no place in a lesson plan and if you were filling in for any teachers I knew I would report you.

    In fact I would appreciate it if the moderators would give me Janice’s IP address. She is breaking the law and I know a bit about tracking down folks online.

  42. on 05 Jun 2011 at 8:53 pm 42.Joshua said …

    @ David 7

    “Louisiana Preserves Science Education Act That Encourages Academic Freedom
    to Discuss Criticisms of Darwinism”

    There is nothing academic about the criticisms of “Darwinism”. Every argument against evolution has been terribly flawed. The purpose of public school science classes is to teach current accepted science to students. ID is not accepted science despite the misleading “list of dissenters” (only a small handful of people on that list are actually educated in relevant fields, and those that are have terrible arguments. Less than a dozen scientists against the rest of the scientific community? Consensus is against them and having seen the data I am too.) If it is not in the scientific literature it should not be in public school science classes.

    Your link is misleading garbage.

    First paragraph.
    Thinking critically is fine. The critical thinking that the ID movement wants is not scientific at all however. I challenge anyone here to give me the issues pertaining to evolution that you want critically evaluated. I suspect that they will not be found in scientific literature, but will only be found in the books and think-tanks of the ID movement itself. The only reason that evolution is controversial is due to religious folks who can’t deal with reality and want to bury their heads, and their children’s heads, in the sand.

    Second paragraph.
    I suppose we are making progress if blatant creationism is bad even among the ones attacking science. This however ignores the fact that ID IS RELIGIOUS. It was born of religion and politics, it is supported entirely by the religious who let it slip more often than the religious politicos would like, and its tenants are not found within science at all, only among the religious.

    There is no way it was only about “creationism, creationism, creationism”. Creationism is the most important risk, but control over the quality and subject matter of the supplemental materials is the issue that opponents have been complaining about. Did you even hear what the opponents of the legislation said Mr. Luskin? Is it possible for you to be honest ever?

    From the article at the top;
    “Those supplemental materials are widely understood to be related to Intelligent Design, a pseudo science concocted by creationists to do an end run around repeated federal court rulings barring the teaching of religion in public schools.”

    “A high school student in the state capital is spearheading an effort to repeal a 2008 law that advocates of mainstream biology education characterize as a Trojan horse for creationism.”

    Third paragraph
    Interesting, Dr. Wade Warren works at Louisiana College “Louisiana College is a private, Baptist coeducational college of liberal arts and sciences with selected professional programs.” whose motto is “Unchanging foundations since 1906”.

    From the description on the college’s site; “The college was chartered in 1906 as a non-profit corporation with the object “to own, operate and conduct a Baptist college, . . . to foster Christian education.””

    http://www.lacollege.edu/about/identity-mission

    Farther down; “The Holy Bible is truth without any mixture of error. The college seeks to view all areas of knowledge from a distinctively Christian perspective and integrate Biblical truth thoroughly with each academic discipline.”

    “Louisiana College seeks to create a community of learning and free inquiry. However, the college recognizes that Christian education maintains a proper balance between academic freedom and academic responsibility. The academic freedom of a Christian professor is limited by the preeminence of Jesus Christ, the authoritative nature of the Holy Scriptures, and the mission of the institution.”

    In other words no academic freedom at all because there are exceptions. This is total hypocrisy for Casey to talk about academic freedom for teachers and quote a teacher who gets no academic freedom of his own. I am supposed to trust the words of a professor in this place? I can’t find any of Dr. Warrens specific views about what he thinks is challenging to evolution, but given that his job depends on holding up creationism and the company he keeps it’s probably the same old crap. Feel free to give me examples theists!

    They never mention that the “views that dissent from that position” are entirely rejected by the scientific community. They are not positive explanations that seek to demonstrate the existence of a creator, they are negative arguments against evolution that try to illogically make ID seem like the right explanation because evolution is not true. If ID wants to stand as a theory it not only has to explain all of the data that evolution does, it has to have specific evidence for a designer, not negative arguments against evolution.

    All the crap about “thinking skeptically, and not dogmatically” or covering scientific topics in an objective manner is total bullshit. The boat has sailed within the scientific community. Evolution has been the dominant explanation for why we have the diversity of life that we do for more than one hundred years because it explains so much that we see. The purpose of the LSEA is to allow teachers to sneak ID and creationist material into a science classroom. Seriously, give me the examples of the “credible scientific views” because I am pretty sure it is the same bullshit like Irreducible Complexity and Dembski’s garbage about “explanatory filters”.

    Fourth and fifth paragraphs
    Anti-LSEA folks do not quote the act itself because the true intent of the LSEA is not stated within it. If we had a state school systems that did a better job of preventing teachers from abusing their positions by inserting unscientific garbage into the curriculum than I would have no problem with the LSEA. However we have a bad enough problem with teachers using creationist/ID material that this law will only make it worse since there is no way to effectively oversee all the outside material that teachers will bring in. The real intent of the LSEA is let teachers sneak in even more creationist/ID material. The few districts that get challenged by the material allowed will end up losing millions in court costs just like in Dover vs. Kitzmiller. The following shows all the blatantly creationist influences that went into the LSEA. You really want us to believe this has nothing to do with creationism?

    http://lasciencecoalition.org/2009/09/30/creationists-dictate-bese-policy/

  43. on 05 Jun 2011 at 8:57 pm 43.Joshua said …

    @ David 7 continued

    Sixth paragraph.
    It is not indoctrination to limit what is contained within the science curriculum to what science really says the world is like. Science supports evolution so it is in the curriculum. Science does not support ID or creationism. If you really believed that the scientists opposing LSEA were wrong you would provide quotes and say why the scientists were wrong.

    The law on its face could be a good law, with a more trustworthy school system. Luskin is misleading the reader by failing to mention the fact that the abuse of the law, not the law itself is the problem. He is attacking a huge straw man. Look at the letter from the Nobel Laureates;

    http://www.repealcreationism.com/397/41-nobel-laureates-send-a-letter-to-the-louisiana-legislature/

    “This law creates a pathway for creationism and other forms of non-scientific instruction to be taught in public school science classrooms.”
    Not the law itself, the abuse of the law. As usual casey is preying on the ignorance and credulity of his readers. That would be you David.

    Seventh, Eight, and Ninth paragraphs.
    Misleading, how is SCIENCE related business doing? The economy in general is not the issue. Straw man. Everything he just mentioned about business and the economy in Louisiana has nothing to do with SCIENCE related business and economics.

    Tenth paragraph
    Notice that he does not say why the law is constitutional? The court has several tests such as the “Lemon test” that it uses to help determine the constitutionality of laws with respect to religious issues. All this guy had to do is mention the specific constitutional arguments and say why they are wrong. He does not. To be fair even I think that this law might be constitutional. One possible area of unconstitutionality could be the “effect prong” of the Lemon test if this law has the effect of specifically benefiting religious objections to evolution. I think that this is probably unlikely to be a good argument though. The issue is the abuse of the law, not the constitutionality.

    Eleventh paragraph.
    Of course the plain language of the law does not protect the teaching of religion. Since this article is largely a big straw man he never mentions the real problem, the abuse of the law by allowing creationist/ID materials to get into the classrooms in the guise of “critical thinking” and “academic freedom” when they are based on religion and completely unscientific. What is really noteworthy is how the supporters of the LSEA can’t honestly describe the position of their opponents.

    Twelfth paragraph
    Like I said. The plain language is not the problem. The abuse of arguments with a religious origin in the guise of “academic freedom” is the problem.

    Thirteenth paragraph, er… sentence?
    Given the track record of Louisiana schools with respect to creationism/ID, opponents of the LSEA are trying to prevent the damage before it occurs.

    Fourteenth paragraph
    So who was this mysterious critic? Even if they do really exist this is simply cherry-picking a weak target which is an act of cowardice. If you really want to be convincing you need to challenge your strong opponents and their strong arguments.

    Fifteenth paragraph.
    Again, what are the “credible scientific viewpoints”? He won’t mention them because they all have their origin in religion or objections based on religious views. The fact that the controversy is entirely social and political (not scientific) demonstrates this. There is no controversy about evolution in science, except on how evolution is occuring. Academic freedom does not include the ability to lie to and mislead students about science.

    Sixteenth and seventeenth paragraphs.
    Teachers do not have the same free speech rights when they are acting in their position as a teacher. Their speech is limited by the fact that the constitution becomes a limitation on their behavior when they teach. They cannot push their private religious based objections to good science because of the first amendment. They can doubt all they want after work and at church. When they teach the curriculum can ONLY contain accepted science. If ID wants respect it will do the research it needs to become accepted science.
    “Darwinian biologists” (a stupid term.) do admit it. Supporters of ID/creationism just always leave what we say out because their followers tend to not read outside of what they agree with. We know there are scientists with relevant degrees that doubt evolution and support laws like the LSEA. We point out that these scientists do not represent the scientific community, and we argue against their ideas. You can find some religious folks out there that think that the earth is flat too. But they are a tiny fraction of a fraction of the religious community just like the Darwin doubters in science.

    Eighteenth paragraph
    Notice he does not source the story he discusses? Or mention the name of the anti-LSEA professor? This is probably because the real testimony looks nothing like he describes.
    This is incredibly misleading given what I already mentioned. We know there are a few biological scientists who have what they think are “scientific problems with evolution”. Science moves forward through peer review and publication of research that eventually shapes scientific consensus. Let me be clear; the number of biological scientists who have these sorts of problems with evolution are exceedingly miniscule. Scientific consensus is on the side of evolution and it means nothing that the pro-LSEA side can find a couple of “Darwin dissentors”.

    Ninteenth paragraph
    Some LSEA supporters are living proof of why we can’t trust laws like this with the educational system that we have, because they refuse to admit that the debate on evolution is entirely social and political instead of scientific, and instead misrepresent those who oppose the LSEA and mislead their supporters. Thankfully there are people like Zach Kopplin who can show the dishonesty of the ID supporters and fight to protect sound science education.

    I should just start my own blog.

    More later.

  44. on 06 Jun 2011 at 10:49 am 44.Ben said …

    Science & freedom win in Texas.

    http://topics.dallasnews.com/article/09n2ehJ9Eq0DW?q=Nobel+Prize

    ID is supported by science and the students will continue to learn why.

  45. on 06 Jun 2011 at 2:01 pm 45.Observer said …

    #44 The link is about the anti-science Louisiana Science Education Act. I realize xtians are pretty divorced from reality. I have never gotten the equivalency of “God”, Jesus, and the ghost thing, is equating Louisiana and Texas and extension of this “high-level” understanding of the universe?

    The article is pretty funny. There is some crank at an unheard-of college, with a PhD. likely from a diploma mill like Liberty U, opining in favor of the idiotic LSEA, and has as support “15 PhD. scientists” versus the breadth of human knowledge. The article then goes on to argue against alarmists who point out that no-one in their right mind would relocate to LA if their children are going to be exposed to idiocy in the classroom. Of course, the undisputed authority of world economic policy “Business Facilities” magazine (WTF?!!) declares LA the state of the year. Clearly, all is well in LA.

    After the North liberated the South, they really should have executed every traitor who wore a grey uniform.

  46. on 06 Jun 2011 at 2:52 pm 46.Lou said …

    45.Observer said …

    “#44 The link is about the anti-science Louisiana Science Education Act.”

    Exactly, so how did Ben conclude that “Science & freedom win in Texas?”

  47. on 06 Jun 2011 at 3:02 pm 47.Lou said …

    44.Ben said …

    “ID is supported by science and the students will continue to learn why.”

    B.S. – ID isn’t even considered science, much less supported by science.

    “Because “intelligent design” theories are based on supernatural explanations, they can have nothing to do with science.”

    Bruce Alberts President National Academy of Sciences Washington, Feb. 9, 2005

  48. on 06 Jun 2011 at 3:06 pm 48.Lou said …

    44.Ben said …

    “Science & freedom win in Texas.”

    Maybe this is what Ben is referring to:

    Texas “intelligent design” bill dies –

    http://ncse.com/news/2011/05/texas-intelligent-
    design-bill-dies-006689

  49. on 06 Jun 2011 at 3:10 pm 49.Lou said …

    44.Ben said …

    “ID is supported by science and the students will continue to learn why.”

    “The scientific community has long advocated that allowing anything but science in the teaching of evolution will be intellectually harmful. In an e-mail sent to the Associated Press, Harold Kroto, a Nobel Prize winner for chemistry in 1996, said voting against the repeal creates a situation that “should be likened to requiring Louisiana school texts to include the claim that the Sun goes round the Earth.”

  50. on 06 Jun 2011 at 5:44 pm 50.DPK said …

    Hysterical how the Jesus types are screaming about academic freedom and critical thinking……… I mean, can you spell I.R.O.N.Y?

  51. on 06 Jun 2011 at 7:19 pm 51.Rostam said …

    “no-one in their right mind would relocate to LA if their children are going to be exposed to idiocy in the classroom.”

    And How!!! People leaving by the hundreds and who can balme them? Liberals ruin everything from schools to education.

    No need to fear out there. ID has been taught and continues to be taught in the majority of classrooms for years. There are easy ways around any silly law restricting the teaching.

    It must be difficult for an ideologue to stand before students and argue I know it looks designed but it’s not” or “It only looks complex to us”.

    Just some of the gems offered by the ideologues.

  52. on 06 Jun 2011 at 7:26 pm 52.Rostam said …

    This is a great quote from link above:

    Ironically, when LSEA-critics denigrate those scientists and educators who doubt Darwinian evolution, they show exactly why academic freedom legislation is needed to protect the free speech rights of those who would express dissenting viewpoints. As Professor Wade Warren testified:

    There are many other credible Ph.D. scientists, including biologists, who share my views. In fact, multiple professional biologists have testified in favor of this law in the past. Yet Darwinian biologists refuse to admit this fact. Let me give you a short anecdote from the Louisiana House Education Committee hearing on the LSEA.

    After watching their pro-LSEA scientific peers testify about scientific problems with evolution, one anti-LSEA LSU biologist still had the audacity to testify before the House Education Committee that “there is no controversy among professional biologists about fact of evolution”. When one representative asked him, “Did you hear the testimony of the other professors we had here that were speaking before this committee?,” he fumbled in response. So please let me state plainly to you what is going on here: Some Darwinian activists have an agenda to impose censorship on students by bluffing that there is no scientific controversy over neo-Darwinian evolution.

    LSEA critics are living proof why we need the law, because they refuse to admit that there is a scientific debate one evolution, and instead denigrate and deny the existence of those who are scientific skeptics of neo-Darwinism.

    Thankfully, Louisiana legislators saw through the talking points of the Louisiana Darwin lobby and realized that the LSEA is necessary to protect sound science education.

  53. on 06 Jun 2011 at 9:54 pm 53.Joshua said …

    @ Rostam 52

    Since you seem to be too cowardly to respond to the points that I already made about that quote I will repeat.

    *There is no controversy among professional biologists. The number of dissenters is vanishingly small, their arguments suck, and science advances through consensus among experts. I challenge you to give me some of Dr. Wade’s problems with evolution.

    *There was no link to the incident where the anti-LSEA professor “fumbled” so given the other dishonesty I outlined above I don’t believe that happened until I see evidence.

    *Why should I believe Dr. Wade when he himself does not have academic freedom, and his job depends on holding a creationist viewpoint? Most of these guys simply don’t accept any evidence that contradicts what they believe no matter how compelling.

  54. on 06 Jun 2011 at 10:17 pm 54.Rostam said …

    Here you go Josh, a whole list of scientist who have problems. Since it is a faux pas to speak against Darwinism, I’m sure there are many many more.

    http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

    It is a huge list! I live in a university rich area. This list doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface. Guys like you are only capable of researching there own positions. If you truly desire to know the problems, you would already be aware. You don’t need a blogger to show you the way.

    I was once like you so I have hope for you.

  55. on 06 Jun 2011 at 10:48 pm 55.Lou said …

    54.Rostam said …

    “Here you go Josh, a whole list of scientist who have problems. Since it is a faux pas to speak against Darwinism, I’m sure there are many many more.”

    http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

    Rostam, do you actually think that we’re stupid enough to take that seriously? That you use “Dissent From Darwin” to support any claim other than that organization is deceptive is akin to you quoting the bible to support the existence of god. But then that’s the way you must operate when you argue from an unsupportable position.

    http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Support_For_Darwinism

  56. on 06 Jun 2011 at 11:38 pm 56.Hell Yeah said …

    Rostam said “Liberals ruin everything from schools to education.”

    What biased news source do you follow? You are aware that it is known that the Republicans are the ones cutting funding for education in the United States, right? They are the ones that don’t care about education and are gutting it. It’s amazing how the majority of xians are republicans and the majority of atheists are liberals. One side knows reality and can see what is really going on, while the other is so blind they can’t see the truth. Why don’t we just go back to the middle ages and forget science and don’t even have education because the only thing apparently needed is to think that God did everything so there is no need to learn anything other than that.

  57. on 07 Jun 2011 at 12:18 am 57.Curmudgeon said …

    “One side knows reality and can see what is really going on, while the other is so blind they can’t see the truth”

    Yes, conservatives see the truth while looney leftist live in fantasy-land.

    Look what happens. We get a boy named Barrack who has doubled the national debt in two years.

    We get guys like HY who still think the Darwinism issue is about religion. How utterly idiotic. It is an issue of not drinking the Kool Aid. I’m actually undecided. It has nothing to do with God. Christians all over the place have bought into to evolution. LOL, it is not a threat to theism. You and the Pope agree. Congratulations!

    More money will not help education Einstein. When will you free-spenders stop throwing money at every issue? Try thinking through the issues and not pushing the Easy Button.

  58. on 07 Jun 2011 at 2:50 am 58.Lou said …

    57.Curmudgeon said –

    And stay off my lawn!

    “We get a boy named Barrack who has doubled the national debt in two years.”

    The national debt was ~$10 billion FYE 2008, shortly before Obama took office. It was ~$13.5 billion FYE 2010. It’s ~$14.4 billion now. Do the math.

    “We get guys like HY who still think the Darwinism issue is about religion. How utterly idiotic. It is an issue of not drinking the Kool Aid. I’m actually undecided. It has nothing to do with God. Christians all over the place have bought into to evolution. LOL, it is not a threat to theism. You and the Pope agree. Congratulations!”

    Those must be some of the dumbest comments that I’ve seen posted here.

    And there is no such thing as the “Darwinism issue” except in the the context of religion. “Darwinism” isn’t even a term used by scientists. It’s mostly a term used by creationists, IDers, and opponents of evolution.

  59. on 07 Jun 2011 at 4:57 am 59.Anonymous said …

    @ Rostam 54

    Just as I thought, no response. This is why we will win in the end. We actually respond to what you guys say, but all you send back is subject changing, insults, and any other thing but addressing the person’s points.

    On top of that me and others have already discussed that list in this thread. It is misleading because only a small number of those on the list have relavent degrees, and the numbers are meaningless anyway because the arguments they make suck. But if numbers are important to you try googling “Project Steve”. A list of scientists WITH relavent degrees who only have names related to steve (like stephanie and such). It’s a bigger list so I guess you will change your mind now?

    I also find it really funny that you accuse me of only researching my position, when the post I made above is all about researching someone else’s position.

    You should stick around, you do great work for our side.

  60. on 07 Jun 2011 at 5:03 am 60.Anonymous said …

    @ Curmudgeon 56

    If it is not about religion then why are you undecided? Every objection to evolution I have ever encountered has had it’s origins in religious objections. Even the retooled stuff like ID is still due to religion because the people pushing it do it because they want their religious explanation to be correct. There is no objection to evolution that is not religious, and/or pushed because of religion.

  61. on 07 Jun 2011 at 5:04 am 61.Joshua said …

    Oops. 58 and 59 is Joshua. I’m on someone else’s computer and forgot my name.

  62. on 07 Jun 2011 at 11:02 am 62.Curmudgeon said …

    “Even the retooled stuff like ID is still due to religion because the people pushing it do it because they want their religious explanation to be correct.”

    No more needs to be stated. This statement proves Josh has not done due diligence. Darwinism and Evolution all have proponents on both sides. They also all have their opponents from each side.

    Once again, Evolution is not an issue of Theism. God’s existence does not rise on fall on Darwinism.

    May I say Josh, “their argument sucks” does not strike of high intelligence. I feel certain these scientist who do not support your dogma could reason circles around you.

    But do stick around. You do more for ID than I possibly could.

  63. on 07 Jun 2011 at 12:23 pm 63.Lou said …

    62.Curmudgeon said …

    “But do stick around. You do more for ID than I possibly could.”

    Incorrect. You “do more” for ID than you can possibly imagine. You’re “proof” that there’s obviously no Intelligent Designer.

  64. on 07 Jun 2011 at 2:20 pm 64.Anonymous said …

    51.Rostam said …

    “ID has been taught and continues to be taught in the majority of classrooms for years.”

    B.S. – show us.

  65. on 07 Jun 2011 at 3:25 pm 65.Lou said …

    62.Curmudgeon said …

    “Once again, Evolution is not an issue of Theism.”

    Yes, it’s mainly an issue for theists (but not theism), even though some theists accept it. Virtually everyone who rejects evolution is a theist. But it really doesn’t matter. Evolution is just as real as gravity. It exists regardless of the acceptance of it.

    “God’s existence does not rise on fall on Darwinism.”

    Who’s making that argument? It’s obvious that the god fantasy is irrelevant to so-called “Darwinism,” and visa-versa.

  66. on 07 Jun 2011 at 7:15 pm 66.Joshua said …

    @ Curmudgeon 61
    “Darwinism and Evolution all have proponents on both sides. They also all have their opponents from each side.”

    Nice job changing the subject. The issue was not the nature of the proponents of evolution (or that misleading term “Darwinism”). The issue was the source and motivation behind the criticism of evolution proposed by folks like Dr. Wade and Casey Luskin and Co. Try actually responding to what I really say.

    “Once again, Evolution is not an issue of Theism. God’s existence does not rise on fall on Darwinism.”
    I never claimed any of that. Prove it.

    “May I say Josh, “their argument sucks” does not strike of high intelligence. I feel certain these scientist who do not support your dogma could reason circles around you.”

    Two lengthy substantive posts analyzing Mr. Luskin’s article, with research on his examples, and sources, and you focus on “their argument sucks”. You do realize that when debating a point it is the information supporting the thesis that you need to address right? I know that the schools were not so good back in the day Curmudgeon, but it’s never too late to learn.

  67. on 07 Jun 2011 at 7:19 pm 67.Joshua said …

    You will have another chance later today or tomorrow Curmudgeon. I have write-ups on David’s links from #10

    It’s not hard. Something like “their argument sucks” is an opinion, or thesis in the case of a longer argument. What you need to do is to give your response, and then defend it with an argument of your own that directly addresses my supporting points and tries to demonstrate why they, or my interpretation, is wrong.

    Come on Horatiio, Rostam, you can try too!

  68. on 07 Jun 2011 at 8:23 pm 68.Ben said …

    “their argument sucks”

    Wow,great argument. Joshua and his “write-ups” or PhDs from many great universities? Um, tough choice but I will go with the PhDs who have researched and thought through the criticisms of Darwinism. I never expected the advocates to actually consider the criticisms but the general public does.

  69. on 07 Jun 2011 at 9:01 pm 69.Lou said …

    68.Ben said …

    “Um, tough choice but I will go with the PhDs who have researched and thought through the criticisms of Darwinism.”

    Yes, tough choice. “Go with” you and your mostly ignorant comments or Josh’s well written and researched, logical, rational, comments such as #41, #42, and #43. Yet as he already replied, you choose to reply to his “their argument sucks” comment. And why is that? Because you can’t refute any of his actual arguments.

    Hint for you and your ilk: As soon as you use “Darwinism,” you’re already behind the eight-ball when you attempt to discuss evolution with anybody who knows anything about it.

  70. on 07 Jun 2011 at 9:04 pm 70.Burebista said …

    Did anyone actually see a point made by Joshua? This is not to be rude but I have neither the time or desire to slosh through some bloggers personal, biased and poor research but maybe some of the others did. If you did could you provided some bullet points that might have any significance?

    Love the word ilk. A fav. of the bloggers.

  71. on 07 Jun 2011 at 9:07 pm 71.Burebista said …

    #52 Rostam,

    Thanks for the follow up. I had not realized this was settled. Academic freedom reign!

  72. on 08 Jun 2011 at 2:48 am 72.Lou said …

    70.Burebista said …

    “This is not to be rude but I have neither the time or desire to slosh through some bloggers personal, biased and poor research but maybe some of the others did.”

    Then you can’t know if it’s “personal, biased and poor research.”

    But you made your point – that you’re a lazy-ass who doesn’t really read the “blog,” but who only posts knee-jerk reaction comments; and who has nothing relevant or note-worthy to add to the discussion.

  73. on 08 Jun 2011 at 3:40 am 73.Ben said …

    “Did anyone actually see a point made by Joshua?”

    Yes, he thinks much of Josh. If I plan to research this topic again, I will do it with those of expertise. Not a self-proclaimed Expogger.

    If I only had as much free time as J. Most amazing thing, he thinks he has followers.

  74. on 08 Jun 2011 at 12:36 pm 74.Lou said …

    73.Ben said …

    “Most amazing thing, he thinks he has followers.”

    Please enlighten us as to why you think this or please divulge the source of your power to read minds. Otherwise we’ll assume, and probably most correctly, that you’re simply mentally deranged.

  75. on 08 Jun 2011 at 4:29 pm 75.Joshua said …

    @ Ben 67

    The anti-LSEA folks had noble laureates on their side. Since you like authority so much I guess you will change your mind now. Oh that’s right you won’t because you will do whatever mental gymnastics you need to avoid looking at the evidence, and maybe changing you mind. I see in this thread none of you have even mentioned the “criticisms” of “Darwinism”. Heck I have mentioned it more than the anti-evolutionists here.

  76. on 08 Jun 2011 at 4:32 pm 76.Joshua said …

    @ Burebista 69
    “This is not to be rude but I have neither the time or desire to slosh through some bloggers personal, biased and poor research but maybe some of the others did.”

    Funny, you don’t even read the material, still want an opinion, and think that you can say it is not rude when you don’t know what is in it and still describe it as “personal, biased, and poor”. That is what we call willful ignorance. Respected opinions get earned and we will not do your work for you.

  77. on 08 Jun 2011 at 4:38 pm 77.Joshua said …

    @ Ben 72 and all the anti-evolution theists here (so far)

    You still all avoid the only thing that matters, addressing the arguments and evidence.

    Casey Luskin is very biased but I still seriously looked at his piece. The only thing any of you have offered so far is name-calling and comments on the tone. Tone does not matter either. Evolution supporters have been compared to nazis and worse and we still address what matters in a person’s argument.

    Man up and make an argument cowards.

  78. on 08 Jun 2011 at 5:03 pm 78.DPK said …

    Joshua… they won’t because they have none to make. They are too lazy to put any real effort into actually defending their positions and claims, they are too dogmatic to accept any point of view beyond what their religious leaders tell them is correct, and they are too intellectually dishonest to actually debate issues. They’d rather trade insults and barbs because they think it makes them look clever and witty.

    I mean, they come right out and claim something is “personal, biased and poor research” while admitting they haven’t even read it and have no intention of doing so. They want someone else (maybe Ted Haggart?) to condense it into “bullet points” for them. Something easier to dismiss with an “LOL” perhaps?
    How can you reason with that mindset? It’s the definition of irrational.

  79. on 08 Jun 2011 at 5:35 pm 79.Lou said …

    70.Burebista said …

    “Love the word ilk. A fav. of the bloggers.”

    It’s no such thing. You simply invented that in order to post another idiotic comment. And you must abbreviate favorite to “fav.” and include a period? Really?

    Memo to Burebista: “Fav” is slang word that doesn’t require a period.

    You’re such a dimwit.

    P.S. You and your “ilk” apparently love the word “Darwinism” because you incorrectly use it so often. Using it instead of evolution is like using Newtonism instead of physics. Using “Darwinism” only serves to announce your ignorance and association with a group of people who are backwards, Dark Age holdovers.

  80. on 08 Jun 2011 at 8:56 pm 80.Ben said …

    “you need to avoid looking at the evidence, and maybe changing you mind.”

    Please elaborate on this evidence. I see paintings, I think painter. I see the Guggenheim I think architect and when I see the complexity of even a single cell I think creator. Nevertheless, I will consider any evidence you have that would prove otherwise.

    PS: I luv that word “ilk” too Bure.:)sorry I can’t provide bullet points for Josh. I didn’t see anything significant.

    And guys nobody is anti-evolution. You guys are so combative and ridiculous! I would venture to guess everyone believes in evolution up to a point. The issue is we believe there is a God behind the creation of the universe. It is called ID fellas.

  81. on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:03 pm 81.Ben said …

    Lou Post #71

    Noteworthy is not spelled note-worthy!!!
    lol

    Sorry, I had to with such an arrogant combative cuss who likes to correct a slang word that has a period!!

    Get some counseling Louie to deal with your anger. You will end up on a ledge one day.

    You arrogance will always come back to bite you on the fattest part of you rear.

  82. on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:22 pm 82.Lou said …

    81.Ben said …

    “Noteworthy is not spelled note-worthy!!!”

    Really?!

    “Sorry, I had to with such an arrogant combative cuss who likes to correct a slang word that has a period!!”

    As usual, you missed the point. The point wasn’t that you added a period to “fav,” but that as usual you add comments that are illogical tangents to the discussion. But that’s what you do when you have nothing “note-worthy” (still don’t get it?) to add.

  83. on 08 Jun 2011 at 9:43 pm 83.Lou said …

    80.Ben said …

    “I see paintings, I think painter.”

    When I look at the obvious failings of the earth and humanity, I think that nothing so powerful enough to create all of this could be damn dumb.

    80.Ben said …

    “you need to avoid looking at the evidence, and maybe changing you mind.”

    “And guys nobody is anti-evolution.”

    From where do you get these kinds of ridiculous ideas?

    “I would venture to guess everyone believes in evolution up to a point.”

    Your “guess” is irrelevant and incorrect. And if one “believes in evolution up to point,” then one doesn’t believe it. “Up to a point” is simply a cop-out for the inability to admit that the previous rejection of evolution was incorrect.

    “The issue is we believe there is a God behind the creation of the universe. It is called ID fellas.”

    Wrong. The issue is that ID is presented as science that should be taught in the public classroom. ID is NOTHING BUT CREATIONISM disguised. ID rejects natural selection. Natural selection is an important aspect of evolution. If you accept ID, then you reject evolution.

  84. on 09 Jun 2011 at 12:03 am 84.DPK said …

    “I see paintings, I think painter. I see the Guggenheim I think architect and when I see the complexity of even a single cell I think creator. Nevertheless, I will consider any evidence you have that would prove otherwise.”

    You need look no further than your own argument. Take it one more step… when you see a “creator” you think…..?
    What, a cell must have a creator but something supposedly infinitely more complex does not? How does that make any sense? And what would you think of an architect who’s track record was that 99% of the buildings he ever designed collapsed?
    Not much, I suspect.

  85. on 09 Jun 2011 at 1:10 am 85.Horatiio said …

    “I think that nothing so powerful enough to create all of this could be damn dumb.”

    LOL!! What a completely anal statement. OK, find me a man who can create a cell from some primordial soup then get back to us about how “dumb” the Creator is Louis. Just one Louis

    ROTFL, wow! this is one of the most stupid statements I have read here.

    Thanks Lou!

    “ID is NOTHING BUT CREATIONISM disguised.”

    Nope, wrong again. Try again later.

  86. on 09 Jun 2011 at 1:11 am 86.Horatiio said …

    Lou Noteworthy does not have a hyphen. How silly do you like to look?

  87. on 09 Jun 2011 at 2:39 am 87.Lou said …

    86.Horatiio said …

    “Lou Noteworthy does not have a hyphen. How silly do you like to look?”

    Who is Lou Noteworthy and would he have a hyphen?

    Do you ever read all the comments before you reply?

  88. on 09 Jun 2011 at 3:13 am 88.Lou said …

    85.Horatiio said …

    “OK, find me a man who can create a cell from some primordial soup then get back to us about how “dumb” the Creator is Louis.”

    It is irrelevant as whether or not such a man exists. I realize that you have a reading comprehension problem, but my comment was a satirical one that only serves to illustrate that there is no intelligence involved in the creation of nature. If nothing else, you are living “proof” of that.

    “ID is NOTHING BUT CREATIONISM disguised.”

    “Nope, wrong again. Try again later.”

    As usual, your reply has no rational, logical, intelligent content. As for “try again later,” let’s do. Try to reply with an explanation that accompanies your declaration.

  89. on 09 Jun 2011 at 6:02 am 89.Severin said …

    84 Horatio
    “OK, find me a man who can create a cell from some primordial soup then get back to us about how “dumb” the Creator is Louis.”

    No need to find a man!
    Didn’t you say it was a god?

    Now, finally, tell us where this god comes from!
    Do NOT avoid answering us, otherwise we will really have very bad opinion about you, as about someone telling bullshits like this:

    Nothing can exist without creator.
    Creator has no creator.
    (Creator is nothing.)

    Solve that, then come to us with your solution.

  90. on 09 Jun 2011 at 3:37 pm 90.DPK said …

    LOL
    Horatiio has once again made assertions without any argument or reason to back them up. Hor, why should anyone believe anything you say?
    LOL
    You never answer any questions or arguments except with unqualified and unsubstantiated assertions.
    LOL
    You are tiresome and dull.
    LOL
    You are intellectually dishonest.
    LOL
    You are clearly a dimwit.
    LOL
    Now answer the question. If everything complex requires a creator, then who created your god?
    LOL
    What’s your answer? If a god can exist without a creator, why do you claim that it is impossible for a cell to do so? Is your position that a cell is more complex than your god?
    LOL

  91. on 09 Jun 2011 at 7:37 pm 91.Burebista said …

    “If everything complex requires a creator, then who created your god?”

    Is this a breakthrough? Are we now admitting that creation must have a creator? Since they moved to God now and off subject of creation I now assume they admit the obvious?

  92. on 09 Jun 2011 at 7:44 pm 92.Joshua said …

    @ Jeff 9

    “In the 70s I was in elementary and Jr High school I was taught evolution as fact. All points were presented as act. I was amazed years later when I realized just how little of evolution was actually verified fact. This was a number of years after college when I started studying on my own. I felt lied to.”

    Evolution is a fact and a theory. It is a fact in the sense that we do see evolution today. Bacteria acquiring resistance, populations separating into new groups that change over generations (seen in fish, plants, birds, reptiles) that can even lead to new species (if they can’t breed with mother populations anymore). It is a fact that science has observed these things.

    The theory is where the evidence from DNA and fossils comes in. We take the observations made about life and changes in populations today and look at the life that no longer exists with that in mind. What we discover is that the best explanation for the variation among life we see today is explained by the changes in populations that we see in our lifetimes, stretched over long periods of time. Verified fact to me means that there is real data that was really observed that these explanations were based on. Real fossils and DNA evidence that I never hear objectors point to. You will have to explain what you mean by fact so I can understand why you feel “lied to.”

    “The problem is this matter has become politicized. Its not about evidence, facts and data. It is now about guarding ones POV at all cost. You see how true this is by some of the post above yours.”

    The ones politicizing this are the creationists and ID supporters. I would love to talk data and argue about why the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life. So would a lot of the other non-theists here. But Creationists and ID supporters are the ones who have to have their POV guarded at all costs. Seriously, look over the most recent posts. I have no problem having my POV challenged and I want to discuss the evidence. But I have yet to have a discussion that does not resemble a tennis match where after I hit the ball it never comes back. All I see is an objection to evolution, I explain why I think it is wrong, and I hear nothing in return but assertions. Lots of “whats” with no “whys”.

  93. on 09 Jun 2011 at 7:50 pm 93.Joshua said …

    @ David 10
    This is the most important part of my response to this comment. The rest of it is because a 16 hour drive is boring and I wanted to read something and dissect it. I’ll point out when I get to the less important part.

    Evolution supporters do not attribute “God-like qualities to natural selection”. Rather science discovered that novel functions (if that is what you mean by information) arise through natural selection all the time. A mindless process can indeed “create” and human ideas about “Gods” imitate what nature has been doing for billions of years. There are indeed biological properties coming into existence that did not exist previously. The ability of bacteria to digest nylon is one example. Nylon did not exist until the 1930’s. The biological machinery did not exist until after humans invented nylon.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

    This is for all intents and purposes a creation of new properties by a mindless process. Creation does not imply a creator, rather the definition of creation must change to include novel forms and functions arising from natural processes bound by the laws of physics and chemistry, if one wants to use the word “creation” in relation to biology. I prefer to use the word biological evolution.

    The most important thing that I will say is right here David. Most of your links do not have to do with evolution itself, just the potential dishonesty of the guy who put together the basis for the study of evolution.

    Even if Darwin were a violent pedophile who ran around town kicking kittens the whole way would not mean the theory of evolution is wrong. If Hitler said that the earth orbited the sun, the fact that he was a bad guy does not make heliocentric theory wrong.

    Your first two links in #10 are nothing but a distraction from important issues. I will discuss your third link first because it is the most important. If you do not respond to the comments about your first two links I will not care because they were just for fun.

    “Teaching Evolution – Is There a Better Way?” asks the author. Does Mr. Taylor have a point?

    The first point makes the argument that public school textbooks do a good job at describing “the facts” (undefined by Taylor) but argues that the problem is that the interpretation of those facts is only presented by one perspective, the evolutionary perspective.

    This is utter bullshit. Those textbooks present facts, phenomena, and explanations of those phenomena that we call theories, including the theory of evolution. The heliocentric theory is based on an interpretation of facts, the theories on the structure of the atom is based on interpretation of facts, the germ theory of disease is based on interpretations of facts. Taylor is singling out the theory of evolution.

    The reason that all the theories I mentioned are included in public school textbooks are because these theories have achieved the support of scientific consensus. If Taylor wants his “perspective” to be included than his side needs to grow a spine, fund some research, and convince the rest of the scientific community. There is no legitimate replacement for the theory of evolution which is why the interpretation of “the facts” uses it.

    The second point tries to argue that the fossil evidence for the theory of evolution involves circular reasoning.

    This is more utter bullshit. The geologic column that describes the advance of life from simple to more complex forms exists independent of the dating. Everywhere you look in the world it is the same. We could have no idea of the dates and we would still say that tetrapods split off of the ancestors of fish, amphibians and reptiles split after tetrapods, and mammals and reptiles split after that. IT IS THE ORDER THAT IS THE EVIDENCE. Index fossils are a quick and dirty way to figure out where you are in the geologic column in the field, but no paper uses them after they get to the lab.

    Historically it was assumed that life was created complex, not the other way around because most of those scientists were creationists. When science came on the scene the evidence forced scientists to change their views. They observed the geologic column all around the world and then came to the conclusion that life went from simple to complex. They did not assume it Taylor. You don’t cite where the “…fossil evidence seemed to confirm this, but more often than not the fish, the amphibian, reptile etc were out of order or missing.”, I smell more dishonesty. PROVE IT.

    “Usually, there is a diagram with illustrations of sea-bed life forms at the bottom then in rising order: fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and man at the top. Textbooks may intend this hypothetical diagram, the geologic column, simply to indicate the life forms typical of each era of earth’s history but the reader would naturally perceive this to be the evidence that those life forms did indeed develop in this order.”

    More bullshit. These diagrams show where the ancestors of the organisms that modern creatures split off from each other. Mammals, fish, reptiles, all are at the top, the splits are the common ancestors.

    The rocks are dated by the radiometric methods only. The fossils are dated by the ages of rocks contained in the same strata, not the dating of the fossils. Fossils are never dated radiometrically!

    The Third point tries to make the concept of homology look like circular reasoning because 1. The definition of homology depends on the similarity of appearance due to common ancestors (Taylor’s definition), and 2. common ancestry is proved due to the similarity.

    More bullshit of course. This is not circular reasoning because this is what is actually observed in nature. We see organisms like raccoons, bears, and dogs have much more similarity in both bones and DNA than between bears, cows, and stickbugs. Homology is a CONSEQUENCE of evolution. Like it or not life fits into neat nested hierarchies in both form and DNA, both today and in the fossil record. Circular reasoning does not apply when it is what you see in REALITY.

    No intermediate forms? Care to explain the nice set of fossils that show the nostrils migrating to a blowhole in whales? Or the story of Tiktaalik? There is your “fin to leg”. Which scientists don’t accept Archaeopteryx and why? How about you mention that all the controversy with hominid fossils is entirely about how they fit into a tree, not if. The real scientific controversy today is always about how evolution occurred, not if. Try asking some scientists what they really think before you try to describe their views.

    The fourth point attacks vestigial organs as evidence for evolution in a similar manner as homology is attacked. They try to make it look like a tautology but this is utter crap again because there is no “…assumption that whales and snakes evolved from four-legged ancestors…”, this is a conclusion based on observations.

    The explanation that whales and snakes evolved from four-legged ancestors was tested by looking at the fit of new fossils into the nested hierarchies (previously discovered hierarchies) that I mentioned earlier. These fits are based on large numbers of features and not just a few. Inconsistencies are evidence against the explanation and none are found among very different organisms like pre-mammals and pre-reptiles.

    All the debate and inconsistencies that exist are in areas where they are still figuring out the proper relationship and these are always very closely related organisms whose features are very similar. Snakes are a great example of why Taylor is full of shit. There are two competing explanations for where they came from. One group claims that the most primitive ancestors of snakes split from the varanid lizard group (monitor type lizards);
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake#Origins

    Another group believes that snakes are more closely related to mosasaurs. Despite the argument the papers that the Wikipedia page cites indicates that scientists do not assume that snakes had four-legged ancestors, all the organisms that are most similar to the most ancient ancestors of snakes had four legs.

    An easy general rule is that whenever a creationist/ID supporter says evolution supporters “assume” something, the reality of the situation is that they have not bothered to look up the data that exists behind what they believe is an assumption. Again, it would be nice if folks like Taylor actually described what scientists really believe rather than make shit up.

    Another good point in this section is that these guys are constantly referring to really old scientific problems as if they are a problem for scientists today.
    “In the nineteenth century it was claimed that human beings had 180 vestigial organs but these have quietly disappeared as medical knowledged has advanced.”
    Yes, they disappeared because science was done and they were reclassified by scientists, the same ones you are criticizing now. How about you cite what scientists think today? How about some late 20th and early 21st century work that is actually relevant to what today’s scientists think about vestigial parts?

    The fifth point tries to discredit Kettlewell’s peppered moths. Taylor argues that while the shift from light to dark to light forms in the population was real, but we can’t trust Kettlewell because we don’t know the mechanism of the shift. Are you fucking kidding me? Evolution IS changes in the proportion of traits in a population over time. Whatever the cause, the proportions of forms DID change so evolution DID occur. Even if it was not because of birds, evolution still occurred. What. The. Fuck? Taylor does not even know what evolution is!

    I have read that the criticisms of Kettlewell’s work were bullshit as well but I will leave that for another time because that does not matter to my point.

    The sixth point tries to discredit evolution on a couple of points. First claiming that the observations of Darwin’s finches were the source of the inspiration for natural selection, and that since these are still finches and can cross breed they are not valid evidence. Second Darwin overstated natural selection as the biggest part of evolution.

    More bullshit because Taylor leaves out information. Darwin based his theory on the finches, and other observations like fossils in the cliffs of Dover, and modern animals and fossils in South America. There was more to Darwin’s work than the finches and Taylor is dishonest by limiting the discussion to that. Also modern scientists know Darwin overstated natural selection. That is only one way that evolution occurs.

    Do your homework Taylor and look up genetic drift, neutral selection, and other mechanisms of change in the proportion of traits in populations. Once again Taylor ignores the fact that a change in the proportion of traits in a population IS evolution. So even if the finches can still cross, the populations have still changed, and evolution has still occurred.

    The seventh point…Haeckel’s embryos? Really? That has been responded to so many times that I am convinced that David has never read a response to criticisms of evolution before and is posting stuff without really having an understanding of it. Why would you do this? If you want to know if there is anything to evolution , ask an evolutionary biologist. Should I ask an abused choirboy about Catholicism? Seriously, this is ancient shit. Look it up yourself.

    The eighth point is the proposal, but with the crap I just read I have no interest in his proposal. Taylor has no idea what he is talking about and David has been deceived at best.

  94. on 09 Jun 2011 at 8:07 pm 94.Joshua said …

    @ Ben 79

    “Please elaborate on this evidence. I see paintings, I think painter. I see the Guggenheim I think architect and when I see the complexity of even a single cell I think creator. Nevertheless, I will consider any evidence you have that would prove otherwise.”

    Says the guy who looked at two posts worth of specific commentary with citations and focuses on my summary of “their argument sucks” and claims I made no points. You need to develop a track record of actually responding to a person’s points and demonstrating that you really considered their words. I may consider it though. Give me something specific like the earlier misguided request to “show the first seed” and I might try to put something together.

    Also the reason you “paintings, I think painter” and “the Guggenheim I think architect” is because you have a life time of experience seeing humans make things like paintings and buildings. So when have you seen a designer design life? Or a universe? I don’t have a good reason to believe that your assessment of cell complexity means anything because you have never seen anyone design a cell, deity or otherwise.

    “nobody is anti-evolution”

    I googled “I am anti-evolution”. You are wrong so the following parts of your paragraph can be discarded.

  95. on 09 Jun 2011 at 8:10 pm 95.Joshua said …

    @ Ben 80

    I agree with some of what you say here.

    I usually think that pointing to problems in spelling and grammar takes away from the point of the discussion unless it is so bad that we can not figure out what someone is saying.

    If I can understand the general point I ignore grammar problems and address the argument.

    That is not to say that we should not strive to make our words as understandable as possible, and correct whenever we can.

  96. on 09 Jun 2011 at 8:14 pm 96.Joshua said …

    @ Horatiio 84
    Typical creationist ploy.

    Instead of challenging or addressing current evidence for evolution, he points to something that science has not yet done (even if the technology does not exist yet) as if it is evidence against something science has already done.

    This is like saying that since no one has yet gone to Pluto a single seat vessel, no one has ever been to the moon.

  97. on 09 Jun 2011 at 8:18 pm 97.Joshua said …

    @ Horatiio 90
    No they are temporarily accepting another person’s premise (only hypothetically) in order have a discussion about something that depends on the premise. It is a common tactic in philosophical arguments.

    Just like your attempt to point to their tactic is a common piece of creationist rhetoric that only serves to demonstrate how little you know about how to have honest discussions.

  98. on 09 Jun 2011 at 8:20 pm 98.DPK said …

    90.Burebista said …
    “If everything complex requires a creator, then who created your god?”
    Is this a breakthrough? Are we now admitting that creation must have a creator? Since they moved to God now and off subject of creation I now assume they admit the obvious?”

    Your silliness and aversion to actual discussion is boorish and tiresome. The question was asked in challenge to Horatiio’s unsubstantiated claim that the complexity of even a simple cell was “proof” of a creator, and you know that full well. So what do you do in your typically sophomoric fashion? You avoid actually presenting an argument by pretending that someone has conceded a point when even a 2nd grader would recognize nothing of the sort happened.
    You are pathetic, and your 3rd grade debating skills make you look even sillier than you probably really are. In the words of one of our now departed brethren, why don’t you “grow a pair” and try actually making a point by presenting an argument rather than play your silly word games?
    Fraud.

  99. on 09 Jun 2011 at 9:02 pm 99.Severin said …

    90 Burebista
    “Is this a breakthrough?“

    It is not.
    It is just a simple question you are unable to answer, although YOU started the progression with your claim that
    EVERYTHING NEEDS A CRATOR.

    „Everything“ includes creator, unless creator is nothing.

    So, please elaborate:
    Is your creator NOTHING, so he/she/it does not need a creator ?
    If your creator is not nothing, but something (among „everything“), he/she/it MUST have been crated, as YOU claimed (evrything needs a creator!), then who/what created him/her/it?

    Extremely simple!
    Why don’t you just ANSWER?

  100. on 09 Jun 2011 at 9:11 pm 100.Severin said …

    90 Burebista
    “Since they moved to God now and off subject of creation I now assume they admit the obvious?”

    The only obvious conclusion is that god is nothing (empty set), because everything is subject of cration, and god, according to you, was not created.

    YOU have just made a breakthrough!

    You are the first one who LOGICALLY proved unexistance of god!

    Congratulations!

  101. on 09 Jun 2011 at 10:32 pm 101.Ben said …

    “Says the guy who looked at two posts worth of specific commentary with citations and focuses on my summary of “their argument sucks” and claims I made no points.”

    Joshua I am willing to read some solid bullet points. You put them out here and keep it pithy I promise to read and respond. I am old, busy and this is a time of release for me. You do not yet have the credibility for me to spend a lot of time sloshing through you long posts. #92 is ridiculously long and I doubt David is here any longer. I do like to learn so lay the evidence out here and lets break it down.

    One more point for you J. When I claimed nobody is anti-evolution I was referring to those on the blog. You like to major on the minor. Now, one step further, find me anyone who does not accept microevolution. I have yet to see one.

    Frankly Post #79 still stands short, pithy and unchallenged.

  102. on 09 Jun 2011 at 10:38 pm 102.Lou said …

    90.Burebista said …

    “If everything complex requires a creator, then who created your god?”

    “Is this a breakthrough? Are we now admitting that creation must have a creator?”

    No, dummy. A question is not admission.

    “Since they moved to God now and off subject of creation I now assume they admit the obvious?”

    You can assume whatever you desire. It doesn’t make it true, just as your belief in a god doesn’t. Stop assuming and try learning.

  103. on 10 Jun 2011 at 12:21 am 103.Hell Yeah said …

    90.Burebista said …
    “If everything complex requires a creator, then who created your god?”
    Is this a breakthrough? Are we now admitting that creation must have a creator? Since they moved to God now and off subject of creation I now assume they admit the obvious?”

    I have been asking this question on here for a long time now. Theists seem to want to avoid this one because they can’t really answer it without flaws. I think one a long time ago mentioned that God has always existed. And then I came back with matter and energy could have always existed in some form, too, so why not just cut out the middleman, which is the fairy tale god. Also, wouldn’t the realm that this god lives in need to have been created before it could live in it?

  104. on 10 Jun 2011 at 1:35 am 104.DPK said …

    100.Ben said …
    “Joshua I am willing to read some solid bullet points. You put them out here and keep it pithy I promise to read and respond. I am old, busy and this is a time of release for me.”

    What a cop out.
    Joshua presented a well thought and compelling position. If you are too lazy to take 10 minutes to read it (I mean, it’s not ‘War and Peace’ for cryin’ out loud, then you have no right to comment here. No one is interested in providing you the Reader’s Digest version. If you can’t keep up with the discussion intellectually, just say so and be quiet. You are beaten… soundly.
    You never respond with anything in the way of rational arguments outside of unfounded assertions and dogmatic claims. You are a phony.

  105. on 10 Jun 2011 at 2:04 am 105.Hell Yeah said …

    Besides the question “If everything complex requires a creator, then who created your god?”, another great topic theists like to dodge is the one about what does an afterlife have to do with the idea that since we are complex that we must have been created by ID? The belief in an afterlife is the biggest reason why religions exist in the first place, but how does that relate to the thought that we had to be created? Let’s just say for instance a god did create us. Why couldn’t everyone just turn to nothing when they die then? Would you still worship a god if that was the case?

  106. on 10 Jun 2011 at 2:21 am 106.DPK said …

    “Why couldn’t everyone just turn to nothing when they die then? Would you still worship a god if that was the case?”

    Everyone DOES just turn to nothing when they die. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that consciousness can survive the death of the brain. I did just recently see a television program that explored the idea of ‘quantum consciousness’ which was interesting, but hardly conclusive and by no means accepted as mainstream… but who knows? Quantum mechanics is indeed baffling, and if some level of our basic consciousness functions on the quantum level, and at the quantum level everything in the universe is “connected” … well, that is interesting to think about, but a long way from heavenly choirs of angels and burning fire pits of eternal torment.

    I think one of the main reasons for the development of religions was indeed the fear of death and to help alleviate grief. I think it also served as a tool of the powerful to get the not so powerful to fight their wars for them.
    And no, I do not think many people would worship any gods if there was no promise of eternal life and reward at the end.

  107. on 10 Jun 2011 at 2:42 am 107.Scott said …

    “Joshua presented a well thought and compelling position.”

    What thread would that be on? You certainly can’t mean the posts above?

    Yes, God has always existed. He is not a substance of matter and/or energy. We know matter and energy cannot and do not exist forever. Since God is not of those substances, his infinite existence is much more feasible.

  108. on 10 Jun 2011 at 2:59 am 108.DPK said …

    “We know matter and energy cannot and do not exist forever. Since God is not of those substances, his infinite existence is much more feasible.”

    Yet another assertion with no evidence and no compelling argument.
    Rejected for what it is, a wholly fabricated and unsubstantiated claim.

    Please show us your evidence to support your claim that matter and energy cannot and do not exist forever. What is this based on?

    The claim has been made that an object’s complexity is evidence that it was designed by an intelligence. Are you now claiming that there is something other than matter and energy that this rule does not apply to? What are you basing that on? Because you said so? Show us some evidence to back your assertion.

  109. on 10 Jun 2011 at 4:32 am 109.Severin said …

    106 Scott
    “Yes, God has always existed. He is not a substance of matter and/or energy.”

    So, you too claim god is … nothing?!

    “We know matter and energy cannot and do not exist forever.”
    You KNOW it?
    By intuition?
    Someone told you?
    Have some evidences? Some arguments? Some explanations, at least?
    How do you imagine NOTHNG creating SOMETHING?
    What if matter/energy once was nothing, then decided to create itself?
    What if matter/energy = god?
    I do not think so, just training logic!

    I don’t know it. My intuition tells me that matter/energy ARE eternal.
    I admit I have no evidences.
    I only SEE (observe, feel, measure) matter/energy all around. I positively know this universe is some 13.5 billion years old, and was told by eminent physicists that it did NOT come from “nothing”, but from matter/energy that already existed and was concentrated in something like a huge black hole.
    It looks like pretty “eternal”.

    I can not see (observe, feel, measure) gods.
    Please elaborate your claim, otherwise it will stay here (for eternity) that you told us god was NOTHING.

  110. on 10 Jun 2011 at 5:23 am 110.Severin said …

    106 Scott
    “Since God is not of those substances, his infinite existence is much more feasible.”

    If you say god is not made of any substance, matter, or energy, then god must be nothing else but NOTHING.
    Eternal existance of nothing is so logical and obvious! It is TOTALLY feasible!
    There must be infinite number of “nothings” around us! God included!

    What a brilliant logic!
    Why am I not so clever?
    I am jealous! Eating my fingers!

  111. on 10 Jun 2011 at 5:40 am 111.Severin said …

    100 Ben
    “Now, one step further, find me anyone who does not accept microevolution. I have yet to see one.”

    Please, have a pleasure to see one!
    If you claim species could not have developed from each other, then I do not accept your explanation of microevolution. It is contrary to evolution.
    All existing species, starting from simplest microorganism, to humans, have common ancestors.
    Period.

    http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm :

    “There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists.

    Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.”

    Are you a biologist with scientific arguments to fight this?
    Or you just babble bullshits?

  112. on 10 Jun 2011 at 6:04 am 112.Severin said …

    100 Ben at al

    Please see also:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

  113. on 10 Jun 2011 at 6:05 am 113.Severin said …

    Then you can see

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#what
    (“In making these claims they /creationists/ are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is.”

    See also:
    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=1934&cpage=1#comment-29091

    Learn!

  114. on 10 Jun 2011 at 6:07 am 114.Severin said …

    Sorry!

    NOT http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=1934&cpage=1#comment-29091, but:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

    Although, you can learn from me too!

  115. on 10 Jun 2011 at 11:11 am 115.Drake said …

    @ #106 Scott

    Everything with the exception of mathematics has to have a finite point. No physical thing can exist forever and must have a point of creation. With that logic, it’s clear that the universe must have been created by something. It couldn’t have created itself because that would immediately disprove all known physics. Such as the law of inertia when the big bang occurred. If we were even going to accept the fact that the big bang singularity came into existence from nothing, then you would also have to assume that it was brought into motion by nothing. Inertia states that no physical object can move unless acted upon by some outside force.

    If this singularity suddenly exploded one random day it had to by some outside means. And that outside means couldn’t have been anything physical because this singularity would of had to had all known matter within it. So God had to create it and set it into motion. And as for God existing forever. God is not a physical being, He is a presence, to put it in simple terms. Like thought without the physical brain. I found God in science due to the sheer impossibility of “chance”. But that’s just me, enjoy!

  116. on 10 Jun 2011 at 12:54 pm 116.Severin said …

    114 Drake
    “Everything with the exception of mathematics has to have a finite point. No physical thing can exist forever and must have a point of creation.“

    Said who?
    This is not a „logic“ this is a claim, based on someone’s opinion.
    My claim, that perfectlu fits reality, is that matter/energy IS eternal; it always existed and will always exist, it only continouosly changes its form following natural laws “built in” itself.
    My claim is based on the fact that I can see, touch, feel, observe, measure…matter energy, but can not see, touch, feel, observe, mesure…gods.

    „It couldn’t have created itself because that would immediately disprove all known physics.“
    Elaborate!
    HOW would it disprove all known physics?
    Modern physics found a particle CAN be on 2 different places simultanously!
    Modern physics claims that matter/energy egists and EXISTED before the BB. Our universe did NOT explode from nothing, but from matter/energy that already existed in a different form, within the singularity, like in a black hole. Are black holes “nothing”? Is there matter/energy in black holes?

    „If we were even going to accept the fact that the big bang singularity came into existence from nothing, then you would also have to assume that it was brought into motion by nothing.“
    I don’t think universe came to existence from nothing. It already existed in another form. It changes all the time! We see it every second!
    However, what is wrong with the claim that universe come to existence from nothing?
    WHY, the hell, universe can not come to existence from nothing, and some god can?
    Or, maybe god did not come to existence at all?
    Then matter/energy also did not come to existence. It EXISTED (like god). What is wrong with this logic?
    WHY god does not need a trigger to come to existance, and matter/energy does?
    Because god is, in fact NOTHING?

    „Inertia states that no physical object can move unless acted upon by some outside force.“
    Dear Drake, don’t you know better? Newton’s physics is invalid today! It is not applicable to universe known today, except within extremely narrow limits (even then with corrections!).
    Are forces keeping an atom together „outside“ or „inside“ forces?

    „God is not a physical being, He is a presence, to put it in simple terms.“
    Put in simple terms, all of you theists claim god is, in fact, NOTHING. You are telling us that fact using some special vocabulary, but THAT IS what you claim!
    I agree.

    Are you a Christian?
    How does YOUR theory fit Christianity?
    Bible? Genesis?

  117. on 10 Jun 2011 at 1:12 pm 117.Severin said …

    114 Drake
    “Such as the law of inertia when the big bang occurred.”

    Newton knew nothing about entropy when he wrote his laws!
    I don’t want to reduce Newton’s ingeniousness, but his physics does not cover the real world.

    For beginning, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_(physics), especially “Examples of common misunderstandings”.

    Then read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

    You will see that force of reaction is never equal to force of action!

  118. on 10 Jun 2011 at 1:31 pm 118.Severin said …

    114 Drake,
    “I found God in science due to the sheer impossibility of “chance”.“

    ALL you theists confuse „chance“ with certainty of natural laws!
    I do not know why, but you DO.

    WHAT is impossible?

    Put Na and Cl together, and they will rect to form NaCL with NO EXCEPTION.
    Put water in a glass, at any place in your home, and it will evaporate, with NO EXCEPTION. You may pray your god to keep your water in the glass, but IT WILL EVAPORATE.
    If you put it in a freezer, it will freeze, no matter how much you pray god to stop freezing.
    There is NO QUESTION whether those events will, or will not occur! They WILL occur, and precisely according to laws of chemistry and thermodynamics.
    NOTHING depends on chance! Natural laws are inherent to matter/energy and they WORK without any exception.
    Yes it DOES depend on chance whether you will or will not put some water in a glass.
    But if you don’t, water will freeze or evaporate, or do anything else that STRICTLY fits laws of chemistry and physics, wherever it is, in a glass or elsewhere!

    So, Drake, WHAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, please?

  119. on 10 Jun 2011 at 2:19 pm 119.Lou said …

    This entire discussion will be rendered moot when we all are dead. It simply won’t matter. Eventually, all of humanity will cease to exist. Then there won’t be any humans to ponder the origin of the universe.

    The unfortunate and sad part about it is that there is a group of people who are so obsessed with the santa-god fantasy that they simply can’t keep their hands to themselves. Because their belief is so insecure, yet paradoxically fanatical, they feel they must force it upon and control those who don’t share in their fantasy. If they could only enjoy their delusion in a cave somewhere, then our short lives would be infinitely more enjoyable. But then again, in the end, it really doesn’t matter.

  120. on 10 Jun 2011 at 3:13 pm 120.DPK said …

    106.Scott said …

    “Joshua presented a well thought and compelling position.”

    What thread would that be on? You certainly can’t mean the posts above?

    Yes, posts 91-96.
    Are you going to challenge any of it with any actual argument or evidence? Is that your idea of a debate?
    If you are going to take issue with any of Joshua’s well thought and compelling position, well, we’re waiting to hear it. Or are you just another complete fraud?

  121. on 10 Jun 2011 at 3:41 pm 121.Lou said …

    107.Scott said …

    “Joshua presented a well thought and compelling position.”

    “What thread would that be on? You certainly can’t mean the posts above?”

    Do you mean as opposed to your “well thought and compelling position[s]?”

    Lets’ start here:

    “Yes, God has always existed. He is not a substance of matter and/or energy.”

    “We know matter and energy cannot and do not exist forever. Since God is not of those substances, his infinite existence is much more feasible.”

    We read your positions. Now please add the “well thought” and “compelling” parts.

    Just in case – don’t use scripture. It’s neither “well thought” nor “compelling.”

  122. on 10 Jun 2011 at 7:09 pm 122.Ben said …

    “Everything with the exception of mathematics has to have a finite point. No physical thing can exist forever and must have a point of creation.”

    Exactly Drake and the majority of scientist believe this point to be true.I will go back to an earlier post of mine that has yet to be challenged. They all have a finite beginning and they all will break down, not into the more complex, but into dust.

    I see a painting I know there is a painter
    I see a building I know there was a builder
    I see creation I know there is a creator.

    It is so simple and logical.

  123. on 10 Jun 2011 at 8:32 pm 123.Lou said …

    122.Ben said …

    “I see a painting I know there is a painter
    I see a building I know there was a builder
    I see creation I know there is a creator.”

    Rather than repeating your idiotic, meaningless mantra, try to rationally respond to #84 DPK (Take it one more step… when you see a “creator” you think…..?) and #94 Joshua.

    You are no different than the ancients who attributed everything they didn’t understand in nature to Greek, Roman, and other imaginary gods. You’re just as backwards thinking as they were. But at least they had an excuse, you don’t – unless you also want to claim ignorance.

  124. on 10 Jun 2011 at 8:34 pm 124.Lou said …

    122.Ben said …

    “It is so simple and logical.”

    Yes, to a simpleton.

  125. on 10 Jun 2011 at 8:43 pm 125.Severin said …

    121 Ben
    ““Everything with the exception of mathematics has to have a finite point. No physical thing can exist forever and must have a point of creation.”

    “Exactly Drake and the majority of scientist believe this point to be true.”

    Ben, Horatio, Xenon, Drake, Burebista…majority of science!?

    Can you kindly add some NAME to this short and gloomy list?

  126. on 10 Jun 2011 at 8:55 pm 126.Severin said …

    121 Ben
    “I see creation I know there is a creator.”

    How do you know you are looking at creation?
    How do you recognize a creation?
    What specific attributes has a creation?

    I mean, when you see something, you must be SURE it is a creation, to start thinking a creator.

    How are you sure?

  127. on 10 Jun 2011 at 9:04 pm 127.DPK said …

    There you guys go again making assertions without evidence or logic.
    One of the principals of physics and chemistry is that matter and energy is never created nor destroyed. Where do you suppose all the matter and energy in the universe is going to go?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
    Even when matter and energy “disappear” into a black hole, it is still there. Yes, as the universe expands it will grow dark and cold, but all the matter and energy that is in it now will still be there…. so your claim that “no physical thing can exist forever” is hogwash.
    Now your claim that “every physical thing must have a point of creation”… this is based on your knowledge of what existed before the big bang??? Just like you do with your gods, you are making a claim to know things that are unknowable.

  128. on 10 Jun 2011 at 11:38 pm 128.Horatiio said …

    “Just like you do with your gods, you are making a claim to know things that are unknowable.”

    LOL, this is so ironic. From they guys who claim there is no God. Save it. This is where you back down and claim “there is no evidence of a God”

    Ben and Drake provide proof of God but you refuse to address the argument.

    3 follows 4
    creation & design result from a creator. Its called interpreting the evidence and it is a logical conclusion unless you can provide something more logical?

    Why can’t you guys provide something more than insults?

    Can any of you provide any reasonable theory? Give it a try.

  129. on 11 Jun 2011 at 3:58 am 129.DPK said …

    “Ben and Drake provide proof of God but you refuse to address the argument.
    3 follows 4
    creation & design result from a creator. Its called interpreting the evidence and it is a logical conclusion unless you can provide something more logical?”

    I reviewed Ben and Drakes post and found nothing even close to a “proof for god”. All I found was an unfounded assertion that there “must be” a god because they cannot think of any other explanation for creation. It is based on the assumption that “everything” must be created because “nothing” can be infinite. Then they assume that “god” does not need a creator and is infinite. A violation of their own argument.

    So, I ask you again, for the hundredth time, if creation MUST be the result of a creator, WHO created the creator? Can you provide a reasonable theory that does not contradict your own assertions? Give it a try.

    Let me reiterate also…. I do not KNOW what the state of the universe was prior to the event we call the big bang…. neither do YOU. I do not KNOW if our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes, or part of an infinite succession of universes… and neither do YOU. Don’t pretend that your made up stories of magical beings has ANY validity any more so than the god of the volcano was a valid theory of why the volcano would erupt from time to time. Just because you don’t fully understand something, doesn’t give you license to make up some wild, crazy ass explanation and claim it is a logical conclusion. It is anything but.

  130. on 11 Jun 2011 at 6:37 am 130.Severin said …

    127 Horatio
    “creation & design result from a creator. Its called interpreting the evidence …”

    It is called a bullshit assertion.
    No traces of evidence, arguments, logical support…only your words.

    Endless repeating of an assertion does not make the assertion true.

  131. on 11 Jun 2011 at 10:47 am 131.Rostam said …

    ‘It is based on the assumption that “everything” must be created because “nothing” can be infinite.”

    We do not assume anything is infinite because we do not see any proof that the universe is or can be infinite. We also do not observe information/design in life without an intelligence/designer providing it.

    Actually the logic of their argument is very good. You seem to ignore this point.

    A deity would not be confined to these truths.

  132. on 11 Jun 2011 at 11:45 am 132.Lou said …

    127.Horatiio said …

    “3 follows 4
    creation & design result from a creator.”

    Except that you have a major flaw in your so-called logic – there’s no design.

    “Its called interpreting the evidence and it is a logical conclusion unless you can provide something more logical?”

    First of all, “something more logical” has been shown. But let’s assume it hasn’t. You operate exactly like the ignorant ancients. Obviously the sun orbits the earth, and the earth is the center of the universe. The stars and planets are exist in celestial spheres. Until “something more logical” was shown, it was true. Even today a child can understand that’s not true. When are you going to stop thinking like an ignorant ancient?

    “Why can’t you guys provide something more than insults?”

    Your nothing but a liar. Much more than insults has been posted here. But insults are the only thing you understand, dimwit.

  133. on 11 Jun 2011 at 4:09 pm 133.Biff said …

    “Actually the logic of their argument is very good. You seem to ignore this point.”

    Of course it is because nothing else can be offered that fits the evidence better. This is why the vast majority of the people believe in a creator although the dogma may differ. Even a huge number of scientist.

    Now the reason the opponents resort to insults is from frustration. They desperately would like to claim there is no God but they cannot shake the obvious. See Lou above. An obviously frustrated little man with nothing to offer other than “not its not” and a few cheap shots. I feel for guys like Lou who live in such a bitter state.

  134. on 11 Jun 2011 at 4:29 pm 134.DPK said …

    “We do not assume anything is infinite because we do not see any proof that the universe is or can be infinite. ”
    This is simply not true. Do we see the net of matter and energy in the universe disappearing? No. We know that matter and energy cannot be destroyed, on transfered. So why do you assert that matter and energy are not infinite?

    You seem to agree that the universe as we know it came into existence at the moment of the big bang. If this is true, then there must have been a time before the big bang. Just the same as if you assume the universe is finite, there must then, by definition, be something beyond the end of the universe. So how do you conclude from that that matter and energy are finite and will someday just cease to exist? You argument is seriously flawed because it is based on assumptions that cannot be demonstrated, and indeed would seem to defy the 1st law of thermodynamics.

    You still have not answered your own paradox… if something complex is evidence of a creator, how did the creator come to be without another creator? Will you concede that to accept your assertion, you must accept that at some point, something very complex either existed or came into existence, without an intelligence to design it? Yes, or no?
    D

  135. on 11 Jun 2011 at 4:32 pm 135.Hell Yeah said …

    “They all have a finite beginning and they all will break down, not into the more complex, but into dust.”

    Isn’t dust still part of matter/energy? Matter and energy could have always existed in some form. Before the big bang it could have been in a different form, which was compressed into a form before the big bang.

    —————–

    “This is why the vast majority of the people believe in a creator…”

    Actually, the reason the majority believe is because of the fear of death where they wiil become nothing and also with the hardships mankind faces while alive. Do other animals ponder an afterlife? NO. They accept that when they die they turn to nothing. If humans didn’t believe in an afterlife or get an afterlife like they think they would, but a god did exist (let’s just say this is true to prove my point, even though it isn’t), then there would be no reason to worship a god, whatever it may be. Why do theists think there is an afterlife? Because they can’t accept the fact they turn to nothing.

  136. on 11 Jun 2011 at 4:42 pm 136.DPK said …

    “Because they can’t accept the fact they turn to nothing.”

    Just to make a point, we don’t, in fact, “turn to nothing” all the atoms in our bodies, formed in the cores of exploding stars, still continue to exist. They will be recycled again and again. Just the chemical electrical processes that make up what we call “consciousness” cease. Nothing to fear, you have been non existent for at least 14 billion years before now, it wasn’t uncomfortable then, it will be no different next time.

  137. on 11 Jun 2011 at 5:55 pm 137.MrQ said …

    The Biffy(TM):

    This is why the vast majority of the people believe in a creator although the dogma may differ. Even a huge number of scientist.

    Does that mean the vast majority of the people are correct? Numbers make something right? Or do numbers make you feel the comfort of mass conformity?

    Since you mention it, the belief in a god that a scientist may hold is quite different than your simple minded belief. Look up Francis Collins, as the great guru Horatio/Horatiio always asks. He is supposedly a xtian who sees no conflict between the Theory of Evolution and his belief in a xtian god. He even goes so far as to suggest that there was no interaction between god and man as man evolved from the apes. Imagine that!!! Furthermore, can you point me to a real scientist whose efforts are aimed at proving that his/her faith is based on facts/reason? There’s a reason it’s called faith…Time to flush again, Biffy.

  138. on 11 Jun 2011 at 6:39 pm 138.DPK said …

    Faith is in large part, for many people, a social convention. Most people compartmentalize faith with reality very well. That’s why when they get sick, they go to a doctor, not a priest.
    There are no credible scientists who would present a scientific theory with “then a miracle occurs” as an element without being laughed at and disgraced!

  139. on 11 Jun 2011 at 7:26 pm 139.Joshua said …

    @ Ben 100

    I am not willing to do as you ask for two reasons.

    1. I believe that anyone who is willing to go anywhere and offer strong opinions should be able to not only present and backup these opinions, but also have the reading and comprehension skills to understand the points of their opponents. It is a two way process. If I take the time to critically analyze and research someone’s argument, it is only fair that they be able to respond in kind. If you want to have not only an opinion, but a respected and informed opinion, you need to take the time to get better at considering what your opponents argue. I am honestly telling you this to help because I want my opponents strong so I am sure that my beliefs are worth having.

    2. I don’t want to be a hypocrite. I always criticize others for presenting “what” statements without “why” statements so I am not willing to do the same.

    Also #79 was responded to in a shorter comment than the analysis of Casey Luskin’s article (#93). Since you do not say why you consider it un-refuted, I can only assume that even that was too long for you.

  140. on 11 Jun 2011 at 7:30 pm 140.Joshua said …

    @ Scott 106

    That’s a lot of assertions there Scott. Care to back any of those up? The reason I tend to post those long comments with quotes and links from time to time is because “What has been asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

    Since you post no evidence of your god claims, and do not elaborate on my comments, I can dismiss you without any support of my own.

  141. on 11 Jun 2011 at 7:41 pm 141.Joshua said …

    @ Drake 114

    Often times evolution supporters are accused of having “unproven assumptions” about nature that allow us to have the views that we do. Here you have some assumptions that I could not have.

    ”Everything with the exception of mathematics has to have a finite point. No physical thing can exist forever and must have a point of creation. With that logic, it’s clear that the universe must have been created by something.”

    I can’t go there. The fact is no one can say anything of certainty about what preceded the universe prior to a very tiny window after the big bang (called the “Plank time limit”). There no known information about what came before. I will not assume anything about that. For all we know the universe existed in a state where uncaused causes were possible. Or maybe time itself did not exist. Does the concept of cause and effect, or “before” or “after” even mean anything if there is not time? You are making strong claims about things with no support.

    You also have a misconception about cosmological and biological evolution. It is not based on chance. It is in fact the opposite of chance. The chemical reactions and physical behavior of matter in the universe and the early earth are limited by the laws of physics and chemistry. So it is not random, it is bound by chemistry and physics. It may even be possible that life is likely when we have more knowledge of the chemistry.

  142. on 11 Jun 2011 at 7:43 pm 142.Joshua said …

    @ Lou 118

    That is why I make the efforts I do. At least I can contribute to the human race going down screaming in rage.

  143. on 11 Jun 2011 at 7:46 pm 143.Joshua said …

    @ Ben 121

    “Exactly Drake and the majority of scientist believe this point to be true.”
    Citation please.

    I responded to your other point in #93 and I have yet to see you respond after taking the time to respond to you.

  144. on 11 Jun 2011 at 7:47 pm 144.Joshua said …

    @ Horatiio 127

    This is so divorced from reality it’s amazing.

  145. on 11 Jun 2011 at 7:53 pm 145.Joshua said …

    @ Rostam 130

    “We also do not observe information/design in life without an intelligence/designer providing it.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication#Gene_duplication_as_an_evolutionary_event
    It has been explained before that new information being created by evolution has been observed through gene duplication. Once you have two copies of a gene, one copy can be modified by mutation into something new. So yes we have seen such coming into existence without a creator/designer.

    Now when you say;
    “We also do not observe information/design in life without an intelligence/designer providing it.”
    That sounds like you have seen design in life due to a creator/designer. Can you tell me what that is?

  146. on 11 Jun 2011 at 7:56 pm 146.Joshua said …

    @ Biff 132

    If you look at posts 41-43 you see me providing a researched analysis of the claims of others. Since it is an example of someone not resorting to insults, and not claiming there is no god, I eagerly await your substantive response to my efforts.

  147. on 11 Jun 2011 at 8:30 pm 147.Severin said …

    132 Biff
    ” This is why the vast majority of the people believe in a creator although the dogma may differ.”

    And the vast mayority of people following different dogmas live and coexist in complete mutual tollerance, understanding and love.
    They love ech other, help and support each other, they float in harmony, they are kindly smiling to each other and don’t care if you belive in Allah while they belive in Jesus …
    God is one, they say, and ignore differences in dogmas.

    Oops, they don’t!?
    List of religious conflicts, wars, hates, terrorist acts done in name of different gods, is endless.

    The fact that dogmas are different and that those differences cause hate and violence among people is one of the most powerful proofs that something is VERY wrong with religions.

  148. on 11 Jun 2011 at 10:20 pm 148.Curmudgeon said …

    “If this is true, then there must have been a time before the big bang.”

    There must have been? Why? How do you know? You and Josh need to get on the same page. You do not agree which is why you guys are always in chaos.

    “It has been explained before that new information being created by evolution has been observed through gene duplication.”

    No one denies this. This is microevolution. Could be why your “research has been ignored. Where did the first cell/DNA/gene come from? Where is the proof of macroevolution?

    I have an idea. Give us the step by step process that led the existence of the first platypus.

    Score so far:

    Ben 1 The Atheists 0

  149. on 12 Jun 2011 at 12:09 am 149.Hell Yeah said …

    “Score so far:
    Ben 1 The Atheists 0”

    What game are we playing? Seems like you don’t know how to keep score.

    Also, why do theists keep dodging my afterlife question? I keep posting it on here, and none of them want to touch it.

  150. on 12 Jun 2011 at 3:16 am 150.DPK said …

    ““If this is true, then there must have been a time before the big bang.”
    There must have been? Why? How do you know?

    You are tiresome. As I have said many times before, I DON’T know… and neither do you. I was speculating. Stop pretending you know things that you do not know. The point was made that matter and energy had to have a moment of creation and will have an end. There is no evidence to support this. Since your entire “proof” of god depends on this unsubstantiated claim, and since you have failed to respond to ANY argument or question posed here, sorry, you get a zero for both logic and effort.

  151. on 12 Jun 2011 at 6:20 am 151.Severin said …

    147 Curmudgeon
    “I have an idea. Give us the step by step process that led the existence of the first platypus.“

    I have a better idea: give us the step by step process that led the existance of first idiot.

    I think the very first step was when he/she found a sweet potato, eat it, and said “thanks god for that”.

    We will never know which god was that, but idiocy was born.

  152. on 12 Jun 2011 at 6:30 am 152.Severin said …

    147 Curmudgeon
    Then, you can continue explaining, step by step, how GOD came to existance, and how HE created platypus.
    Did he say “poof”, “abracadabra”, or something like that, and millions of species and billion of individual beings, just appeared?

    Please elaborate!
    Give YOUR contirbution to idiocy!

  153. on 12 Jun 2011 at 2:48 pm 153.DPK said …

    The creationists here are very good at making unfounded assertions and then failing to defend them. We hear the same tired arguments over and over:
    If you have a painting, there must have been a painter.
    Matter and energy must have a beginning and an end.
    Man can’t make a living cell.
    Most people claim belief in god, so it must be true.

    Why do we never hear any defense of these claims when they are challenged? I presented this one in 133. Note that none of the creationists have dared confront it:

    “You still have not answered your own paradox… if something complex is evidence of a creator, how did the creator come to be without another creator? Will you concede that to accept your assertion, you must accept that at some point, something very complex either existed or came into existence, without an intelligence to design it? Yes, or no?”

  154. on 12 Jun 2011 at 3:03 pm 154.Lou said …

    145.Joshua said …

    “That sounds like you have seen design in life due to a creator/designer. Can you tell me what that is?”

    That’s what I asked, because there is no design.

    132.Lou said …

    “Except that you (Horatio) have a major flaw in your so-called logic – there’s no design.”

  155. on 12 Jun 2011 at 3:10 pm 155.Lou said …

    148.Curmudgeon said …

    “If this is true, then there must have been a time before the big bang.”

    “There must have been? Why? How do you know? You and Josh need to get on the same page.”

    Curmudgeon, do you also have a reading comprehension problem? It’s that or you pick and choose bits of what is posted in order to post a fallacious retort.

    “You do not agree which is why you guys are always in chaos.”

    Right, like the major religions of the world who are basically out to kill each other over their fantasies.

  156. on 12 Jun 2011 at 3:20 pm 156.Lou said …

    133.Biff said …

    “Of course it is because nothing else can be offered that fits the evidence better. This is why the vast majority of the people believe in a creator although the dogma may differ. Even a huge number of scientist.”

    Biff, people like you apparently can’t learn from history. Can’t you see that you are EXACTLY like the people ancient people who believed whatever “fits the evidence better?”

    Unfortunately, there is a large group of people like you who are proudly, aggressively ignorant.

  157. on 12 Jun 2011 at 3:38 pm 157.Lou said …

    142.Joshua said …

    @ Lou 118

    “That is why I make the efforts I do. At least I can contribute to the human race going down screaming in rage.”

    And I appreciate your efforts.

  158. on 13 Jun 2011 at 12:30 am 158.Mike said …

    “Where did the first cell/DNA/gene come from? Where is the proof of macroevolution?”

    I can answer this one. God is the only one who create something from nothing. There is nothing in nature that can create something from nothing. Therefore a creator is the only option.

    It is ridiculous that this is even an issue.

  159. on 13 Jun 2011 at 1:04 am 159.Hell Yeah said …

    “God is the only one who create something from nothing. There is nothing in nature that can create something from nothing. Therefore a creator is the only option.
    It is ridiculous that this is even an issue.”

    Case closed. LOL. Welcome to the discussion, Mike. Tell me, who or what created God then? How does creation relate to an afterlife? Would you worship a God that created matter/energy, but there was no afterlife? You are relying on that a God created everything, then you are relying on a book that was created 2000 years ago that talks about both that and the afterlife. The chances that the first part is correct is not that great, and then to throw in the afterlife, can you imagine the probably of that being true as well?

  160. on 13 Jun 2011 at 6:57 am 160.Anonymous said …

    @ Curmudgeon 147

    “There must have been? Why? How do you know? You and Josh need to get on the same page. You do not agree which is why you guys are always in chaos.”

    While DPK can speak for himself, why? Maybe he has different ideas about what happened before the big bang? Maybe he has read more than me and has good reasons for being willing to make a claim about the big bang?

    Me>>“It has been explained before that new information being created by evolution has been observed through gene duplication.”

    “No one denies this. This is microevolution. Could be why your “research has been ignored. Where did the first cell/DNA/gene come from? Where is the proof of macroevolution?”

    I can’t even begin to try to discribe macroevolution to you when you can not get the conversation correct.

    Rostam said “We also do not observe information/design in life without an intelligence/designer providing it.”

    See the “do not”? That means he is saying that no one has seen new information/design in life without a designer? So you are wrong about “No one denies this”.

    Also I do not have to provide detail to the point that you want. You do not need as step by step process. This would be like me saying that we can not know that America won the revolutionary way unless we have a videotape showing every event that occured during the war.

    Eventually you can accumulate enough evidence without having every puzzle piece to know what the puzzle is about.

  161. on 13 Jun 2011 at 6:59 am 161.Joshua said …

    Ack, I did it again. I am #159.

  162. on 13 Jun 2011 at 7:05 am 162.Joshua said …

    @ Mike 157

    I am going to pile on this issue too. None of the theists have addressed this problem with the logic of your argument.

    You claim that only God can make something from nothing. Why? This is what is called special pleading. You want your pet explanation to be exempt from normal discussion rules. Nope. Why is your god the only thing that can make something from nothing. We have never seen anything able to make something from nothing so why should I believe this?

  163. on 13 Jun 2011 at 10:27 am 163.Mike said …

    “we can not know that America won the revolutionary way unless we have a videotape showing every event that occured during the war.”

    I can supply a step by step account of the events leading to he American Revolution documented by historical accounts. If you can do the same, your argument will succeed.

    ‘You claim that only God can make something from nothing. Why?”

    Because there is zero proof of anything in the natural world having this ability. We have 29K ancient documents leading to the modern canon that documents that God was the author of the universe. The universe came from somewhere and it had to be an unnatural event.

    Now if science provides a better explanation your arguments might be considered.

  164. on 13 Jun 2011 at 2:41 pm 164.Lou said …

    163.Mike said …

    “The universe came from somewhere and it had to be an unnatural event.”

    Says you.

    “Now if science provides a better explanation your arguments might be considered.”

    Stephen Hawking said “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

    Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

    It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

    I’ll go with Stephen Hawking rather than you and “29K ancient documents leading to the modern canon that documents that God was the author of the universe,” especially when those documents don’t document what you claim. Unlike the “events leading to he American Revolution,” it’s impossible that they document something that happened before man was here to document those events.

  165. on 14 Jun 2011 at 1:12 pm 165.DPK said …

    Some current theories suggest the universe started with a “bounce” rather than a bang:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce

  166. on 14 Jun 2011 at 3:02 pm 166.Severin said …

    162 Mike
    “Because there is zero proof of anything in the natural world having this ability.”

    Fine!
    Now where are YOUR proofs that SOMETHING was able to do it?
    We have your word for it?
    Thank you, not enough.
    And, if “something” was able to make something from nothing, WHY, the hell, should it be god?
    Why not matter/energy?
    We can see, measure, taste, feel matter/energy, we are POSITIVE it wexists NOW.
    We can NOT see, measure, taste, feel a god, neither we positively know god ever existed.

    Exactly, WHAT could a “unnatural world” be?
    Some hints about it?
    Some indications?
    Anything?

    About “zero proof”:
    I will not pretend to understand high physics, but I understood that there were some speculations, based on math and experiments, that some particles CAN appear from “nothing”, and dissapear “somewhere”.No god was mentioned, but OTHER DIMENSIONS. So, that “nothing” is only something we don’t completely understand yet, but are starting to detect it and to understand it.
    As ALL the knowledge we have accepted: first we did not know anything, then we started to understand, then we understood and accepted. Then, when new knowledges came to light, we also CHANGED our view to some things (Einstein physics vs. Newton physics, for example).

    There is a huge hole in our knoledge about other dimensions and their interactions with dimensions we know, yes. The biggest problem for humans is that we can not IMAGINE more than 4 dimensions (and even complexity of 4 dimensional space/time continuum is far of our intuitive understanding!).
    Fortunately, we have VERY CLEVER PEOPLE who also do not intuitively “know”/”understand” something, but are able to CALCULATE the consequences. And they are doing it very well (GPS, electricity from atoms…).

    So, what is so problematic with the idea of everlasting matter/energy, that, from time to time, according to some laws we don’t know yet, “escape” from our 4 dimensions to some 5th or 15th dimension, and continue existing there (and come back, or don’t, or maybe there is regular exchange of matter/energy among dimensions)?

    If someone mentione electrons as negatively charged particles that have mass, some 200 years ago, everyone would laugh.
    Yet, electrons ARE real!
    We LEARNED it!

  167. on 14 Jun 2011 at 5:17 pm 167.Scott said …

    For those who have accepted God as the source of origins and life, you will find this article to be even more convincing.

    http://www.mbbc.us/creation/creation/life.htm

  168. on 14 Jun 2011 at 11:11 pm 168.Lou said …

    167.Scott said …

    “For those who have accepted God as the source of origins and life, you will find this article to be even more convincing.”

    The article is titled “Evidence for the Supernatural Origin of Life.” The problem is that it offers no such evidence. And that’s exactly why this garbage isn’t allowed to be taught in school. People like Scott and those “who have accepted God as the source of origins and life” are those who are stuck in the Dark Ages. They are in fact a blight on humanity.

  169. on 15 Jun 2011 at 12:13 am 169.MrQ said …

    #166 Scott:
    Wondering what your view on evolution is? Do you concur with Francis Collins (biologos.org) ? Collins accepts BOTH god and evolution (macro and micro).

  170. on 15 Jun 2011 at 12:39 am 170.Xenon said …

    “For those who have accepted God as the source of origins and life”

    Scott,

    It is the only offered answer for the explanation of life. The only other offered scenario is “I dunno”. OK answer but offers no solutions. Has anyone claimed the 1 mil?

    Good article by the way. The certainly cannot challenge the credentials of the author. Thanks for the excellent article.

  171. on 15 Jun 2011 at 2:27 am 171.Hell Yeah said …

    “It is the only offered answer for the explanation of life. The only other offered scenario is “I dunno”. OK answer but offers no solutions.”

    So just because the real answer is difficult to find that the fairy tale answer has to do? Some ancient civilations, for example, thought that the god of thunder is what caused thunder to happen. Now that we know what causes thunder, that god doesn’t exist anymore. We just haven’t discoverd our exact origin yet and may never will because of the difficulty of the research.

    By the way, I am still waiting on an answer about the afterlife. Why do you theists think that an afterlife is related ID? You base your whole faith on that you will eventually get to the afterlife someday, and you think this because something like a god had to create us, but what makes you think we don’t just cease to exist mentally once we die? Would you worship a god if you didn’t think you had an afterlife? I guess what I am trying to get at is that you believe there is a god because we had to be created by one. Then you believe a book that is over 2000 years old is the word of this god. What if this god did create us; What makes you think he didn’t just leave us alone after that? You think we have a god that is past and present, while an afterlife exists. What do you think are the real odds of all of this to be true? The afterlife is the least likely of your beliefs to have any kind of chance to be real, yet that is the foundation of your beliefs. All other animals don’t get to go to this afterlife you believe in, so why do you think we do?

  172. on 15 Jun 2011 at 7:38 am 172.Severin said …

    166 Scott
    168 Xenon
    (+ Mr. R. Briney Ph. D.)

    You, people, limit your ideas on negative “arguments” only.
    All you do is telling us: “god created life, but I dunna how and when”.

    I accepted Einstein NOT beause he said: “Newton’s physics is bullshit, for that and that reason, but I don’t know how things really function”.
    I accepted him because he never mentioned Newton, but gave valid arguments and evidences for HIS OWN IDEAS.

    You, gentlemen, gave us many “arguments” about why life was NOT possible without creation.

    Fine!
    Now, finally, give us some real arguments, if possible also evidences, why life IS possible only from creation.
    If you give us good arguments, we might start explore this idea!
    Finally, we all DID accept Einstein, didn’t we?
    We do not reject ANY well argumented idea!

    We would be all happy if you only DESCRIBED act of creation, and put it in some time limits, for the beginning.
    HOW did god create millions of species and billions of individual beings?
    Did he say something (or thought something, or made some gesture) and all those species and individuals just appeared in a nanosecond?
    Did he say something, and a single cell just appeared from nothing, and continued to develop up to humans for next 4 billion years?

    WHEN was it, counted from now back? 6000 years ago? 4 billion years ago?

    Give us YOUR idea about HOW did it all really happen, to help us to understand it and finally, maybe, also accept it.

    I am curious whether Xenon, Scot, Horatio (etc) will mutually agree about HOW and WHEN god created life.

    Just DESCRIBE IT!
    THAT should not be a problem for you!

  173. on 15 Jun 2011 at 10:58 am 173.Xenon said …

    “Rhe afterlife is the least likely of your beliefs to have any kind of chance to be real, yet that is the foundation of your beliefs.”

    Actually the relationship I have with God, the way He radically changed my life is the basis of my belief in Him. I would live my life like I do if there was no promise of heaven. It is the most fulfilling and warding way to spend my life.

    I believe in heaven because he promise heaven in His Word. But imagine if there were no afterlife. I would not change a thing and we would have the same fate.

    Read genesis 1& 2 for the rest of the answers you seek.

  174. on 15 Jun 2011 at 3:07 pm 174.Lou said …

    173.Xenon said …

    “Actually the relationship I have with God, the way He radically changed my life is the basis of my belief in Him. I would live my life like I do if there was no promise of heaven. It is the most fulfilling and warding way to spend my life.”

    The only thing you mentioned about how you spend your life is simply to believe a lot of delusional nonsense. For the most part, you don’t actually spend your life any differently than anybody who doesn’t believe in a fairy tale god.

  175. on 15 Jun 2011 at 4:43 pm 175.Horatiio said …

    you spend your life is simply to believe a lot of delusional nonsense.

    Low forgot “Awk” before and after his quote.

    Lou spends too much time reading Richard’s propaganda.

    You notice that the nutty atheist are the only ones who claim belief in God is a delusion? I think it is part of their Asperger’s syndrome. I’ll research it and get back to the gang.

  176. on 15 Jun 2011 at 4:44 pm 176.Lou said …

    173.Xenon said …

    “But imagine if there were no afterlife. I would not change a thing and we would have the same fate.”

    Do you realize that you don’t make any sense? Afterlife / no-afterlife is the “same fate?”

    There’s no “before-life,” there’s no after-life. Death is the same before or after life.

    “Read genesis 1& 2 for the rest of the answers you seek.”

    In other words, “don’t ask me, I don’t have a clue.” The point is he’s asking YOU what YOU think and believe.

  177. on 15 Jun 2011 at 7:31 pm 177.Lou said …

    174.Horatiio said …

    “You notice that the nutty atheist are the only ones who claim belief in God is a delusion?”

    No, all atheists do, not the nutty few. If you believe in the god of the bible, then are those who believe in other gods delusional?

    “I think it is part of their Asperger’s syndrome.

    “The Asperger’s schtick is tiresome and repetitive – part of your OCD?. Can’t you come up with something new with which to embarrass yourself?”

    “I’ll research it and get back to the gang.”

    Yes, why don’t you do that? And please don’t come back until you have something relevant to post.

  178. on 15 Jun 2011 at 8:12 pm 178.Ben said …

    “The point is he’s asking YOU what YOU think and believe.”

    So when Joshua posts some link we should back with, no tell us what you think? I believe telling you to read Gen 1 and 2 is his belief. Grow up Lou or leave the discussion to the mature adults.

    “I think it is part of their Asperger’s syndrome.”

    You are not far off Horatio. I have seen some research on Atheism and Asperger disorder. Preliminary results are indicating a definite connection.

  179. on 15 Jun 2011 at 8:43 pm 179.Lou said …

    178.Ben said …

    “I believe telling you to read Gen 1 and 2 is his belief.”

    Are you really that stupid to think that everybody interprets the bible the same way? His answer was nothing but a dodge, like most theist answers here.

    “I have seen some research on Atheism and Asperger disorder. Preliminary results are indicating a definite connection.”

    And you’re a liar. You never heard of until it was posted here. There is no such legitimate research that suggests any such connection. If anything, religious people appear to suffer from mental disorders for more obviously than do atheists – belief in virgin birth, magical gods, hearing god, prayer, the list goes on, and those things don’t require any research at all.

    But back to the point – show us any evidence for god or ID. Hint – there’s just as much evidence for that as there is for any B.S. “connection” between Asperger’s Disorder.

  180. on 16 Jun 2011 at 12:00 am 180.Hell Yeah said …

    Hor and Ben,

    Xenon answered my afterlife question for you theists. Why do you keep dodging it?

    And Xenon, you said you would live your life worshipping a god even if god does nothing for you like helping you out on day to day activities or giving you an afterlife, but what would be the point then? Nothing would be different if you didn’t waste your time. You can live a good nice life being an atheist.

  181. on 16 Jun 2011 at 12:17 am 181.DPK said …

    Yes, let’s take a look at some of the “answers” we can find in Genesis and some other Old Testament books.

    Plants existed before the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:11-16)

    The Earth is created before the Sun (Genesis 1)
    …actually, to just shorten this: The order of events in Genesis 1 is wrong

    The Sun and Moon are set in a physical firmament above the Earth (Genesis 1:16-17)

    The Moon is a/produces light (Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10)

    Global flood (Genesis..mentioned several other times in later books)

    Humanity at a time of civilization which would have enabled large scale construction projects shared a single language (Genesis 11)

    Diverse language happened instantly rather than gradually (Genesis 11)

    The Hebrew population in Egypt somehow goes from dozens to millions in a few hundred years. (Exodus)

    Snakebites are cured by a brass serpent on a pole (Numbers 21:8)

    Giants (way too many passages Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, Amos)

    Dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33, Psalms 148:7)

    The Sun apparently moves and can be made to stand still so that people can sneak attack others at night (Joshua 10:12-13)

    The Earth has pillars…I guess instead of being hung it’s placed.(1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6,26:11,38:4-6…actually, a lot of places)

    Pi = 3(1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2)

    Either the Earth stopped rotating and moved backward a bit or the Sun moved backward on its own…well, we know what the Bible says about the relationship between the two. (2 Kings 20:11)

    The Earth doesn’t move.(1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Psalms 93:1, 96:10…and a lot of other places where it mentions that the Earth is set on foundations)

    People think in their heart (Esther 6:6, Isaiah 10:7)

    Ostriches are apparently entirely inattentive parents (Job 39:13-16)

    The Sun moves around the Earth (Psalms 19:4-6)

    Snails melt (Psalms 58:8)

    The Earth has four corners (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekial 7:2)

    Lots of fantastical creatures used to exist including satyrs, cockatrices, fiery flying serpents, etc (Isaiah)

    The Earth is definitively flat (Daniel 4:10-11, 20)

    The stars are tiny objects that can fall out of the sky and be stomped upon (Daniel 8:10)

    For me, seeking answers in texts written by bronze age primitives…. uh, no thanks.

  182. on 16 Jun 2011 at 3:34 am 182.Horatiio said …

    “For me, seeking answers in texts written by bronze age primitive”

    ROTFL, DPK is hilarious. I hope you are only poking fun and not truly this mentally challenged.

    Stay away from Shakespeare

    “If music be the food of love, play on,Give me excess of it; that surfeiting, The appetite may sicken, and so die.”

    Just a hint. Music is not food and appetite does not really become sick! LOL!

    Ben,

    Yes, I have posted links to Atheism and Asperger studies. It has given me a better understanding of the challenges the Atheist mind must overcome. It was truly an eye opener as I travel the four corners of the globe :)

  183. on 16 Jun 2011 at 3:40 am 183.DPK said …

    Once again, Horatiio speaks and says nothing……..

  184. on 16 Jun 2011 at 3:58 am 184.Severin said …

    181 Horatio
    “Music is not food and appetite does not really become sick! LOL!”

    Are you saying god was Shakespeare?
    Or LIKE Shakespeare?

    (LOL)

  185. on 16 Jun 2011 at 8:08 am 185.Burebista said …

    DPK once again has nor original thoughts. He just cuts and pastes from another website. He has no clue if they are true but blindly follows the beliefs of another website.

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread689074/pg1

    http://strike-team.net/forums/index.php/topic/169183-ihateusa-horrible-profanity-vs-11-sept-2001/page__st__45

    Should we be surprised? Unfortunately….No.

  186. on 16 Jun 2011 at 12:03 pm 186.Hell Yeah said …

    “Once again, Horatiio speaks and says nothing……..”

    Exactly, and he still keeps on skipping the afterlife topic discussion as well.

    ———-

    Hor said, “Stay away from Shakespeare”

    So you admit that the bible is just a large poem/play/fairy tale from a primitive time?

    ————-

    “DPK once again has nor original thoughts. He just cuts and pastes from another website.”

    Hmmmmm, so when you guys point out passages in the bible, that is not cutting and pasting where to find it in the bible?

  187. on 16 Jun 2011 at 12:08 pm 187.Curmudgeon said …

    “For me, seeking answers in texts written by bronze age primitives”

    But isn’t DPK a bronze age primitive?

    No, they were much more wise.

  188. on 16 Jun 2011 at 2:50 pm 188.DPK said …

    Once again, notice please that Horatiio, Curmudgeon, and Burebista has not addressed the issue of factual inaccuracies in the inerrant word of god, but have chosen in stead to call me schoolyard names… typical.
    Notice how they become very abusive when you show them the idiocy of their unfounded assertions by using their own holy book. Obviously, they can’t say, “The bible is full of crap” so they say, “DPK is unoriginal and stupid.” Ok, I’ve been called worse. But I find it absolutely hilarious that I am chastised for cutting and pasting biblical quotes by the same people who directed us there to “find the answers we seek.” Somewhat hypocritical, no? I mean, I was only taking their suggestions.

    In fairness, Horatiio did try to at least explain away the problem by equating the Bible to Shakespeare. I actually do not disagree. Both bodies of work are fictional accounts, written by man, into which one can project personal experiences and interpretations in all manner of ways and on many levels. But that leaves the influence of an inerrant and omniscient being in the dust bin though. I mean if Shakespeare said the earth was held up on firmaments we could attribute it to either ignorance, literary license, or even perhaps religious dogma, but god?
    Brothers and Sisters… Can We Get a LOL!!!???

  189. on 16 Jun 2011 at 3:08 pm 189.Lou said …

    182.Horatiio said …

    “It was truly an eye opener as I travel the four corners of the globe”

    As usual, your comments are irrelevant to the discussion. But they do illustrate that you have been to “the four corners of the globe,” and you still haven’t found any legitimate evidence for god.

  190. on 16 Jun 2011 at 3:22 pm 190.Lou said …

    At least Shakespeare was a much better writer than the (men of) god who wrote the bible. And thousands of people haven’t murdered each other over what Shakespeare wrote, as opposed to the idiots who did so because of what was allegedly written by god.

  191. on 16 Jun 2011 at 3:40 pm 191.Lou said …

    187.Curmudgeon said …

    “But isn’t DPK a bronze age primitive?

    No, they were much more wise.”

    Really? Is that the best you can do? Try to be a little more creative or witty than Pee-Wee Herman.

  192. on 16 Jun 2011 at 5:10 pm 192.DPK said …

    Yes, bronze age primitives are way wiser than me.
    Here is another cut and paste of their amazing wisdom. Some questions for Curmudegeon, Horatiio, and Burebista. You are all biblical scholars, so I’m sure these words of wisdom will be easy for you to explain:

    1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness – Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

    4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

    7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

    9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

  193. on 16 Jun 2011 at 8:12 pm 193.Horatiio said …

    “Brothers and Sisters… Can We Get a LOL(TM)!!!???”

    Yes we can!!!!!! You are hilarious!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!

    I do enjoy, although it is sad, watching and listening to atheists interpret the Bible. They are not sharp enough to pick up William S. and they certainly cannot understand the Bible without an atheist website. DPK jumped right over his cut and paste (as if he actually did any research) LOL(TM)!

    I guess they lose the argument on the existence of God so now they jump to the Bible. The fallacy of changing the subject.

    Curmudgeon,

    That is funny!! LOL(TM)!

    Lou (PW),

    I like the Pee Wee blast. That is now your new moniker.

  194. on 16 Jun 2011 at 8:37 pm 194.DPK said …

    I don’t have to research Santa Claus to know he is a made up legend.
    By the way… is that the entire substance of your response………….?
    Just read it again… there is nothing there.
    No rebuttal, no argument, no reasoning, not even a cut and paste from a christian website????
    Really, even cut and paste something man… anything is better than empty words.
    “Interpret the Bible?”
    I guess by this you mean listen to YOU tell us what god “really” meant. That’s rich! The almighty creator of the universe needed a moron like YOU to “interpret” his inerrant word for the rest of us. Gee, H, that IS funny. You think rather highly of yourself, don’t you? And, rather poorly of your god, or at least his communication skills….

  195. on 16 Jun 2011 at 9:43 pm 195.Obserer said …

    Hor- All the teenage girl tittering with the “LOL”s etc. is pretty creepy. Do you work with minors? The thought is revolting.

    You seem to have become engrossed in the filth of your own mind. Not even your doltish doofiness comes through anymore; it is as if you have made the entirely unreasonable decision that you have something worthwhile to say. Likely you would better serve everyone if you went off in search of “the four corners of the globe”, and avoid the various fleshpots lest you get back on the creepy minor thing.

    Regardless, as far as the natural, as opposed to the supernatural world goes, religion does nothing to explain, predict, or create. It is a dead end. Adherents are dead between the ears.

  196. on 16 Jun 2011 at 9:53 pm 196.Swede said …

    “Do you work with minors? The thought is revolting.”

    Wow, working with today’s youth is revolting. Is this an atheist mindset. Do the rest of you agree?

    DPK,

    Most Christians will not waste valuable time casting their pearls before those who only aim to mock the Scriptures. You can find real interpretations for those scriptures if you so desired. I sense from you approach you do not desire mature discussion but only desire to mock. I recommend Grudem’s Systematic Theology if you are looking for answers regarding history, context, audience and purpose of the books you quote.

  197. on 16 Jun 2011 at 11:50 pm 197.Quotes said …

    The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike. – Delos B. McKown

    Faith means not wanting to know what is true. – Friedrich Nietzsche

    Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. – Seneca the Younger

    Belief in the supernatural reflects a failure of the imagination. – Edward Abbey

    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. – Steven Weinberg

    I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence. – Doug McLeod

    The world holds two classes of men – intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence. – Abu’l?Ala al Ma’arri

    Since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust them to tell us where we are going? – Anonymous

    It is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image. – Ludwig Feuerbach

  198. on 17 Jun 2011 at 12:17 am 198.Great Quotes said …

    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 blind 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.” Hoyle

    “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.” Polyakov

    “From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.” Tipler

    If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped. Evelyn Underhill

    The atheist can’t find God for the same reason that a thief can’t find a policeman. Author Unknown

  199. on 17 Jun 2011 at 12:31 am 199.Obserer said …

    #195 Swede “Wow, working with today’s youth is revolting. ” Let us hope you are not in any kind of role that allows access to children. Perhaps you and Hor could find something to do together.

    As for Grudem, no doubt the guy has great bona fides. Harvard, and Cambridge are impeccable academic credentials, although we can be sure he Hawkings or someone of that caliber was on his graduate committee. Regardless, I wholeheartedly endorse anyone to read his opus mentioned above. It seems utter nonsense from front to cover, if the table of contents and the snippets on Google Books is any indication. I will buy it if I can find it used so the parasite Grudem gets no money from it. Maybe I can borrow one, although my local library has shown the decency to not have bought it.

    What should be taken away from this Grudem business though is that just because someone has a good mind, it is no guarantee they are decent people. Perpetrators of evil throughout history have often been brilliant. Grudem appears to be another case.

  200. on 17 Jun 2011 at 12:34 am 200.Obserer said …

    “Harvard, and Cambridge are impeccable academic credentials, although we can be sure he Hawkings or someone of that caliber was on his graduate committee. ” Was meant to be “Harvard, and Cambridge are impeccable academic credentials, although we can be sure Hawkings or someone of that caliber was not on his graduate committee.”

    Of course, the hand of “God” may have been directing me.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply