Pharyngula

The gang of prevaricators behind Ben Stein’s Expelled movie had their own way of celebrating Darwin Day: they wrote a blog post that was a solid wall of lies and nonsense. In a way, I’m impressed; I’d have to really struggle to write something that was such a dense array of concentrated stupid, but for them, it seems to be a natural talent, allowing them to blithely and effortlessly rattle off a succession of falsehoods without blushing.

Let’s begin with the beginning. You don’t even have to be a biologist to be embarrassed by these wankers.

Until the late 1980′s when the generic “President’s Day” became the official holiday that subsumed them, America used to celebrate the birthdays of both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

As a result, “Darwin Day” has now supplanted Lincoln’s Birthday in the popular imagination; both men were born on February 12, 1809.

We think that that is a shame.

I agree that the consolidation of “President’s Day” did diminish awareness of Lincoln’s birthday and reduced the appreciation of a president in exchange for a 3-day weekend, but Darwin had nothing to do with that, and it did not replace Lincoln with Darwin in the popular imagination — ask most people what the significance of 12 February might be, and you’ll get a blank look. Darwin Day is a public relations effort to make people aware of the contributions of a great scientist, nothing more; there is no official holiday and no government recognition.

The title of Charles Darwin’s book is not “The Origin of The Species.” The full title seems shocking: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual – which is precisely why Big Science rarely quotes the full title (even though Darwin was not referring specifically to “man” in his use of the words “favoured races.”). Big Science is uncomfortable with even the suggestion that evolutionary theory might favor politically incorrect thinking.

Umm, no, that’s not why scientists rarely state the full title: it’s because saying “the Origin” is an awful lot shorter than saying “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” It’s really that simple. When I introduce the book to my classes, I’ve got a presentation slide of the cover page and I state the title in full the first time, and then just say “the Origin” afterwards. I’ve only got an hour!

As they note, the book isn’t about giving human races special privilege at all — he seems to go on and on about ‘races’ of pigeons, and is really using the word in an old-fashioned sense to refer to varieties. But hey, if a propagandist wants to tar biologists with a false equivalency to the Ku Klux Klan, they’ll go ahead and do it.

Try to parse the last sentence in that paragraph now. Is he really trying to suggest one of the flaws of modern science is that we’re trying to bury the notion of ‘favoured races’ because it is politically incorrect? I’m puzzled about the inconsistency of on the one hand accusing biologists of being akin to Aryan supremacists, while also accusing them of falsely promoting a PC notion of racial equality. But then nothing in their tirade is particularly consistent.

Darwinian evolution theory is a viable scientific theory. Author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwin’s evolution theory has provided atheists with “intellectual fulfillment.” If you grant that, then you must also grant that it has given a great many racists “intellectual fulfillment,” too.

The Bible has also been a source of intellectual fulfillment to racists. So? In the case of atheism, we can say it provides fulfillment because the theory is a framework for studying the origin of life on earth that makes a creator god superfluous; it also provides a framework for studying biological diversity within a single species. When a scientist says something is intellectually fulfilling, it doesn’t mean it slaps down an answer that fits his predispositions, it’s because it provides a path for probing deeper. The Expelled losers are confusing what a real scientist finds valuable with the post hoc rationalizations of racists and Christians who are not open to real inquiry.

Here is how Darwin himself translated his own gloomy scientific theory into an even more disturbing worldview (from the Descent of Man)

‘At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropological apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state…even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla‘.

Whenever I see an ellipsis in a creationist quote, I always reach immediately for the original source. So, just for the sake of completeness, here’s the offensive paragraph from Darwin’s Descent of Man.

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest
allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species,
has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is
descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear
of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the
general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the
series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in
various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies-
between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and
in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna,
and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of
related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout
the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it
will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

It is entirely true that Darwin was a Victorian gentleman who carried the full measure of the prejudices of his time, and he did believe that non-Caucasian people (and actually, non-British people, and he probably had doubts about the Irish) were inferior. At the same time, he knew and described his personal relationships with, for instance, black people, and he regarded them as fully human and deserving of all the privileges of humanity, so he was actually a good step above a great many Christian gentlemen of his day.

Note also the context. He isn’t advocating extermination, he’s explaining the absence of extant intermediates: because breaks in a series inevitably occur, over time we’ll see a widening of the differences between the surviving nearest neighbors in a lineage. He’s describing a fact, not a desired end. He has also been shown to be right: the “savage races” of his day are being displaced and increasingly adopting the “civilized state” of today. Now, though, most of us wouldn’t consider an Australian closer to a gorilla than a British civil servant is. Darwin was wrong about that (or perhaps now Ben Stein will berate me as being PC for considering that a false statement.)

Now, before you protest the analogy, consider that Professor Dawkins himself understands full well the analogy – to the extent that he’d prefer to just side step it:

In his “The Ancestor’s Tale,” he posed the Welfare State as a challenge to Darwinism. When asked by an Austrian journalist in an interview (Die Presse -July 30, 2005) how he would justify that challenge?

Dawkins: “No self-respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.”

Or, in other words, “I really don’t want to think about it!”

What a bizarre mangling.

The term “Darwinian” refers to a specific, selectionist mode of change in which some individuals die or suffer impaired reproduction, while others thrive and are fecund. It is a fact. It happens. When a gazelle out-runs a fellow member of the herd and allows the slower member to be eaten by a lion, that’s Darwinian. When a tree drizzles a few toxins onto the ground to suppress other species from growing in its neighborhood, that’s Darwinian. It’s not pretty and it may not be the utopian paradise fantasists dream of, but it’s a description of reality. It’s how live evolved and is evolving on this earth.

Dawkins has a clear understanding that an is isn’t an ought, something these amateur filmmakers need to learn. A Darwinian world is a harsh sort of place; it’s perfectly legitimate for a product of evolution to aspire to a less dangerous situation and to work towards reducing the threats surrounding it. It is -10°F outside my window right now, but that harsh, measurable, empirical, irrefutable reality does not mean that I am obligated to strip off my clothes and go stand in the snow right now.

It’s quite clear that Dawkins has thought about the implications of evolution quite a bit, unlike our simple-minded friends in the creationist movement.

The new film, ? EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed” does not presume to bury the theory of evolution… but it declines to praise it, either. As a worldview…no thinking person (certainly no moral person) can view a scientific theory of life based on an undirected, purposeless and random process as anything but pessimism. Certain people, and many scientists are drawn to pessimism, and thus pessimistic scientific theories. But that does not make their theories, or them, for that matter, any more attractive or intelligent.

Pessimism is a malady to be overcome, not encouraged – and it is certainly not a quality (or a theory) to be celebrated. As history teaches us – inherently pessimistic scientific theories, like all decadent theories (socialism, communism) eventually give way to those that actually work.

Evolution is pessimism? What kind of inane argument is that?

First of all, we don’t judge the validity of a theory on whether it’s conclusions are what we want to hear, or on whether it is pessimistic or optimistic. If that were the case, my optimistic hope that magic elves will scamper over and take care of some necessary maintenance on my house would be a useful and powerful idea. Scientists adopt ideas that work, which is why evolution is popular and Intelligent Design creationism is a dead end; they are drawn to utility, not pessimism.

As far as optimistic theories go, has this bozo ever read the Communist Manifesto? Communism is an incredibly optimistic idea — human beings are perfectable, societies are working towards an inevitable workers’ utopia, etc. It’s highly non-Darwinian, unlike capitalism, which is very Darwinian. It’s like they don’t even think their own arguments through.

They certainly don’t read their critics’ arguments through. Dawkins was just quoted as rejecting Darwinian ruthlessness as a just principle for society, yet here they go off ranting and raving about his pessimism, and the ultimate failure of evolution. It’s insane.

The sixteenth President of the United States believed what our country’s founders believed and that The Bill of Rights so clearly stated – that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That’s a “theory” that works.

Like Darwin, Lincoln was a man of the 19th century. Here’s something Lincoln did say:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

Squirm, Lincoln hagiographers, squirm. That’s pretty much the standard background noise of the cultural beliefs of the period — everyone was putting everyone else in a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority on the basis of race. Lincoln was brought up in it and accepted it, as did Darwin; we don’t judge them by how much they reflected the false prejudices of their society, but by how much they rose above them. Both Lincoln and Darwin were liberal for their time in their views on race, and they did their part to move culture forward.

Shall we quote Lincoln saying, “the white man is to have the superior position” and therefore declare that the aspiration of the Bill of Rights must be invalid and rejected? That’s what these twits are doing by quoting fragments of Darwin’s work, declaring, “Golly, that sounds like the Klan,” and trying to discredit a major scientific principle.

Choosing to believe in but one scientific theory that effectively negates the whole notion of an intrinsic intelligence, a higher power, an intelligent designer – is fine, if pessimism is what floats your boat.

But that is your choice – or at least it should be a “choice” – for there is ample scientific evidence accumulating under the theory of Intelligent Design that presents an equally compelling – and much more optimistic scientific perspective on life’s “origins.”

It’s odd how they constantly claim that there is growing scientific evidence for their theory of ID, but they never present any. I guess that’s what they mean by calling ID an optimistic theory: they have hope that someday they’ll actually have something constructive to propose.

But currently, Big Science is still enamored with only the gloomy, 150-year old theory originally developed by Darwin, the man who believed that “superior” races would eventually wipe out the “inferior” races. The problem is…the scientific theory justifying that repugnant view is being forced on all of us, to the exclusion of any other scientific theories, in our nation’s public schools and taxpayer-funded government science institutions.

Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in America forever, to put to bed the whole notion of “inferior” races. And to be fair – the gentle Mr. Darwin himself did not favor slavery – even of those whom he described asbeing of the”savage races.”

The 150-year old theory is not the modern theory. I wish we could get that through their heads: they could prove that Darwin was a baby-raping cannibal, and it wouldn’t matter a whit to what we teach and study now. And seriously, get over yourselves: whining that Darwin was a racist does not turn your belief that invisible magic being(s) conjured life into existence into a scientific theory that should be taught in schools.

And you really have to be an ahistorical ignoramus to think that Abraham Lincoln ended the notion of “inferior” races. He subscribed to it. It’s still an issue in our culture today.

Should the theory of Intelligent Design be allowed to be debated alongside Darwin’s depressing 150-year-old theory of Evolution? Should scientists who want to explore Intelligent Design Theory be shunned, ostracized and even fired from the teaching profession?

If you have to ask the questions – perhaps you don’t understand the difference between academic freedom… and the State-sponsored pessimism that is currently all but mandated by Big Science.

Science, even little-s science, only mandates that there be a an empirical foundation and open inquiry into what we’re going to call science. Bad ideas that presume their conclusion and insist that evidence is not required for their proposals is not suitable for science classrooms. Show us what new evidence and ideas you’re going to introduce and we’ll think about it; whining about conspiracy theories and protesting that you have support but will not show it is not the answer.

“EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed” is a new film that will open your eyes to the scientific evidence that challenges Darwin’s lurid theory of life. It reveals the distinctly non-scientific agenda that is driving Neo-Darwinism today. It also presents exciting new evidence accumulating behind the theory of intelligent design.

But most importantly – it will also remind you of the importance of maintaining the values of freedom and hope that Abraham Lincoln championed, and that some folks wish to deny us by fiat.

We stand squarely behind The Bill of Rights and our constitution’s First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech.

Interesting. Every review I’ve read so far fails to mention this challenging scientific evidence for ID. When I get a chance to see it (hey, they interviewed me, even if they don’t use much of the footage — are they going to send me a DVD?) I’ll be sure to look for that evidence. It’s not in any of their books, so it’s a little odd that they’d pack it into fluffy little movie.

Don’t you just love how they wrap themselves in the flag, the bill of rights, and the first amendment while trying to force their religious ideology into the schools? Patriotism really is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Comments

#1 Jit
February 13, 2008

Yep, they’ve either been hacked or have realised too late their own babyish stupidity.

Welcome to the University of Happy Theories (Nappies supplied free of charge – we change them for you if you’re not potty-trained yet).

The Lincoln quote is a doozy. When will the ID brigade i) realise that everyone was a racist in the mid 19th century and ii) Darwin’s fancy book really only started the ball rolling. Unlike them, scientists don’t just stick to the one book. The bits that are wrong get thrown out. New bits that are better get added. Science evolves, guys.
#2 Bob O'H
February 13, 2008

PZ, this post seems to be missing an icon.

Bob
#3 Raynfala
February 13, 2008

Oh my…

They’ve updated the page to lead off with a quote from our illustrious host. They label PZ as a “fabulist”, which apparently means storyteller or, more pejoratively, liar.

Pot, meet kettle…
#4 barron
February 13, 2008

Yes, let us pick our fields of inquiry based on how happy they make us.

Germ theory of disease? Depressing!
Happy Dancing Elf theory of disease? Filled with joy (and dancing elves)!

Einsteinian Gravitational Theory? Too impersonal!
Gravity caused by Earth loving us soooo much theory? Happy!

This is a clear advancement in intellectual inquiry. Self esteem is the best criteria for judging a scientific theory.
#5 MAJeff
February 13, 2008

It gives a 404 error using PZ’s link…here’s the thread

http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/02/07/we'll-take-lincoln-day-over-darwin-day…any-day/
#6 croor
February 13, 2008

i tried that link you sent me, and it gives me a 404 error.
you think the ignoramuses caved under your attack and removed that post from their page?

on the other hand, IDiots learning from rational arguments made against their side doesn’t seem likely, does it?
#7 Vic
February 13, 2008

I love the whole “Big Science” thing they’ve got going on there. As if there were some kind of mega-buck-funded think-tank behind the whole thing… oh, wait… I get it now – projection.
#8 Glen Davidson
February 13, 2008

However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.”

Or, in other words, “I really don’t want to think about it!”

No, it’s rather more like Dawkins understands much about how we happened to evolve as a social species. We could not be a social species and have a truly “Darwinian State.”

The wolverine is what lives in a fairly Darwinian state (not State, of course), with some necessary exceptions (mating, mother caring for young). That is one reason wolverines haven’t come up with science.

What’s the excuse for these social beings never coming up with, or even comprehending, science? Could it be their Darwinian will to power, which I have to admit is not something I can absolutely condemn, but can for various reasons, including the fact that our nation will be likely to decline if we become too much like Algeria or some other theocratic bastion of anti-science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
#9 Molly, NYC
February 13, 2008

Should scientists who want to explore Intelligent Design Theory be shunned, ostracized and even fired from the teaching profession?

Yes.

The evo v. ID debate isn’t about emphasizing one set of facts over another one, or about competing models. It’s about whether you understand how science works. Proponents of ID may as well have a tattoo on their foreheads that says “I don’t get it.”
#10 Glen Davidson
February 13, 2008

They are just stupid, they’re also sinister.

Oops, that was supposed to be, “They aren’t just stupid, they’re also sinister.”

Glen
#11 Chris
February 13, 2008

Lol, “we believe in free speech”

Then they go around and block traffic from this website

/loves me the smell of Christian hypocrisy in the morning
#12 Joe
February 13, 2008

They can’t even get their recent American history correct. Legislation enacting President’s Day was passed in 1968 and went into effect in 1971, not “the late 1980s” as they state.
#13 Glen Davidson
February 13, 2008

It also presents exciting new evidence accumulating behind the theory of intelligent design.

If so, that’s an absolute first.

We’ve been asking for evidence from you lying IDiots forever, and all we’ve received in return are more lies.

Present your evidence, even if you’re not following standard protocol in doing so. We’ll welcome it if it exists, and if you actually do something other than whine for once.

But if you’d like to make an unfriendly wager about whether the film actually does present any such evidence, I’ll bet everything I have that it doesn’t. The judges have to be those who actually do science, however, not necessarily evolutionary biologists, yet certainly people who care about evidence.

Even the friendly reviews of Expelled never mention evidence in favor of ID being presented, and indeed, the first review by a newspaper said the film doesn’t even tell us what ID is. So I’m at a loss how evidence for something the which is not explained or defined could be presented, at least in any sensible manner.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
#14 Holbach
February 13, 2008

Tried several times, less than a minute ago to get in;
404 Error still there. Probably a good thing, otherwise
I would have really vented with the most ascerbic crap
I can utter, and then PZ would not post as happened on an
earlier statement. This religious crap boils my blood to no end and I believe in responding in kind, to the
consternation of others who are not so easily perturbed
with this ranting insane muck.
#15 Tom
February 13, 2008

Everything like this that comes out of the Expelled crowd or the Disco Institute should be accompanied by a soundtrack of endless repetitions of Laurie Anderson’s “Big Science.” I quote:

Big Science. Hallelujah.
Big Science. Yo-de-lay-he-hoooooooooo.
#16 kmarissa
February 13, 2008

I haven’t read all their posts, but I think my favorite, of the ones I did read, item 15. One person had posted the same Lincoln quote above, and someone else replied,

“Weather intentional or not, Lincoln ended the brutality of slavery and made the way for equality. Quote mining is all well and good, but in this case, I’m afraid you’ll find no footing.”

Quote mining. I love that.
#17 Rey Fox
February 13, 2008

Okay, one more and then I swear I’ll get back to work.

“Sounds to me like someone should make a film of rebuttal”

I think the Nova documentary on the Dover trial serves pretty well. And then there’s that Bill Maher documentary that will be coming out around the same time. Not about evolution, but I have to imagine that religious supression of science will be in there somewhere.

“so does that make them “Big Ignorance?”"

Pretty good, but after this last screed, I’m more inclined to think of them as “Big Durrrrr”
#18 Scott Hatfield, OM
February 13, 2008

PZ: That icon for blogging on pseudo-scientific, um, matters, absolutely made my day.
#19 MAJeff
February 13, 2008

As far as the 404 error goes, it looks like the difference betweeen a ‘ and ‘ in “we’ll-take” in the url (the latter being correct, the former being what PZ’s link contains).

That’s not it. If you look at my link (comment 23) it contains “we’ll take” and still leads to a 404 error. It’s traffic from here that’s the target.
#20 Lana
February 13, 2008

I’m actually looking forward to the release of the movie. I’m sure there won’t be even an attempt to provide evidence and I’m hoping the reviewers will point that out.
#21 Holbach
February 13, 2008

G Felis @ # 51 I have Ambrose Bierce’s Devils Dictionary
and am not content with his “Excommunication”.

My description would be “Banishment From Fantasyland”
All these insane rituals of all religions can best be
summed up with “Everlasting Insane Bullshit”
#22 windy
February 13, 2008

…there is ample scientific evidence accumulating under the theory of Intelligent Design that presents an equally compelling – and much more optimistic scientific perspective on life’s “origins.”

+

“Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it.”

=LOL
#23 Matt
February 13, 2008

Self-pitying, lying, bigoted, anti-science dickheads.
#24 PoxyHowzes
February 13, 2008

@#1: “the several…races of the cabbage..”

Would Ben Stein belong to one of those? Maybe ID theory has just invented “Stein’s slaw…”
#25 Deepsix
February 13, 2008

When you get the “404 error” message, go to the top of the page and click on “The Blog” in the menu bar. This should then load the page correctly.
#26 Holbach
February 13, 2008

Since this post makes mention of Abraham Lincoln who I
admire and have a small libray of biographies of one
our best Presidents, I am perplexed by the absence of
any reference to Charles Darwin in any of these books,
including the best written to date, not even a mention
that Abe shared a birthdate with the also great man. Their
adult years were contemporaneous and you would think that
news would filter over from England about the work of the
then not too well-known great man. Did Lincoln know of
Darwin, or perhaps he did but never made any mention of it.
I can picture an aide or someone in the sciences saying to
Abe: “Mr President, did you know that you were born on the same day as Mr Charles Darwin of England, who is formulating a theory of Evolution that is causing the god
fanatics much concern and anguish and who will one day be
the target of the religiously deranged?” Snicker, I would
like to surmise, be audible on Abes’ breath: “Go get them
Chuck, and make the tards squirm”! Anyway, I cannot find a
single word on both great men sharing a birthdate in any
of these books. Perhaps I may have missed a small mention
by a not too careful reading of the text. Can anyone give
me an indication or reference to this dilemna?
#27 ron
February 13, 2008

can you please get rid of comic sans for the blockquoting, its the worst font ever. although it does properly convey the childishness of who you’re quoting.
#28 Martin
February 13, 2008

Ron: “…although it does properly convey the childishness of who you’re quoting.”

Well, that kind of is the point.
#29 Karley
February 13, 2008

Reading them complain about how pessimistic biology is, I was inexplicably reminded me of my high school classmates. When we were watching The Lion King in Spanish class, they demanded that the teacher fast forward through the wildebeest stampede. Really demanded it; I thought they were going to cry if they didn’t get their way. That Disney movie was too, too pessimistic for them to handle.

High school students.

What brought that up? Well, I remember that they were vocal creationists as well. Poor folks can’t have their beautiful minds sullied I guess. :/
#30 knutsondc
February 13, 2008

One of the things I most admire about Lincoln was his ability to grow and learn over time. Yes, he was born in a time when racism was nearly universal in this country and he absorbed much of that poisonous attitude. As the Lincoln quotation PZ includes in his post shows, he carried it into adulthood. However, his attitude towards African-Americans did change over time. Frederick Douglass’ comments on President Lincoln’s warm yet respectful treatment of him, Lincoln’s genuine perplexity and distress over how best to rectify the nation’s treatment of its black residents, and Lincoln’s candor in discussing those issues with Douglass all bespeak a man who had indeed transcended the inherited bigotry of his times.
#31 Dahan
February 13, 2008

Sorry if this’s been said, no time to read through all the comments right now. They have a problem with a theory being 150 years old and gloomy? Theirs is millenia old and about the most depressing thing you could ever think up.
#32 Leon
February 13, 2008

Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in America forever

Let’s not forget, Lincoln didn’t end slavery in America. Slavery was ended by the 13th Amendment, which was ratified in December 1865. Lincoln himself was assassinated in April. As for the Emancipation Proclamation, it only declared that slaves in non-Union-occupied Confederate areas were now free.
#33 SteveM
February 13, 2008

re pessimism:

maybe a little off-topic, but whenever I hear creationists talk about how sad it would be to be an atheist and to believe you were not created for a purpose, I think of a scene in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. At one point the story encounters a machine that reveals the immensity and grandeur of the universe to the “victim” with a little arrow pointing at nothing with the legend “you are here”. Everyone who enters the machine is then driven to suicidal despair by the knowledge of just how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things. Then Zaphod steps into the machine and emerges joyfully declaring “Wow, I must be the most important person in the universe; out of the whole universe I am the only one with an arrow pointing out exactly where I am! ”

The point being of course that I think it is much more exciting to exist in a universe where I determine my own purpose. I can’t for a second find any joy in the concept that my only purpose is to “give glory to God”. That is far more depressing than a universe devoid of deity.
#34 Pablo
February 13, 2008

You know what else is a pessimistic scientific theory? Gravity. Gravity forces us to the ground against our will (which God gave us).

My wife is not very happy with gravity right now, after falling down an breaking her arm this weekend…
#35 Budbear
February 13, 2008

Long time lurker here. I’m just wondering if Mr. Stein was the writer of the “I am not a crook” speech. Just wondering. It just seems so… consistent.
#36 Kseniya
February 13, 2008

Be of good cheer!

Gravity is a pessimistic theory (I dunno about you, but it really brings me down) and one day will be supplanted by something that actually works.

And LOL @ Sastra for her difficulty in maintaining a state of gravity.
#37 Robert M.
February 13, 2008

If they think Evolution is pessimistic, obviously they haven’t thought things through! Let’s look at ID: if an intelligence was powerful enough to create us, then surely it is powerful enough to destroy us! What if it/he/she/they decide(s) to send us a little virus a la Ebola (or a flood, why the hell not?) to get rid of us? What could we do? We’re doomed, that’s what we are!

Now I feel depressed…
#38 Duff
February 13, 2008

I suggest a contest between religion and science….Oops, I forgot Galileo and all the other guys.
#39 Kevin
February 13, 2008

On the Origin… just imagine if you had to repeat this name in full every time you said it:

Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- n�rnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- sh�nedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.
#40 Zeno
February 13, 2008

Kevin, I’m pretty sure you meant “sch�nendanker” in there, to say nothing of the fact that many musicolologists consider the plethora of hyphens to be spurious, claiming that Johann preferred to sign his last name without them. The claim, of course, is difficult to determine unambiguously, because there are few surviving copies of his signature and it is believed that he generally avoided giving autographs.
#41 SLPage
February 13, 2008

As an interesting and telling aside, see what the subtitle of this website is:

http://www.kkk.com/

Hint: it doesn’t mention Darwin
#42 raatrani
February 13, 2008

@134

I now feel filthy. Honestly, that was one of the more disturbing taglines I’ve come across.
#43 dogmeatib
February 13, 2008

Socialism is a “decadent (and presumably pessimistic) theory” that eventually gave way to theories that worked?

Have they looked at … oh, say, EUROPE???

Socialism:A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

These are the same folks who argue that universal healthcare is “socialized medicine” and then point to Europe, while exaggerating flaws within their systems, and insist that our “if you can play, you can stay” medical system works better. How can you possibly condemn something as socialist, point to functioning examples, and then claim that socialism has failed?
#44 Node of Evil
February 13, 2008

As a religious person who thinks “Intelligent Design” is useless junk, I feel like part of the their agenda is to reign in other religious people. I get that vibe from reading their stuff; sure they’re arguing for ID to be taught in schools, but implicit in that argumet is that religious people all accept intelligent design. They do not, and I’d love to make a documentary about all of the various people I know who are scientists, who are religious, and who think pseudoscience like this is nonsense. There’s a great essay on the supposed dichotomy between science and religion in an older Bible commentary I have on my bookshelf at home (published by Cambridge, I believe). The main purpose of the essay is dispel the myth that these two things must be in conflict, or that you have to believe in crank theories like ID if you’re religious. I think there’s a lot of jockeying going on right now in many religions where the neanderthals are trying to woo those who are new to their faith, or who may not currently have the experience or knowledge to understand the debate. Those of us who are religious and support modern science ought to be aware of those influences and stand ready to counter them when possible.
#45 LisaJ
February 13, 2008

I am really interested to see what the response is to this movie when it comes out. I wonder if anyone will even go see it. What an idiot Ben Stein is, he just looks completely retarded on that website of theirs. I’m sure this has been commented on already, but the blog entry shows up if you go to their site on your own, it just doesn’t work when you link through this site. haha, someone’s a little intimidated by the ‘Big Scientists’ I think!
#46 Nullifidian
February 13, 2008

The fact-value distinction is not rocket science. I grasped it at 17. I don’t get what’s up with these IDiots/Cretinists that keep bringing up this tired “evolution = racism” nonsense that is easily refuted by someone who didn’t fall asleep in his very first college lecture.

Then again, I didn’t attend Bible University.

And therein lies the problem. To creationists, there are no morally neutral facts. Instead, this world was created by the will of God, humankind was created in the image of God, and anything that is unfortunate in this world is representative of the post-Fall world, and can be taken as visible proof of humankind’s perverse, sin nature.

Naturally, we who are scientists (or apprentice scientists, like myself) have a problem with this kind of thinking, because we are not trained under the unifying concept of mediaeval Scholasticism. It really is a case of two wholly incompatible worldviews. It’s not that one can’t do science and religion, but one cannot do mediaeval thinking and modernism, including modern science, in any form.
#47 DiscoveredJoys
February 14, 2008

As a suggestion for a title of a counter film to ‘Expelled’, how about ‘Groundhog Dei: No repeated inanity allowed’?
#48 Jim
February 14, 2008

After reading all the comments here, it appears that the main purpose of this blog is to allow members of the PZ Myers’ amen chorus to compete for “The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere” award. Granted, PZ is a hard act to follow in that regard, but the authors of the following “arguments” merit at least honorable mention….

- “Bastards. Complete fucking fact-twisting, lying, douchebag fucktard bastards.”

- “How can people be so utterly ignorant??”

- “Yep, they’ve either been hacked or have realised too late their own babyish stupidity.”

- “(S)ince they really are ignorant slobs, they know as little about language and history as they do about science.”

- “It really is depressing quite how ignorant and deluded some people can be.”

- “What a worthless bunch of fuckwits.”

- “I hate these slimy, little fuckers.”

- “They aren’t just stupid, they’re also sinister.”

- “Ben Stein and his cronies should re-read the fucking Bill of Rights. Is it the stupidity that makes them creationists, or creationism that makes them stupid?”

- “Self-pitying, lying, bigoted, anti-science dickheads.”

- “Those theistards need to go back to science AND history class.”

I’m particularly impressed by those who use variations of the “f” word, a manner of speaking that exhibits the height of wit and erudition. Keep up the good work, boys and girls. I’m sure that the Pharyngula group grope must give you some emotional satisfaction, but the likelihood that you’ll persuade skeptics that Darwinism is (in the words of Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse) a “fact, fact, FACT!!!” is nil. Since you show no respect for the opinions of skeptics, you command no respect from them. All the preaching to the choir and adolscent name-calling that goes on here ensures that Pharyngula will win no converts to the Church of Darwin. As I said, keep up the good work. With friends like you, Darwinism needs no enemies.
#49 Jim
February 14, 2008

WARNING! If your critical argument is so FLAWED that its persuasiveness relies on the use of font and style changes like ITALICS and BOLD to connect emotionally with what sympathetic readers already believe, then, it is highly likely that your argument is CRAP.
#50 October Mermaid
February 14, 2008

I didn’t know I was supposed to be winning converts for a church or whatever. I’m way too lazy for that.
#51 Matt Penfold
February 14, 2008

“Because the forum is moderated, it has a much more adult tone than Pharyngula.”

I thought you were complaining about the adult nature of Pharyngula earlier. The word “fuck” is kind of adult in nature you know.
#52 MAJeff
February 14, 2008

If you’d like to talk, join the forum. I’m done with Pharyngula.

*sniff, sniff*
#53 Owlmirror
February 14, 2008
Jim points to OriginsTalk as having his definition of “Darwinism”. Well, the direct link is here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/13617

Where he says:

Also, when I refer to “Darwinism,” I’m referring to modern evolutionary theory, also called neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis.

In other words, by “Darwinism” he means the entire modern science of evidence-supported evolutionary biology.

I am disinclined to join OriginsTalk to dispute the misconceptions expressed, though. The main page says:
The OriginsTalk listserv was established as a service of the Northwest Creation Network in June 2001.
[...]
Rules for OriginsTalk: Posting privileges will be suspended for 30 days following violation. Users will be permanently banned upon their 3rd removal or for excessively abusive behavior.

Derogatory comments or insults of list members or persons abroad are forbidden.

Posts must remain on-topic (Creation Science, Evolution & Intelligent Design)

Posts must contain content (I Agree, I’m Sorry, or Thankyou-type post are not permitted)

Posts Limit of 2 per day.

Attachments are not permitted.

Profanity or expletives are forbidden.

Public Responses or comments regarding moderation are forbidden.
As much as I actually agree that some of the violent and vituperative language occasionally seen here is excessive and sometimes counter-productive, I think I prefer a more open forum to one where comments are so carefully controlled. The intelligent comments on Pharyngula have been worth having to cope with the outbursts of anger.
#54 Jim
February 14, 2008

Just so there’s no confusion upon my departure, messages 165 and 174 are mine; messages 166 and 172 were posted by another “Jim.”

Also, in an apparent attempt to gild his lily in “The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere” competition, Glen D. wrote: “I’ll note that Jim is a STUPID FUCKTARD with nothing worth saying. The nanny strikes, telling people what droning pedants have always claimed, that there is no percentage in obscenity and profanity. FUCK THAT and all the BULLSHIT that such righteous bigots spew in their never-ending attempts to legislate that LIARS should never be called on their mendacity (I almost never capitalize like I did in this paragraph, but thought I would for granny Jimmy there).”

Similarly, Matt P. wrote: “If you really think that lying and ignorance are things deserving of respect then all I can say to you is go fuck yourself.”

One can only marvel at such virtuosity in infantile argumentation.
#55 Glen Davidson
February 14, 2008

One can only marvel at such virtuosity in infantile argumentation.

Shit-fuck, you dishonestly quote-mined some of my comments, which I have supported here and elsewhere. Rather than dealing with any sort of the considerable support and substance I have given for calling the Expelled people lazy slobs, and not only stupid but sinister, you merely bitched and whined about it, without even acknowledging the context.

You are a stupid fucktard. All of the evidence points to it. But of course you ripped the bit I wrote out of context yet again, apparently in a bid to show that there isn’t the slightest bit of honesty in your slimy soul.

“Infantile argumentation,” indeed. You’re such a fuck-minded fool that you didn’t even begin to make any kind of argumentation at all, rather you began with dishonest quote-mining while ignoring all substance, and you end in the same dishonest vein with which you began.

Here is about the worst insult you can receive, and you completely deserve it–you have the honesty and intelligence of an IDist.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
#56 David Marjanovi?, OM
February 14, 2008

I think what the kooks mean by “pessimism” is their confusion of evolution and atheism — the latter being pessimistic in not believing in a life after death. (Never mind the Sumerian afterlife: everyone’s shadow, regardless of faith or works, goes to the permanently dark underworld to eat mud and live in depression for all eternity.)

One of my housemates, a christian, does not believe in evolution, and yet most of the time appears to be perfectly intelligent. Religion has a lot to answer for…

It’s called ignorance.

2) The purpose of life over all is to strive to survive and reproduce.

Show me that there’s a purpose. I bet you can’t. I think “what is the purpose of life” is a wrong question, like “why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi”.

who argue that universal healthcare is “socialized medicine”

Hey, they’re right.

How can you possibly condemn something as socialist, point to functioning examples, and then claim that socialism has failed?

It’s called ignorance.

————————

Jim, are you the one who once said the Intelligent Designer was ineffable?

Anyway, you said “Darwinian philosopher”. That’s a contradiction in terms. Biology is a science, not a philosophy.
#57 David Marjanovi?, OM
February 14, 2008

these people don’t really mean what they write, they are just challenging you.

No, they really do mean it — for quite understandable reasons.

Because, believe me, if you express an opinion which has some merit, even if people might disagree, you won’t get that many insults.

Where “merit” is a synonym of “evidence”.

You seem to be a well educated person who is searching for answers.

That’s nice of you. To me he seems more like a poorly educated person who believes he already has all answers, and doesn’t even get the idea that he might not have all of them. — But, Jim, you’re welcome to prove me wrong.
#58 David Marjanovi?, OM
February 14, 2008

these people don’t really mean what they write, they are just challenging you.

No, they really do mean it — for quite understandable reasons.

Because, believe me, if you express an opinion which has some merit, even if people might disagree, you won’t get that many insults.

Where “merit” is a synonym of “evidence”.

You seem to be a well educated person who is searching for answers.

That’s nice of you. To me he seems more like a poorly educated person who believes he already has all answers, and doesn’t even get the idea that he might not have all of them. — But, Jim, you’re welcome to prove me wrong.
#59 Owlmirror
February 14, 2008

Anyway, you said “Darwinian philosopher”. That’s a contradiction in terms. Biology is a science, not a philosophy.

I don’t think it’s a contradiction, exactly. But it does appear to be a confusion of methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

Jim never did offer any sort of meaningful response to the long list of scientific refutations of his confusion in the “Wells lies. Again.” thread from Sept 2007. Shrug.
#60 negentropyeater
February 14, 2008

David,
“That’s nice of you.”
It’s just that I too, not so long ago, had similar problems. I wanted so badly that there be a God, because I was afraid to die, that I was hoping that Science might help to justify my need (faith).
It took me a while to understand that it doesn’t work that way, that it only leads to intellectual dishonesty.
I’m still not an Atheist, probably will never be. But I now admit that all we can only know, is through the scientific method, and that means methodological naturalism.
The rest is just hope.
#61 Rey Fox
February 15, 2008

You sure are taking a long time to leave, Jimjim.
#62 JimC
February 15, 2008

Mind you, if your sole criteria is whether or not we take some stupid Protestant mistranslation

In their defense I don’t think they have the translation wrong at all. Others bend the words to make it say what they will but the words are what is written.

on a daily basis, all because some ass Protestant

I can assure you this is not a ass Protestant position and many ass catholics have it as well.
#63 defective robot
February 15, 2008

Pessimistic? ATHIESTS are pessimistic? Who are the ones on the soap boxes shouting about the death of Western Civilization and the end of the world?

Actual conversation between a presumed pessimist (me) and a presumed optimist (a fundamentalist friend):

Fundamentalist friend: “People begin to die the instant they are born.”
Me: “Then why do they grow?”
Fund Friend: “Pardon?”
Me: “You’re saying that at the instant of birth, people hurdle toward death, right?”
Fund Friend: “Yes. When cells die they are never reborn.”
Me: “That discounts a few observable facts, not the least of which is that an organism needs to actually live before it can die. We are not sprung from the womb fully formed with a set number of cells that instantly hurtle toward death–at conception, cells divide; after birth, people grow. The act of procreation is a mean of insuring that life will continue after we die.”
Fund Friend: “Huh. I never thought of it that way.”
Me: “That’s because you’re a solipsistic twit who swallows whole the inherent negativity of ignorant dogma.”

OK, I actually added that last part, but everything that proceeded it was (a-not-exactly-verbatim-but-otherwise) accurate.
#64 AL
February 16, 2008

For AL: I neither said nor suggested that “people who utilize profanity and get angry are necessarily wrong about the positions they hold” or that “people who are nice and polite are necessarily right about theirs.”

Yes you did suggest it, and you just did it again! Watch:

I was simply saying that people who routinely resort to profanity and name-calling come across as insufferable asses, in detriment to their own “arguments.”

In detriment to their arguments? So if you say “2+2=5,” and I say “no, 2+2=4, dumbass,” you’re implying that the dumbass ad hominem somehow defeats the FACT that 2+2=4. Sorry, but once again, rationality doesn’t work that way.

These are the kind of people who presume that those who don’t agree with them are, ipso facto, ignoramuses, liars, and idiots. If they want to inflict harm on their own position by expressing themselves with adolesecent immaturity, I say “keep up the good work.”

No, it is not presumed ipso facto that those who disagree with evolution are ignoramuses, liars or idiots. It’s established by observing that they in fact do behave in a manner befitting such labels. If they were ipso facto such, PZ’s thread need not be more than one sentence long, but here we have detailed elaborations on why the arguments of the Expelled crowd are wrong. That you choose to gloss over all this so as to make the equivocation that those of us who defend evolution passionately with facts are just as militant and dogmatic as those who defend creationism with fabrication is indicative of your own willful ignorance more than anything else.
#65 defective robot
February 16, 2008

OK, so I just watched the preview of “Expelled.” Two glaring things:

1) There was a clip of Richard Dawkins saying [paraphrasing] “As a scientist, I’m hostile to opposing positions.” Then cut. It was particularly obvious by the tone of his voice that there was more to the quote than that, but the producers say fit to create their own context. Ironically, of course, the producers don’t recognize the manner that Dawkins’ quote, in this context, accurately describes their position as well.

2) In voiceover, Stein says something to the effect that he’s distressed by the fact that in all other communities but scientific, freedom of speech is a respected freedom. Frankly, I neglected myself to finish the quote (yes, thereby creating my own context, I know, but I was just too pissed to continue), but it was clear by the preamble to that statement that his position is that by denying some doddering “scientists” tenure, scientific and academic communities (and media) were suppressing the free speech of the rebellious ID proponents. Need I point out the simple fact that denying one a venue in which to make a statement is not the same as denying one the right to make that statement. Just ask Bill O’Reilly, who has made a career out of shouting down opposing arguments before cutting te video feed of those who make those arguments. Like it or not, Fox News does NOT owe me the right to broadcast time on their network to refute Bull O’Rightey. I can find my own venue to do so.

So to all those ID morons out there who been “repressed” and denied tenure because of their slippery academics, quit your whining and run to the welcoming arms of the Discovery Institute. They have a nice, warm, welcoming venue for you in which to spew your misguided research.
#66 David
February 19, 2008

It is discouraging that the massive intellect that obviously resides in this community has to resort to juvenile name-calling and personal attacks. The subject matter is easily debunked by you (collectively), yet you continue to berate a single poster for daring to come into your forum with little-to-no argument.

Instead of educating, you belittle. Instead of explaining the faults, you go into tirades of self-righteousness(intended). One can almost see the spittle at the corners of your mouth as you attempt to shout down the uninformed, even as you complain about others doing the same to you. It is unnecessary and uncouth. Respect is not owed to them, but it is owed to yourselves.

ID may be the most idiotic psuedo-argument ever created. It may be the last sanctuary of the religious against the onslaught of modern science. That is hardly an excuse to show your lack of mastery of the language by responding as you have.

A rapier wit so rarely includes words of profanity, and when it does, it is quite pointed (hence the ‘rapier’). I don’t believe that “fuck-tard” (though somewhat amusing), ever qualifies. I do understand the frustration involved, but personal attacks reduce the writer’s message.

The attacks on Stein for being a former speech-writer and actor simply muddy the water, when the facts are a crystal clear stream. I haven’t witnessed anywhere that Stein pretends to have credentials he doesn’t possess. He is an entertainer, and he is pushing a movie in the same way Michael Moore does – create controversy, collect money. The facts are a sideshow to the main event.

The movie will be the focus of sermons and church get-togethers, they will take field-trips to the movie theater as they did for The Passion of The Christ, and they will deliver to Ben Stein a mountain of cash.

And Ben Stein saw what he had Created, and it was Good (for Ben).
#67 PZ Myers
February 19, 2008

But, but…Keith! Your whole comment was nothing but a string of screechy insults, and that’s bad! You said so yourself.

Did you notice the first word in the title to this piece, “Ahistorical”? Your comment is likewise.

Darwin was less racist than many of his contemporaries, and advocated for justice for all races.

Darwin was not mentally ill at all; he maintained a vigorous and thoughtful correspondence with his peers throughout his life.

He was not an atheist, especially not a rabid one. He called himself an agnostic. You might want to read his autobiography, in which he touched on his love for his wife and his respect for her faith.

It’s true. He wasn’t a molecular biologist. But then, that field wasn’t really established until the 1950s, so it’s awfully silly to complain about that. I understand Jesus was also not a diesel mechanic, and Mohammed didn’t know the first thing about polymer chemistry.

And Keith…who the hell are you?
#68 Steve_C
February 19, 2008

Fucking hell. Keith is a liar and an ass.
#69 Stanton
February 19, 2008

Mr Eaton is apparently a retired engineer/widower who lives in Oklahoma City, and is a very annoying creationist troll who’s been lurking about the ‘Net, and recently came over to the Panda’s Thumb to display his subpar social skills.
#70 Ichthyic
February 19, 2008

I am never surprised by this band of elitists including PZ in their defense of Marxism,

PZ is a marxist? who knew.

oh, I guess Keith did.

I am aware of the politics of Dawkins, Gould, etc. while living off the U.S. taxpayer dole and teat his entire paltry, meaningless, and non-productive career.

again, who knew that UK researchers lived off the US taxpayers?

Keith did.

Keith…

you’re a complete and utter moron.

congratulations.
#71 Stanton
February 19, 2008

I mean, really, if PZ Myers really was of “no import,” then why did Keith see fit to copy and paste the exact same rambling, incoherent rant twice?
#72 PZ Myers
February 19, 2008

You can call me names all you want, but boring me with this copy and paste crap where you just take up space is a good way to get banned.

That’s a warning.
#73 Owlmirror, Pvt
February 19, 2008

hard core evolutionary community and its foot soldiers

PZ has foot soldiers???

Hey, can I get a promotion?

a nobody, and of no particular import

Hey, that’s General PZ Myers you’re talking about! Show some respect!!
#74 MAJeff
February 19, 2008

PZ has foot soldiers???

Hasn’t technology advanced to the point where we should all get Segways?
#75 MAJeff
February 20, 2008

I wonder if Ben Stein realizes this? He’ll never be employable in regular entertainment channels ever again.
meh, no big loss.

Would if this were true. Remember the failures of Mel Gibson after his anti-semitic rampages, and how Apocalypto failed so miserably?

Hollywood isn’t some liberal bastion–it’s pure capitalism. Sell the tickets and you’re good in their eyes. Truth? Who cares as long as the seats are filled.

That’s why conservative criticism of Hollywood is so laughable. The movie studios are better capitalists than anyone at the Cato Institute could ever dream of being.
#76 Owlmirror
February 20, 2008

The movie studios are better capitalists than anyone

I dunno, I keep hearing how weird and… Byzantine the movie business is. Really. As in “Byzantium”. Have you heard about how Waterworld was made?
#77 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

I’m surprised that Creationists have not returned to the drawing board to see what new hocus crapus they can re-spin Creationism as ten years ago already.

if they were that smart, we’d be in trouble.

still, I’m sure they are. It will just take time, like the formation of ID after “creation science” did.

It takes time to make up good BS if your smart, or the same amount of time to make up lame BS if you’re these guys.
#78 Stanton
February 20, 2008

Well, I suppose you’re right, Ichthyic.

At the very least, it will be good for a morbid little chuckle to see how much rope they’re going to hang themselves with.
#79 Kseniya
February 20, 2008

“Man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right.” ~SJG
#80 Stanton
February 20, 2008

I believe the primary theme of the film is to demonstrate the consequences scientists and scholars face when they postulate theories contrary to conventional wisdom. The daring few in history who navigated these waters have paid a predictable price. Some were mocked, ridiculed, and humiliated. Others were ostracized or imprisoned. Questioning the “great minds of our day” is not for the faint of heart, and many posts here bear witness to this. I do find it mildly ironic that a blog intended to discredit the merits of the film have actually buttressed one of its central tenets.

So, then, why did they have to lie to the people they interviewed, and why do they have to make false statements?
#81 Steve_C
February 20, 2008

Hey Healer,

Why didn’t they bother to challeng the theory of gravity? If they truly wanted to be daring.
#82 The Healer
February 20, 2008

‘So, then, why did they have to lie to the people they interviewed, and why do they have to make false statements?’

I cannot speak to the specific methods of the filmmakers as I don’t know what they actually did, but I will say that it is doubtful the interviewees would have been that candid had they known the intended purpose of the resulting material. Conducting an interview under false pretenses is a very effective tactic at eliciting the intended response. While it may be disingenuous, it’s hardly something unique to this film. Whether the filmmakers lied to their subjects about why they were being interviewed or not, the opinions expressed are no less valid.
#83 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

they presuppose that scientists are hiding something

well, that’s the idea they are trying to sell, anyway. Whether they believe it or not.

I’m sure a part of this is the producers of the film relying on the idea of “conspiracies sell” to raise funding.

just ask Oliver Stone.

:p
#84 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

I don’t know, but blind allegiance to any theory is foolish at best

good thing that only exists amongst religious apologists then, right?

sure doesn’t happen in any scientific community I’ve ever been involved with.

Gravity is demonstrably provable, but that doesn’t make it fact.

LOL

Ok, you’re an idiot, i get it now.
#85 Nullifidian
February 20, 2008

I could postulate that gravity is not an omnipotent presence and scientific “law”, but merely a by-product of a greater universal force. In the absence of, or modification of said force, the laws of gravity would no longer be applicable therefore rendering the theory of gravity suspect or entirely invalid. If anyone were to suggest such a theory, they would be ridiculed and mocked as an idiot.

Actually, what you have there is not a theory, it’s vapourous speculation. There is, however, a theory which proposes that what we experience as gravitation is an effect of another ‘force’, spacetime curvature. It’s called the general theory of relativity. If you want to argue against it, you probably will be treated like an idiot if you demonstrate that you don’t know what it is you’re talking about, although you’ll get points for novelty at sci.physics.relativity, since they mostly see people arguing against the special theory.

That is all anyone has been doing here. The producers of Expelled and Ben Stein have demonstrated themselves to be laughably ignorant of even the basics of the theory which they are critiquing, and so they are naturally treated with disdain until they decide to be honest about what it is they don’t know.

Based on some of the posts I have read, that would be a perfectly reasonable and welcome response by the “scientific community”.

The scientific community is under no obligations to be nice to people who step on its turf and proceed to urinate on the lawn. The scientific community is very skeptical, as any presenter at a symposium or conference will know, and that’s a good value to have. It keeps one grounded in what we do know and what we do not, and prevents flights of fancy from going too far. It’s not always perfect (e.g. evolutionary psychology, string theory, etc.), but there’s a correction eventually.
#86 MAJeff
February 20, 2008

shorter “The Healer”: I may be wrong about absolutely everything, but you’re a meanie.
#87 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

shorter “The Healer”: I may be wrong about absolutely everything, but you’re a meanie.

of course. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of “the healer” to begin with. shocker.

even shorter me:

Fuck these idiots with a bumpy stick.

I’m convinced it simply isn’t worth the time any more to give their idiocy an ear.

I wasted over a minute trying to explain to it what the difference was between observed fact and theories constructed to explain observed facts.

I figured it would be an exercise only of value to some imagined lurkers.

a prophecy that came to fulfillment as rapidly as I expected it would.

I’m guessing nullifidian wasted almost 5 minutes with a more thorough explanation that was of course completely ignored.

I wonder if “the healer” will ever grasp why I hate it so?

I’m guessing not.
#88 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

I take it that the weevils claim is that only public institutions apply for and receive public grants for scientific research purposes, the writing of books, papers, holding of conferences,etc. and that the purchase of Mr. Dawkin’s books by public libraries whether associated with higher education or municipal convenience, that his many publically sponsored speaking engagements are somehow sheltered from the expenditure of public funding.

yes, Keith, tell us again how UK researchers Dawkins and Gould relied on US taxpayer dollars to fund their research and publications again.

please do; and make sure to move your goalposts ever further backwards as you explain.

Obama Myers

LOL

you’re such a moron it’s making my day, Keith.

please, continue!

unlike “the healer”, you’re such a fantastic moron you’re actually funny.

OTOH, we haven’t seen a good disemvowelment around these parts in a while…
#89 Bronze Dog
February 20, 2008

All of those interviewed for Expelled of the PZM ilk can of course continue to proclaim their Miranda rights, forced interrogation, coerced confessions, and such other practices as they choose to borrow from the O.J. vocabulary, but the facts are what they are and I suspect they will be quite illuminating to the public at large.

So then, why are the Expelled crew so hesitant to provide this illumination to the public by releasing the unedited, uncensored interview.

If you weren’t so occupied with wussing out, Keith, you’d know that we’re only exposing the character of IDers as continual liars by pointing it out when they lie. We aren’t the least bit afraid of the facts getting out. The Expelled crew is.

The Expelled essay merely rehearses the historical facts that Darwins theory was coopted by philosophical, socioeconomic, and political thinkers resulting in allied theories and practices whose harmful and destructive effects are undeniable by the rational mind.

And yet, these people were more than willing to burn the Origin of Species or send scientists studying evolution to the gulags or the firing squad.

And, of course, it’s completely irrelevant. What you’re talking about, Keith, is like calling Newton a horrible person because some people could use his theory to accurately hurl ballistic shells. The consequences of evil people who are “inspired” by facts doesn’t undermine whether or not they’re facts. Of course, you conveniently leave out all the good life-saving advances that came from evolution.

Oh, and it’s not Darwin’s theory anymore. We’ve moved on since those days. Why the Darwin fetish? Do you deliberately mention Darwin in order to distract people with utter irrelevancies?

We do applaud Ben and his team for furthering the above most needed efforts.

How does lying and devotion to irrelevance further education?

So, Keith, are you going to push for the unedited Myers interview to get exposure, or are you once again going to wuss out?
#90 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

he’s merely a blithering idiot*

*in case it wasn’t obvious?
#91 Bronze Dog
February 20, 2008

So, no substance from Keith. All he does is use Humpty Dumpty to change the definition of “ad hominem” so that he can conveniently ignore the points that have been made.

That, and I still don’t see him calling for Expelled to release the unedited interview footage. Still afraid of that leaking out?
#92 Glen Davidson
February 20, 2008

I wish to apologize to anyone offended by the screed from Glen. I have been mopping up his butt on several posts for a few weeks and he goes berserk quite frequently.

He is quite the intellectual as you can see by the cursing, name calling, and other techniques reminisent of the Aristotelian methods….LOL!

Ooh, the fuckhead proves once again that he lies without compunction or conscience. He hasn’t even responded to me in months, but essentially he lies like JAD does, transparently and quite possibly obsessively.

Plus, what MAJeff said.

Fuck yourself, Keith, I’m not going to deal with your anti-Christ hatred any further on this thread (not a promise, certainly my intention).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
#93 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

I wish to apologize to anyone offended by the screed from Glen.

ROFLMAO!

goddamnit, Glen, why are you so fucking offensive all the fucking time??
#94 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

…my logical presentations …

damnit, now I’m pissed, Keith just made me spit out an entire mouthful of my favorite coffee.

I’m sending you a request for reimbursement, retard.
#95 Glen Davidson
February 20, 2008

goddamnit, Glen, why are you so fucking offensive all the fucking time??

Well, I have to admit that I started it. On the Expelled blog I referred to evidence, and I made sense. This is deeply offensive to people like Keith, whose primary religious taboo is against evidence and sense.

I’d apologize for such offenses, but you know, I’m just plain too evil and mean to apologize for offending Keith with reason, and for truthfully describing his actions.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
#96 MAJeff
February 20, 2008

I will freely admit I have no business swimming in the illuminati pool with you

Again, the levels of idiocy are amazing. It’s all conspiracy. It can’t have anything to do with the fact that the Healer is simply wrong. No, it’s a conspiracy keeping his nonsense from being recognized….

blah blah blah blah
#97 Glen Davidson
February 20, 2008

I simply have a pension for bullshit masquerading as intellect.

Given such an inane substitution of “pension” for “penchant,” I only too readily believe that you have a penchant “for bullshit masquerading as intellect.”

The only trouble is, we can see through your lack of intellect to your bullshit very easily.

But thanks for the laugh at your expense. I’ve always found you IDiots to be entirely self-sacrificing in that respect, as you attempt to sound smart and instead sound, well, like you do.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
#98 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

I hope for your sake that you will recognize the condescending attitudes of you and your contemporaries is what got you into this mess to begin with.

and i hope for YOUR sake that you begin to recognize that it was the attitudes of armchair scientists like yourself that caused the inevitable response from scientists.

if I come and piss on your lawn every day, at first you might try to explain to me why you don’t like it, and why it’s not appropriate.

after the 100th time, you’re likely to respond by calling me an idiot and telling me to get the fuck off your lawn, eh?

now get off our lawn, you fucking idiot.
#99 MAJeff
February 20, 2008

I hope for your sake that you will recognize the condescending attitudes of you and your contemporaries is what got you into this mess to begin with.

Let’s see. Scientists going about their work, investigating and producing knowledge. Then religionists keep trying to shove unscientific nonsense into those scientists’ faces…and when scientists get fed up and say, “Stop with the bullshit already!” it’s all their own fault because they’re not nice enough to the bullshitters.
#100 windy
February 20, 2008

I will leave as quietly as I came, but you need not make excuses for the statements made by the Darwinian prophets you dare not question. If they cannot defend what they said, perhaps they will need to evolve.

Then it’s a good thing that we scientists CAN defend what we say about the science, you fucking moron. What we say about pretentious gits and arsewipes like you in our spare time is just a bonus.
#101 Stanton
February 20, 2008

Actually, Ichthyic, if you replace “have a pension for” with “tend to mistake bullshit for,” he makes a little more sense.

Honestly, if Healer and Keith are Expelled‘s defense against Professor Myers, the movie has already crashed and burned before it’s taken off.

I mean, Keith is an incoherent psychopath who uses Jesus Christ as a reason to hate people, and Healer is a slimy, hypocritical moron who is physically incapable of realizing that lying to an interviewee in order “to get a candid response” is still lying, and that the Bible strictly prohibits lying when it mentions “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” and mentions that there is no excuse to break this commandment (that doing it in God’s name makes it even worse, in fact).
#102 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

the movie has already crashed and burned before it’s taken off.

when you have to bribe large portions of your intended audience to even come and see your film, I think even the makers realize the failure this thing was going to be.

frankly, I doubt they even care.

of course, most people like Keith will just be happy to see us having to waste time cleaning up after the mess it will cause, just like we have to waste time cleaning up after Ken Hamm, or Kent Hovind, or any of the myriad other prevaricating morons out there.
#103 Sonny
February 20, 2008

Correct me if I’m wrong. And I very well maybe. Didnt’ Darwin on his death bed say something about believing in ID, and not renounce, but take back some of his studies, findings, or what ever you want to call them?
#104 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

Correct me if I’m wrong.

consider yourself corrected, and the point irrelevant in any case.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
#105 MAJeff
February 20, 2008

Correct me if I’m wrong. And I very well maybe. Didnt’ Darwin on his death bed say something about believing in ID, and not renounce, but take back some of his studies, findings, or what ever you want to call them?

You’re wrong. no such thing took place, but creationists love to spread that lie.
#106 Sonny
February 20, 2008

Valid point.

Another pure question that is all.

Has anyone ever read this book…

“true science agrees with the bible”

I am thinking about getting it, but not sure it’ll be worth my time….

Thanks
#107 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

they love to spread that lie, even though it wouldn’t matter one whit as to the veracity and efficacy of evolutionary theory, even if Darwin was a baby eating, psychopathic murderer.

they can’t seem to get it through their heads that science is not religion, has no prophets, and nobody is sacred.

not surprising, given that their only means of communication is through projection.

not saying that Sonny is one, but it needs to be said in general, given the commonality of this particular myth.
#108 Sonny
February 20, 2008

and what about this thing….

http://www.answersincreation.org/argument/E611_creation_science.htm

It seems that the guy is now second guessing himself?
#109 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

… you can safely assume that anything printed in AIG is going to be misinformation at best, and outright lies at worst.

go check out the talk origins archives if you want to spend some limited time on the issue.
#110 Sonny
February 20, 2008

Correct you are. You can never judge a book by it’s cover.

At the same time, I generally question all books. Information is information. But how are we supposed to test all things?

And if science is an ever increasing thing. Are we going to be thought of as “dumb” in only a matter of years?

Same goes for the Bible. How are we supposed to “test” it, using scientific methods? I’ve heard the Bible and history go hand and hand….
#111 Owlmirror
February 20, 2008

Didnt’ Darwin on his death bed say something about believing in ID

The term “intelligent design” to refer specifically to the teleological argument was not coined until the late 1980s, so he could not have said that he “believed in ID”. Perhaps you mean “believing in God”. Well, no, he didn’t say that on his deathbed, either.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/the_death_of_darwin.php
#112 MAJeff
February 20, 2008

I’ve heard the Bible and history go hand and hand…

The person who said that was, well, wrong.
#113 sonny
February 20, 2008

I laugh at the phrase ID. People seems like they are too afraid to say Creation anymore.

I merely said that, as a phun.
#114 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

And if science is an ever increasing thing. Are we going to be thought of as “dumb” in only a matter of years?

nobody thinks Newton was dumb, but relativity has relegated aspects of his mechanics to the dustbin of history.

we embrace with positive attitude the idea that things are constantly being challenged and changing.

the theory of evolution itself has “evolved” far beyond the ideas Darwin put forth in his original work.

We stand on the shoulders of those that came before us.
#115 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

or, you could grab the original from Aristotle:

If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants.
#116 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

er, crap, I meant Newton.

why did I say Aristotle?

*shakes head*

going for coffee now.
#117 Sonny
February 20, 2008

I thank you for your time Ichthyic.

I have to admit.

I am a believer in the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

I know next to nothing about science.

Next to nothing about Biblical history.

I can barely remember the sermon from last sunday.

What I do know, is what’s happened in my life since deciding to follow Christ. His teachings have shaped my life, and allowed me to experience Love, Joy and Peace, amongst other things, on a level in which I could never of fathomed.

The only proof that I have that God is real, is what’s been done in my life. And the lives of others I have been blessed to be around.

It’s safe to say that on all levels, people have implemented their own agenda and taken the name of Evolution, Christianity, Muslim etc, and drug it through the mud. It is truly a shame to human kind.

I did not come on here to argue only to ask questions.

Thank you for your time.
#118 Stanton
February 20, 2008

er, crap, I meant Newton.

why did I say Aristotle?

*shakes head*

going for coffee now.

Maybe it’s your subconscious subtly trying to tell you that you have a craving for Greek food?
#119 Owlmirror
February 20, 2008

And if science is an ever increasing thing. Are we going to be thought of as “dumb” in only a matter of years?

I’m not sure what you are asking. “Science” is increasing, but even there, science is the aggregate knowledge acquired by the the human race. No individual human knows all of science. So I suppose that in a way, we are all dumber than what we have in general learned.

How are we supposed to “test” it, using scientific methods?

The Bible makes several types of statements:

Some are generally true – the basic geography of the middle east is laid out, and some parts have been confirmed by archeology. We know, for example, that the area where the garden of Eden is vaguely alleged to have been was once part of the Fertile Crescent. We know that Egypt was and is a real place, and that the kings were called Pharaohs, and the the Nile river was important to the people of Egypt.

But the bible also makes lots of untestable claims: Were the ancient Israelites ever really slaves in Egypt? We’ve deciphered lots of hieroglyphs, and little has been found in confirmation. Did the Egyptian ever suffer 10 plagues? Not so far as can be found. And so on.

The Bible also makes statements which could not have been tested at the time it was written, but which are testable by modern science – and which have been shown to be false. The bible claims that the earth is around 6000 years old, and that there was a global flood. Geologists examined the earth for signs of the flood, and found evidence of lots of floods at different periods of time, but no signs of a global one. And of course, multiple dating methods put the current age of the Earth at around 4.5 billion years old, which shows the bible’s claim to have been false.
#120 Stanton
February 20, 2008

What I do know, is what’s happened in my life since deciding to follow Christ. His teachings have shaped my life, and allowed me to experience Love, Joy and Peace, amongst other things, on a level in which I could never of fathomed.

The only proof that I have that God is real, is what’s been done in my life. And the lives of others I have been blessed to be around.

So then, why do you need more proof, Sonny?

Go out, and follow the advice that the Book of Ecclesiastics gave, and live life, which is the reason why we put on this Earth to begin with. It wouldn’t hurt to buy some books, too, like, say, Ray Troll’s Cruisin’ The Fossil Highway, or Fossil Fishes by John Maisey, either.
#121 Sonny
February 20, 2008

I don’t recall ever saying I needed more proof, but I will look into those books.

Thanks.
#122 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

I did not come on here to argue only to ask questions.

…and stand on your soapbox?

feel free to ask questions. many of us have tons of information relevant to questions one might have of any theory within biology, or other branches of science.

also feel just as free NOT to pontificate on the origins or maintenance of your religious beliefs.

thanks.

if you are looking for those more interested in seeing how science and faith do not conflict, I think you might be a bit more happy spending time here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/

another area full of informative folks, but a bit more tolerant of the religious (PvM is in fact, a Christian).

good luck.
#123 Sonny
February 20, 2008

no soapbox.

Just found the website from the Movie Expelled’s website.

And I do apologize for pontificating my beliefs, on this website. Didn’t mean to offend you.
#124 Owlmirror
February 20, 2008

What I do know, is what’s happened in my life since deciding to follow Christ. His teachings have shaped my life, and allowed me to experience Love, Joy and Peace, amongst other things, on a level in which I could never of fathomed.

And no one here will stand in your way in continuing on that path, for as long as you wish.

However, I would suggest that you keep in mind that “Love, Joy and Peace” are emotions which are part of the general human condition. And while your own experiences of those emotions may be powerful and vivid to you, they are just as powerful and vivid to all humans, past and present, regardless of whether they believed in Jesus or Yahweh or Allah or Zeus or Thor or Vishnu or no gods at all.
#125 Steven
February 20, 2008

Ok …… I see one slight but possibly relevant mistake with the comparison made by PZ Myers concerning how Charles Darwin was much more of a gentleman than Christians of his day. I will just state here, that it just might be possible that actual recorded history may be of no importance to a scientist when they choose of their own free will to make a false comparison intended to mislead others into thinking that christians are, were, and always will be “inferior” to their own intellect.

First of all, you need a refresher course on the Atlantic Slave Trade. One person you should research fully is John Henry Newton. You might even ask yourself this question “Why did the State of Georgia abolish slavery for the first two decades of its existence?”

I can sort of see Ben Stein’s point ….. PZ Myers is attacking people of faith in an attempt to ridicule them, while at the same time, spouting off nonsense about how Charles Darwin was somehow less of a racist than christians of his day. Your talking garbage. A racist is a racist. More christians have put forth an effort to stop racism than any scientist. That is a fact you might have a bit of trouble swallowing my dear good sir.
#126 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

And I do apologize for pontificating my beliefs, on this website. Didn’t mean to offend you.

not offensive, just tiresome. which i would add you yourself shouldn’t take necessary offense at.

like i said, a cursory glance suggests you might like spending time at the ‘thumb more.

you’ll get the same kinds of insights into evolutionary theory (for the most part), and there won’t be quite as negative a reaction towards your religious beliefs, if that’s important to you.
#127 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

will just state here, that it just might be possible that actual recorded history may be of no importance to a scientist when they choose of their own free will to make a false comparison intended to mislead others into thinking that christians are, were, and always will be “inferior” to their own intellect.

have you ever heard the term:

strawman?

here, read up and then reconsider what you just wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
#128 MAJeff
February 20, 2008

A racist is a racist.

Abe Lincoln was a racist.

What a miserable excuse for a human he must have been.
#129 Sonny
February 20, 2008

yeah I’ll check it out man. thanks.

one final question, before my stomach explodes for lack of no dinner…

if we evolved from chromizones, molecules. etc…

where did they come from?

didn’t this whole thing have to start from somewhere?

and I will understand if you dont’ want to answer my question.

Again thanks for your time. Your responses wasn’t what I was expecting.
#130 Tyler DiPietro
February 20, 2008

“More christians have put forth an effort to stop racism than any scientist.”

The converse is also true: more Christians put in an effort to preserve slavery than any scientist. This probably due to the vastly larger numbers of Christians in comparison scientists.
#131 Tyler DiPietro
February 20, 2008

“didn’t this whole thing have to start from somewhere?”

Yes, but it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory, unlike Christianity, isn’t intended to be a comprehensive cosmology or cosmogeny. It is simply an explanatory framework for how populations of biological organisms change over time. Where elementary particles, chemical elements, etc. initiated is irrelevant to the basic picture of evolution.
#132 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

didn’t this whole thing have to start from somewhere?

you’re into the field of abiogenesis now:

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

just to be clear how this differs from (and is also similar to) the theory of how things evolved afterwards.

typically, evolutionary biologists are more concerned about how things change within populations, not how the first reproducing organism arose to begin with.

That said, as scientists we certainly don’t presume other than natural causes, and there are enough theories out there being evaluated as we speak; see the wiki article i linked to for several examples.
#133 Sonny
February 20, 2008

but where did the “water vapor” come from?

and what about the earth itself?

Evolunists, (only a question, not an attack) only believe in studying the evolving of life on earth? Correct?
#134 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

Evolunists, (only a question, not an attack) only believe in studying the evolving of life on earth? Correct?

to some extent, we have to understand chemistry, physics, geology, and even a little astronomy in order to understand what the constraints and properties inherent in the systems are.

so, yes, we are primarily interested in studying life, but in order to do so, we have to know quite a bit about other fields as well.

I took enough chemistry to minor in it as an undergrad, for example.

oh, and I don’t know any evolutionary biologists that refer to themselves as “evolutionists” either.

it’s a theory, not a worldview, in spite of what you might have been told.
#135 Sonny
February 20, 2008

Theory. Gotcha.

So in your studies, cause they seem a lot more wide then mine, how did earth beging? And the “molecules” (or however they are referred to) begin?

Cause the question I always come to when thinking about “evolution” is, it had to all begin somewhere?

True, yes?
#136 Steven
February 20, 2008

“More christians have put forth an effort to stop racism than any scientist.”

The converse is also true: more Christians put in an effort to preserve slavery than any scientist. This probably due to the vastly larger numbers of Christians in comparison scientists.

Your statements are incorrect. This is yet another urban legend such as “christians were responsible for the flat earth theory” (even though the bible said it was round). So called scientists believed the earth was flat.

I would say that more scientists have encouraged euthanasia than any christian. I would also say that “big science” is also responsible for the Holocaust. “Now hold on “…. you might say ….. “the racial ideologies of the third reich were based on a misinterpretation of the Darwin theory yadda yadda yadda ……….”

I have heard them all my friend. I can now pose this question “If it was a misinterpretation, where did the misinterpretation take place?, Was Charles Darwin ONLY talking about animals? Don’t you think he was also INCLUDING human beings in his Origin of the Species?”

Of course he was. And of course it is wrong to euthanize those whom are deemed “inferior” by the pre-dominant “species” or “race”.

I do not see christians advocating mercy killings, or aborting a live baby 30 days after it has been born (Peter Singer and others). I do not see christians debating on when a human being is actually a person.

I see “big science” as Ben Stein calls it, doing just that.

I believe science is a great tool used to explain how our environment “works”. It should never be used to indoctrinate one professor’s ideology of how things work. When evidence contradicts scientific research, it should not be stifled or dismissed. It should be discussed.
#137 Sonny
February 20, 2008

owlmirror,

I think your wikipedia reference, is another gross example of how people have taken the “bible” and twisted their own agendas into it.

It’s pathetic at best.

But couldn’t one say, that we are slaves to something? There is something that controls us all? Our motives, our actions, our beliefs?
#138 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

So in your studies, cause they seem a lot more wide then mine, how did earth beging? And the “molecules” (or however they are referred to) begin?

earth? as an accretion of dust particles, minerals, and gases, same as any other body within the solar system (including the sun).

again, a basic google search on “origin of earth” will likely turn up the latest work.

did you happen to catch the fairly recent series: The Universe, that was shown on the history channel?

if not, you might like to take a gander at that for a fun and basic review of what we currently know and have hypothesized.

http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=mini_home&mini_id=54036

there are also a lot of excellent books on the subject out there, and of course you might want to try websites of those whose field is more directly relevant:

http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/

by “molecules” I assume you mean self-replicating molecules?

if so, I again suggest you check out the references in the wiki on abiogenesis.
#139 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

There is something that controls us all? Our motives, our actions, our beliefs?

I take it you have abandoned the idea of free will?

you can change your mind about rather important issues at a moment’s notice, can you not?

you could stop believing in a deity right now, and I promise no retaliation, nor change in the way the world around you functions in the most basic sense.

that said, what evidence do you have that supports the idea you have no free will?
#140 Owlmirror
February 20, 2008

“Now hold on “…. you might say ….. “the racial ideologies of the third reich were based on a misinterpretation of the Darwin theory

No. I would say: The Third Reich didn’t misinterpret “the Darwin theory”, as you phrase it, because they didn’t use it. At all.

Hitler preferred more classical models of racial superiority:

Hitler praised Arminius (“Hermann”), who annihilated ancient Roman legions, as “the first architect of our liberty,” and the aggressive medieval monarch, Charlemagne, as “one of the greatest men in world history.” In 1924, Hitler urged that “the new Reich must again set itself on the march along the road of the Teutonic knights of old, to obtain by the German sword sod for the German plow.”

A second model was Roman history itself, which Hitler considered “the best mentor, not only for today, but probably for all time.” He considered Rome’s genocide of Carthage in 146 BCE “a slow execution of a people through its own deserts.” Classical Sparta was a third Nazi model. Hitler recommended in 1928 that a state should “limit the number allowed to live,” and added: “The Spartans were once capable of such a wise measure… The subjugation of 350,000 Helots by 6,000 Spartans was only possible because of the racial superiority of the Spartans.” They had created “the first racialist state.” Invading the USSR in 1941, Hitler saw its citizens as Helots to his Spartans: “They came as conquerors, and they took everything.” A Nazi officer specified that “the Germans would have to assume the position of the Spartiates, while … the Russians were the Helots.”

“I’ve just learnt,” Hitler further remarked, “that the feeding of the Roman armies was almost entirely based on cereals.” Now, he added, Ukraine and Russia “will one day be the granaries of Europe,” but they merited that responsibility only with German agricultural settlement. “The Slavs are a mass of born slaves,”
#141 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

. “Now hold on “…. you might say ….. “the racial ideologies of the third reich were based on a misinterpretation of the Darwin theory yadda yadda yadda ……….”

actually, they were based on the writings of Martin Luther, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin, or any of his writings.

did you ever actually READ Mein Kampf?

suggest you do so before you say “I’ve heard them all”.

when (if) you do, you will find no references to Darwin, or to the theory of evolution.

go figure.

so tired of you Kennedy (James) wannabes trying to pretend you know something about history.

morons, the lot of ya.
#142 Sonny
February 20, 2008

No I think we have a free will.

We are all free to do whatever we want.

Yes we have the choice to change at any given notice.

But it seems as we “un” progress as a civilization, we are “generally” becoming more dependent on things. A dependence that soon, if not stopped, becomes a type of slave owner if you will.

I have no evidence that supports the Idea of no free will. But I do have evidence at what our “world” is turning into.

Ever been to wal-mart. LOL.
#143 Kseniya
February 20, 2008

The converse is also true: more Christians put in an effort to preserve slavery than any scientist. This probably due to the vastly larger numbers of Christians in comparison scientists.

Your statements are incorrect.

Really? Incorrect? So… you’re saying that it was scientists, not Christians, who fought wars to preserve slavery? You’re saying there are many more scientists than there are Christians?

How interesting!

Oh. And “big science” caused the Holocaust. LMAO. Never heard that one before.

(Wow. Has this guy swallowed the Kool-Aid or what?)

I have heard them all my friend

Heh. I doubt that. Yet you suppose that this rancid tripe you’re serving up here on on your splintered and rotting platter is in ANY sense new?
#144 MAJeff
February 20, 2008

What is it about the Right-Wing mind that sees conspiracies everywhere? I mean the John Birchers and McCarthy complaining about a government full of commies–even up to President Eisenhower himself–who have moved more recently into Jewish conspiracy theories. There are the freaks (like Gerry) pushing ZOG as foretold in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, leading to UN black helicopters taking over everything. There’s always the Illuminati and Freemasons running things behind the scenes. And now we’ve got Big Science.

Steven, take your pills. It is all in your head.
#145 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

When evidence contradicts scientific research, it should not be stifled or dismissed. It should be discussed.

we do.

what you are confused about is thinking that creationism provides any evidence that needs evaluation or discussion.

It simply doesn’t.

thousands of years to show evidence of a deity’s hand in natural affairs have resulted in…

zip.

nada.

ZERO

you want to take it to the latest iteration? so called “Intelligent Design”?

guess what?

we asked the supporters of ID to actually provide research that documents how they have tested their concepts and predictions.

what did we get, after 15 years?

nada.

zip

zilch

zero

null

…

to be able to discuss science, there has to be science to begin with.
#146 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

Ever been to wal-mart. LOL.

touche’

:p

but the point is, we ourselves determine how much our freedoms and choices are limited. nobody and no-thing is out there doing it for us.
#147 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

to be able to discuss science, there has to be science to begin with.

…expelled nothing, ID never even made it to school to begin with!

they were shouting with a megaphone from the parking lot.
#148 Steven
February 20, 2008

As I recall from my science studies at a what shall be nameless University in Washington, D.C., I was taught as fact, not theory, that the earth is millions or billions of years old.

I knew better than to question my professor, for to do so would have earned me an F. But I never did get any of my questions answered, so I will ask now and hold my peace.

If it is true that the earth gains mass annually, and it is millions, or billions (whichever sounds more grandiose) old, then why aren’t we touching the sun by now?

If it is true that it takes thousands, perhaps millions, of years for sedimentary layers to form, why did I see several sedimentary layers form in one afternoon when Mt. Saint Helen’s erupted?

When using the ever so accurate scientific method of carbon dating, why do live snail shells indicate they died 25,000 years ago?

After years of evolutionary scientists fighting for their share in fame and glory, and the theory that man descended from a common apelike creature, why is it never discussed that the scientific evidence for this theory was a result of a mistaken bone fragment from an extinct pig? Why does the homicide reconstructionist artist rendering of the Cro-Magnon man resemble my neighbor Fred?
#149 Sonny
February 20, 2008

Thanks.

So a person who believes in the evolution theory and believer in the faith of Jesus Christ agree on something.

HOO_RAY!

yeah We all got free will I most agree with that. But, unfortunately what I don’t think a lot of us comprehend, or just choose to neglect thought to whatsoever, is that yeah we got free will to make choices of our own, but every choice has a reaction. That is science isn’t it? Newton’s law or something?
#150 Tyler DiPietro
February 20, 2008

“Your statements are incorrect. This is yet another urban legend such as “christians were responsible for the flat earth theory” (even though the bible said it was round). So called scientists believed the earth was flat.”

So the confederacy most consisted of scientists and non-Christians. Got it.

I really can’t wait to see how long this guy continues to urinate on his own feet to get around this.
#151 Nullifidian
February 20, 2008

The more effective you are at dismissing detractors as idiots and demonstrating that the people questioning you are intellectual inferiors, the more you feel it validates your position. That is precisely the attitude that the filmmakers wanted to expose, and was the only point I was trying to make.

Actually, what validates my acceptance of conventional evolutionary biology is the evidence. Dismissing its detractors comes when I see that they have no evidence. There are several varieties of this sort: there’s the bumptious, pompous fool like Keith Eaton; the warm-and-fuzzy scold like you; the loudly ignorant like Ben Stein; and the trust-us-it’s-a-scientific-theory bullshit artists like Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells. What they all have in common is their uncomprehending approach to discussing evolution and a complete and utter lack of sound evidence, or even the means to build an evidentiary case.

I personally do not debate creationists about creationism anymore. I got over that while I was still an undergraduate. Then it was interesting, when I was just learning about the very issues which they were misrepresenting, so that my level of knowledge perfectly coincided with the sort of arguments that hadn’t changed in forty years, since the publication of The Genesis Flood. Then as I learned more as an undergraduate, then graduate student, my interest in debating creationists waned. I could see that they weren’t even in the same ballpark as what was new and interesting in biology.

If creationists would be less ignorant, less cocksure, and less bumptious, and less dishonest, then perhaps the reception would be less hostile. Until that time, however, there is no point to bending over backwards to be civil to people who will use that very civility as a wedge to push their half-baked ideas into the public school and university systems, and then when one cries “Foul!” complain that they’re being persecuted.
#152 Owlmirror
February 20, 2008

Theory. Gotcha.

Please keep in mind that a scientific theory is an explanation based on the evidence. It will make everyone here a whole lot happier.

how did earth begin

Sonny, the current cosmological model is that space itself exploded into the universe. Matter, which was originally very concentrated and hot, expanded and cooled, forming the first stars and galaxies. The first stars were made of hydrogen, which fuses into helium, releasing energy. When the hydrogen has all fused, the helium fuses into carbon (and oxygen, and neon). The fusion of elements continues in various ways until iron is reached. When iron is reached, fusion cannot continue (because it requires energy rather than producing it), and the star collapses and undergoes a supernova, which will then form many many other elements and scatter them everywhere. The remnants of the star will be incorporated into other, younger stellar system, one of which was our own solar system.

But it looks like the question that you are trying to slowly lead up to is “Why is there something rather than nothing?” or “where did everything come from?”

At this point in time, there is no answer to that question, other than guesses.

However. I just want to point out that the process of science — examining the available evidence, often with tools made possible by earlier scientific discoveries, is far more likely to reach an answer than any other way of thinking. And even the guesses, when based on current scientific knowledge, are better than those from ones who are not so educated.
#153 Steven
February 20, 2008

“Your statements are incorrect. This is yet another urban legend such as “christians were responsible for the flat earth theory” (even though the bible said it was round). So called scientists believed the earth was flat.”

So the confederacy most consisted of scientists and non-Christians. Got it.

I really can’t wait to see how long this guy continues to urinate on his own feet to get around this.

Wait no longer ….. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was NOT a confederate soldier. I wonder what exactly they are teaching in the science classrooms these days.

The State of Georgia was an abolitionist state the first 20 years of its existence because christians held the majority of political power during that time.

Robert E. Lee, the big ‘ol redneck boy of the south, was an abolitionist and a christian. One of his campaign promises (he was vying for presidency of the confederacy) was to abolish slavery in the south.

I am starting to understand just how gullible some of you all are. If someone were to …. oh, I don’t know …. say something like ……. your ancestors were monkeys, well by golly, you’d probably believe that too.

Monkey see, monkey do.
#154 Tyler DiPietro
February 20, 2008

“When using the ever so accurate scientific method of carbon dating, why do live snail shells indicate they died 25,000 years ago?”

It’s called the reservoir effect. In short, radiocarbon measurements can be thrown off if the object being dated has been contaminated by carbon reservoirs, and the effect varies by geographic region. Scienctists are well aware of the problem.
#155 Sonny
February 20, 2008

Owlmirror….

But it looks like the question that you are trying to slowly lead up to is “Why is there something rather than nothing?” or “where did everything come from?”

At this point in time, there is no answer to that question, other than guesses.

That is what you stated…

So my obvious question is this…

And it’s just a question…

The theory of evolution, has to depend upon a guess?
#156 Tyler DiPietro
February 20, 2008

“Wait no longer ….. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was NOT a confederate soldier.”

Which is completely irrelevant. You claimed that my statement that “more Christians acted to preserve slavery than any scientist” was an “urbran legend”. The fact that the confederacy was overwhelmingly Christian undermines your claim. It’s pretty simple logic.

“I am starting to understand just how gullible some of you all are. If someone were to …. oh, I don’t know …. say something like ……. your ancestors were monkeys, well by golly, you’d probably believe that too.”

This is why I’m for mandatory courses on logic, rhetoric and exposition at the high school level. It really does help a lot to understand the basics, at least.
#157 windy
February 20, 2008

Why does the homicide reconstructionist artist rendering of the Cro-Magnon man resemble my neighbor Fred?

Because they are the same species.
#158 Kseniya
February 20, 2008

It is true that Georgia was markedly different from the rest of the States of the Union, where the Scientists held the majority of the political power during that time. And while it is true that The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King was not a Confederate Soldier, had he been a Scientist instead of a Christian then he, and not that gangly ape Lincoln, would have been elected President, and Slavery surely would have ended Sooner (and with less of that Cain and Abel stuff).
#159 MAJeff
February 20, 2008

Robert E. Lee, the big ‘ol redneck boy of the south, was an abolitionist and a christian. One of his campaign promises (he was vying for presidency of the confederacy) was to abolish slavery in the south.

That would have explicitly violated the Constitution of the CSA.

Additionally, wouldn’t it be odd for an abolitionist to own slaves? Lee did.

In other words, you’re a liar.
#160 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

The theory of evolution, has to depend upon a guess?

only if you think the formation of the earth is relevant to testing for example whether selection is a relevant mechanism in speciation. Because actually, we don’t have to guess on that point, it’s been tested literally tens of thousands of times, and while not the only mechanism driving the direction of traits withing populations of organisms, it’s pretty damn clear it is one of them. Not much of a guess at this point whether Darwin was right about that one.

don’t overreach, would be my only advice to you at this point; don’t conflate abiogenesis with evolutionary theory, even if they are related. You’ll just get yourself more confused.

start with the basics, first, and then try to work out some kind of larger synthesis if you wish.
#161 Tyler DiPietro
February 20, 2008

“The theory of evolution, has to depend upon a guess?”

Even assuming your premise, evolution doesn’t “depend on a guess” anymore than our theories of quantum electrodynamics, fluid dynamics, computational complexity, etc. “Not knowing everything” does not equate to “knowing nothing.”
#162 Nullifidian
February 20, 2008

More christians have put forth an effort to stop racism than any scientist. That is a fact you might have a bit of trouble swallowing my dear good sir.

It’s a ‘fact’ I have a great deal of trouble swallowing, because it dismisses the White Identity Church of Jesus Christ-Christian, the Ku Klux Klan, and the entire apparatus supporting slavery in the South. This is why Hubert Henry Harrison, a prominent pamphleteer during the Harlem Renaissance, said that he refused to bow down before a lily white god and worship a Jim Crow Jesus. Asa Philip Randolph, also an atheist, and prominent labor organizer, held much the same opinion. Of course their opinions don’t seem to matter, what matters is how much mileage they can get for themselves out of remembering that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Christian, riding his dead body in order to forget how many white churches and white Christian organizations (like the Klan) stood squarely in his way.

Furthermore, this alleged ‘fact’ ignores the long history of anti-racist writings from scientists. Who was it, after all, that critiqued the assumptions made in The Bell Curve? It ignores figures like Ashley Montagu, whose Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race demolished the arguments of the new breed of “scientific” racists decades before they became popular. Ditto for Theodosius Dobzhansky’s Genetic Diversity and Human Equality, and it’s worth noting that Dobzhansky was one of the main architects of the Modern Synthesis. Richard Lewontin showed that humans vary clinally, with the genetic diversity greater within a geographic area than between geographic areas, severely undermining the essentialist basis for notions of “race”. In fact, because of the efforts of researchers like these, I can’t think of a single working scientist who believes that there are essentialist characteristics defining a “race” and that these characteristics are correlated with superiority or inferiority to other groups. There are, however, plenty of Christians who still believe that–the KKK’s slogan is “Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!”.

So, with that in mind, perhaps you would provide us with a complete and unbiased examination of the subject of racism so that we can see your evidence that Christians have done more to stop racism for ourselves?
#163 MAJeff
February 20, 2008

The theory of evolution, has to depend upon a guess?

I KNEW this was what you were trying to do. But, no, it doesn’t hold up. The theory of evolution is backed up by chemistry, physics, geology and anthropology, among other fields. The evidence has been consistently collected and analyzed. It’s not “just a guess.” There’s an overwhelming amount of work and evidence behind it.
#164 Ichthyic
February 20, 2008

by the way, Steven, before you confuse Martin Luther with MLK (or am I too late already)…

try this on for size:

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html
#165 Sonny
February 20, 2008

thanks for making my thoughts clearer.

Blessings.
#166 Owlmirror
February 20, 2008

The theory of evolution, has to depend upon a guess?

No. The theory of evolution depends on the evidence. You’re made of the evidence. So am I. So is every living thing on the planet.

The current model of planetary formation is a theory that’s also based on the evidence, from our own planet, and what we see of other planets in our solar system, and from other stellar systems.

The only thing that’s a “guess” is what came before the Big Bang.
#167 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I was taught as fact, not theory, that the earth is millions or billions of years old.

you were taught as fact that the earth is millions or billions of years old?

which?

millions or billions?

can’t be both.

fucking liar.
#168 Steven
February 21, 2008

Which is completely irrelevant. You claimed that my statement that “more Christians acted to preserve slavery than any scientist” was an “urbran legend”. The fact that the confederacy was overwhelmingly Christian undermines your claim. It’s pretty simple logic.

Ok, first of all, the American Civil War was not a war about slavery. It was a war about state rights. Secondly, the vast majority of southerners were much too poor to have had the financial means to own slaves.

The whole issue of slavery came about as a result of the Civil War. It was politics.

Robert E. Lee, when asked to lead the Union against his home state of Virginia, refused based on a premise that he could not attack his family,his neighbors, his home. This was the main issue, not slavery. As I stated earlier, Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist. He became an abolitionist AFTER his conversion to christianity. Your implications that the southerners were a bunch of hillbilly bible thumping hate mongering racists is a little off. Their motivation was NOT to preserve slavery, it was to preserve their homes and protect their families from an invading army.

If General Jackson had not been killed, we would be living in two seperate countries. The Southern States would have abolished slavery regardless. Abolishing slavery was not only Robert E. Lee’s campaign promise, it was Jackson’s promise as well.

Slavery was a rich plantation owner’s issue, not the confederate soldier’s issue. We still have the same problem today, only it has taken the form of illegal immigration. Maybe we should just invade California?
#169 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Ok, first of all, the American Civil War was not a war about slavery. It was a war about state rights.

…and slavery.

and economics.

and a couple of other things.

so?

Secondly, the vast majority of southerners were much too poor to have had the financial means to own slaves.

so?

Slavery was a rich plantation owner’s issue, not the confederate soldier’s issue. We still have the same problem today, only it has taken the form of illegal immigration.

sure, all you have to do is show me how all the Africans were just ever so eager to jump on board ship and come here to work for massa, boss. Then you might be able to compare immigration with slavery, well, at least that’s ONE thing you’d have to do in a laundry list of imaginary history you’d have to invent off the cuff.

LOL

now I KNOW you’re a moron.

thanks for playing.

bye now.

do your kids a favor, don’t vote. If you don’t have kids, that’s good, keep that up.
#170 windy
February 21, 2008

Richard Lewontin showed that humans vary clinally, with the genetic diversity greater within a geographic area than between geographic areas, severely undermining the essentialist basis for notions of “race”.

Cavalli-Sforza is the clinal variation guy, not Lewontin. Clinal variation depends on the bits that vary between geographic areas, so it’s not the same thing as showing that there’s more variation within an area.
#171 Steven
February 21, 2008

All you have to do now is show how illegal immigrants are not doing remedial (ahem, slave) labor and then maybe you would be able to get your head out of your ass and breathe some healthy oxygen.
#172 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

“Ok, first of all, the American Civil War was not a war about slavery. It was a war about state rights. Secondly, the vast majority of southerners were much too poor to have had the financial means to own slaves.”

Even setting aside the grotesque neoconfederate revisionism in this post, it isn’t even relevant to what I said. The confederacy explicitly preserved the institution of slavery in its constitution. Instructively, it also explicitly acknowledged the influence of the “Almighty God” in its preamble, something our constitution does not.
#173 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

Robert E. Lee, the big ‘ol redneck boy of the south, was an abolitionist and a christian.

Here’s Lee in an 1856 letter to his wife:

The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

Yes, that certainly sounds like an abolitionist to me. “Let’s let slavery end whenever it is that god sends us a revelation that we need to, and in the meantime I’ll continue running my plantation with its 196 slaves.”

One of his campaign promises (he was vying for presidency of the confederacy) was to abolish slavery in the south.

And when was he vying for presidency of the Confederacy? Jefferson Davis was appointed president by a constitutional convention in Montgomery, AL in 1861. There was no public campaign, with its expansive campaign promises. And furthermore, as has already been noted, it would have violated the Confederacy’s constitution.

Do you know even the slightest thing about the history you’re pontificating about, or are you just making it up as you go along (as I highly suspect)?
#174 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

remedial (ahem, slave) labor

all you have to do is show how remedial labor that one gets paid wages for is slavery. slaves were often used in capacities other than remedial labor too, so you’ll need to figure out how to work that in there too.

no wait, all you have to do is show how you’re not a complete idiot, first.

I rather doubt you will be able to do so, frankly.
#175 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

Cavalli-Sforza is the clinal variation guy, not Lewontin. Clinal variation depends on the bits that vary between geographic areas, so it’s not the same thing as showing that there’s more variation within an area.

I am chastened. I shouldn’t post stuff like that without looking at my library. I just thought of Lewontin since he’s done a great deal of work on genetic diversity and made the false connection.
#176 Steven
February 21, 2008

I noticed how his full letter isn’t posted, but hey, I am used to “your kind” so here it is:

I was much pleased the with President’s message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?
#177 Steven
February 21, 2008

well ….. there you have it.

I won’t even say that was at least a Grad student’s best attempt.

More like History 101
#178 windy
February 21, 2008

#360: The rest of your statement was correct though. Lewontin was the one who popularized the idea that there’s more variation within than between “races”. And that does disprove essentialist concepts of race, although it’s not enough to prove that non-essentialist “races” don’t exist.
#179 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

or are you just making it up as you go along (as I highly suspect)?

no need to suspect, actually.

he is.

whether he will admit it is another question entirely, and the only one of interest to myself at this point.

I’m going to wager that if we look at all of his posts, assuming he adds to them, we will find at least a dozen clear examples of inventiveness.

typical creobot: reality doesn’t fit his preconceptions, so instead of changing the preconceptions, they try to change the very definitions of reality instead.

just like the Kansas creobots who tried to redefine science such that “astrology” would be considered science, just so they could cram their religious ideology into a classroom.

guess what Steven? it didn’t work for them, either.

if you think about it, you should be happy it didn’t. How would you like your kids to be learning about the “scientific predictions” of the Qu’ran in their next science class?

oh? you wouldn’t like that much?

LOL
#180 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

As I stated earlier, Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist. He became an abolitionist AFTER his conversion to christianity.

Robert E. Lee was a Christian his entire life, and he was an abolitionist for precisely none of it.

Abolishing slavery was not only Robert E. Lee’s campaign promise, it was Jackson’s promise as well.

Again, and WHEN did this campaigning happen, considering that Davis was appointed to his post by the Confederate constitutional convention, and then “re-elected” by an electoral college appointed by the legislature for six years? Remember, they had a single six year term, and the office was created and dissolved by reunification before Davis’ term was up. So when did this campaigning happen?
#181 Owlmirror
February 21, 2008

Oh, now it’s a Civil War debate? Those never end well.

Be it further enacted
, That any slave or free person of color, who shall, by promises of freedom or liberty, or by any kind of incitement, entice or induce any slave to leave the service of his master, or shall attempt to induce or entice said slave, shall on conviction thereof, suffer the punishment of death, or such other punishment as the jury may recommend in their verdict, and in case of no such recommendation, such punishment as the Judge presiding, in his discretion, may inflict.
— Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Georgia
Passed in Milledgeville at an Annual Session in November and December, 1863

Yeah, Georgia was real enlightened. Yah-huh.
#182 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

well ….. there you have it.

have WHAT??
#183 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

I noticed how his full letter isn’t posted, but hey, I am used to “your kind” so here it is:

Of course the full letter wasn’t posted, because I didn’t have access to it. Having read it, I’d be grateful if you’d point out where it shows that he was an abolitionist. Here’s a little hint for you: you can’t, because it doesn’t. In fact, it implies that we shouldn’t take steps to end slavery because god has it all under control and it’ll end it in its own good time.

Combined with the Neo-Confederate mythmaking you’re engaging in, the phrase “your kind” tells me all I ever needed to know about you and your beliefs.
#184 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

why is it that Southerners constantly try their hand at revisionist history?

oh yeah, that’s right, they LOST.

sweet plastic jesus on my dashboard, you’d think they would have gotten over that by now.
#185 Damian
February 21, 2008

Thought that I would chime in with some info for Sonny about where all of the matter in the Universe came from. Firstly, the universe has probably always existed – just not in its current form, obviously. Many of the (public) perceptions about the Big Bang are wrong, in my experience:

In the beginning, there was not yet any matter. However, there was a lot of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. (An antiparticle is the exact opposite of the corresponding particle — for example, a proton has charge +e, so an antiproton has charge -e.) This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). It turns out that the photon is just one of a class of particles, called the bosons, that decay in this manner. Many of the bosons around just after the big bang were so energetic that they could decay into much more massive particles such as protons (remember, E=mc^2, so to make a particle with a large mass m, you need a boson with a high energy E). The mass in the universe came from such decays.

The next question to ask is: where did all the antimatter go? For each particle created in this fashion, there is exactly one antiparticle. In this case, there should have been exactly as much antimatter as there is matter. If that were true, when the universe had cooled somewhat each particle would have found an antiparticle and combined to form a boson (this process is called annihilation of the particles). Actually, this was the fate of most of these pairs — something like 10 billion particles annihilated for every one that survived. The survival of even such a small fraction was enough to form all of the matter in our universe. At some point during this process, something else must have happened to cause the survival of more particles than antiparticles (we call this the particle-antiparticle asymmetry).

There are many theories that try to explain this asymmetry. I will give a very brief description of one of them, called electroweak baryogenesis. (Understanding it requires a lot more background information than I have space for.) Protons and neutrons are particles called baryons, and baryogenesis means the creation of baryons. The current understanding of particle physics, called the standard model, dictates that nowadays the number of baryons is nearly constant, with only a small variation due to quantum mechanical tunneling. In the early universe, however, the temperature was much higher, so that this tunneling was commonplace and a large number of baryons could have been created. Electroweak refers to the time period in question, when the electromagnetic and weak forces were decoupling from a single force into 2 separate forces (between 10^-12 and 10^-6 seconds after the big bang–the asymmetry probably would have formed towards the end). An additional source of baryons is due to the fact that leptons (another type of particle, including electrons) can be converted into baryons at this epoch.
#186 Steven
February 21, 2008

Yeah, Georgia was real enlightened. Yah-huh.

you didn’t happen to notice the date that was written did you?

Probably not.

The first twenty years of its existence predates 1863.
#187 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

The State of Georgia was an abolitionist state the first 20 years of its existence because christians held the majority of political power during that time.

Aside from the fact that this is not true, and that Georgia delegates were partly responsible for the insertion of the clauses in the U.S. Constitution protecting the slave trade for the first twenty years of the U.S.’s existence, exactly whom do you imagine seized power in Georgia twenty years after the founding of the U.S.? Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus? Atheists? And where’s your evidence for any of it?
#188 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

You weren’t possibly talking about the ban on the importation of new slaves, were you?

In 1790, just before the explosion in cotton production, some 29,264 slaves resided in the state. In 1793 the Georgia Assembly passed a law prohibiting the importation of slaves. The law did not go into effect until 1798, when the state constitution also went into effect, but the measure was widely ignored by planters, who urgently sought to increase their enslaved workforce. By 1800 the slave population in Georgia had more than doubled, to 59,699; by 1810 the number of slaves had grown to 105,218.

Wow! That’s some abolitionist state! For the record, the number of slaves in a free state should be zero.
#189 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence.

oh yes, abolitionism through advocation of slavery as “good for them”.

uh, wait…

dude, you ARE a fucking moron.
#190 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Tell us, Stevo…

where did the concept of “Manifest Destiny” come from?

Xians or secularists?

hmm?
#191 Steven
February 21, 2008

oh yes, abolitionism through advocation of slavery as “good for them”.

uh, wait…

dude, you ARE a fucking moron.

You still have your head up your ass. Take an illegal immigrant, I don’t care which one, and ask him/her “Is your life better here than in Mexico (gasp, did I say that out loud?)?”

An African slave’s life was far better than a life they would have had in Africa (for the majority). I am not saying slavery was a good thing, just as I am not saying that doing forced remedial labor for a greedy construction company is a good thing either.

Its kind of hard having to take you by your hand every step of the way so that you can actually understand what Robert E. Lee was actually saying. Perhaps the very last sentence should have clued you in?

I can see its already pointless.
#192 Owlmirror
February 21, 2008

Aside from the fact that this is not true, and that Georgia delegates were partly responsible for the insertion of the clauses in the U.S. Constitution protecting the slave trade for the first twenty years of the U.S.’s existence, exactly whom do you imagine seized power in Georgia twenty years after the founding of the U.S.? Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus?

Scientists, of course. Everyone knows that the political opposite of all Christians everywhere and in all times has been the Scientist. A scurrilous breed!

OH HAI, I REVISEDED UR HISTRY
#193 Steven
February 21, 2008

Tell us, Stevo…

where did the concept of “Manifest Destiny” come from?

Xians or secularists?

hmm?

Why of course I will answer your question. But you have to answer mine first.

Were the T-4 Euthanasia laboratories the product of biblical teaching or the product of Darwinist teaching?

I already know all the tricks Just because someone was raised a Catholic, Buhhdist, Taoist or whatever does not mean they actually believe it. It just means a well meaning parent tried to influence them at some point in their lives.
#194 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Take an illegal immigrant, I don’t care which one, and ask him/her “Is your life better here than in Mexico (gasp, did I say that out loud?)?”

they fucking CHOSE to come here for better wages, moron, which is exactly why they ARE NOT SLAVES.

jesus, they sure make em dumb down in your neck of the woods, don’t they?

An African slave’s life was far better than a life they would have had in Africa (for the majority)

hmm, funny thing, but if you actually read the accounts of those slaves that learned to write at the time (few though there were) none of them thought they had a better life here than back home with their families in Africa. They didn’t come here voluntarily, remember? Did you somehow think they just jumped on board ships bound for america because of some sales pitch??

holy crap, you have got to be the dumbest dumbfuck to pop his head in here in the last couple of months.

It’s not even funny.

I’d say you need help, but you obviously have a completely incurable case of stupid. Hope you aren’t breeding?

please tell me you don’t have kids?
#195 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

You still have your head up your ass. Take an illegal immigrant, I don’t care which one, and ask him/her “Is your life better here than in Mexico (gasp, did I say that out loud?)?”

And you’ll get an answer of “No” at about a two-to-one ratio, based on my experience of working on immigration issues.

An African slave’s life was far better than a life they would have had in Africa (for the majority).

Please demonstrate that there’s something other than disgusting, rancid, and loathsome racism underpinning this assertion.
#196 Owlmirror
February 21, 2008

Its kind of hard having to take you by your hand every step of the way so that you can actually understand what Robert E. Lee was actually saying. Perhaps the very last sentence should have clued you in?

Read for comprehension much?

Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

Dude, Robert E. FUCKING Lee is saying that abolitionists are on “an evil course”; that they are intolerant of “the spiritual liberty of others”, where “others” means “slaveowners”.
#197 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

this guy is just too stupid to argue with any more. It isn’t even fun.

I leave it to the rest of you to have fun chewing him up.
#198 Steven
February 21, 2008

Aside from the fact that this is not true, and that Georgia delegates were partly responsible for the insertion of the clauses in the U.S. Constitution protecting the slave trade for the first twenty years of the U.S.’s existence, exactly whom do you imagine seized power in Georgia twenty years after the founding of the U.S.? Jews? Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus?

Scientists, of course. Everyone knows that the political opposite of all Christians everywhere and in all times has been the Scientist. A scurrilous breed!

OH HAI, I REVISEDED UR HISTRY

Not sure where you are getting your history lessons.

Ever hear of James Oglethorpe? …..probably not.

Slavery existed in Georgia prior to any european settlement. The Native Americans had their own slave trade. The Atlantic Slave Trade was brought about by the introduction of the african slave trade by the african tribes themselves.

Ka-ching, the Portuguese and Dutch were the first to cash in.

But … wait a minute, they weren’t christians. Hmmmmmm.
#199 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

You still have your head up your ass. Take an illegal immigrant, I don’t care which one, and ask him/her “Is your life better here than in Mexico (gasp, did I say that out loud?)?”

Oh, and I hit “Post” before I could respond to this lovely aspect of the quoted material:

Apparently, we’re not to care which illegal immigrant we question, but we can be certain that if they’re an illegal immigrant, they’re from Mexico. What was I just saying about racism?

It’s as if there are no countries in the world other than Mexico. As if people do not try to immigrate illegally to the U.S. from Haiti, Vietnam, and so on, or even other countries in Latin America (who am I kidding? ARE there even other countries in Latin America?).
#200 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

Ka-ching, the Portuguese and Dutch were the first to cash in.

But … wait a minute, they weren’t christians. Hmmmmmm.

The Portugese and Dutch weren’t Christians?

Then what, pray tell, were they?
#201 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I can see its already pointless.

a perfect projection on Steven’s part.

as such, I can hardly disagree.
#202 Owlmirror
February 21, 2008

The Portugese and Dutch weren’t Christians?
Then what, pray tell, were they?

~~Scientists?~~ Catholics and Protestants, duh.
#203 Stanton
February 21, 2008

Furthermore, the T-4 Euthanasia programs were products of Adolf Hitler’s madness, and neither Christianity nor “Darwinism.”

However, much of Hitler’s Holocaust plans did follow Martin Luther’s recommendations in “Of the Jews and Their Lies.”
#204 Steven
February 21, 2008

Dang … I guess I really do have to spell this one out.

Robert E. Lee -

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.

he also said:

The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers

wait ….. did he say he was going to pray for the abolition od slavery?

Dang – thats really got to hurt
#205 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Then what, pray tell, were they?

Catholics?

here, Stevo:

http://churchslavery.blogspot.com/

http://www.antislavery.org/breakingthesilence/slave_routes/slave_routes_portugal.shtml

educate yourself.

bye.
#206 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

“Were the T-4 Euthanasia laboratories the product of biblical teaching or the product of Darwinist teaching?”

Kinda hard to pinpoint that. Given the enormity of historically detectable Christian influence on the Third Reich, however, “biblical teaching” should probably be up for consideration.
#207 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

Steven, can you explain to me what regarding slavery as a moral and political evil has to do with abolitionism as a movement? It’s like taking Sherman’s “War is Hell” quote as firm evidence that the man who leveled Atlanta was a pacifist! It’s moronic, it’s bad history, and it’s only going to give you a false perspective on what happened at any time period you care to mention.
#208 Steven
February 21, 2008

Furthermore, the T-4 Euthanasia programs were products of Adolf Hitler’s madness, and neither Christianity nor “Darwinism.”

However, much of Hitler’s Holocaust plans did follow Martin Luther’s recommendations in “Of the Jews and Their Lies.”

I am not talking about Martin Luther and his supposed “anti semitic” teachings (but I can delve in that one).

I am talking about the T-4 Euthanasia laboratories. You know, the killing centers for cogenitally disabled persons. Germans were included, so you can’t play the race card on this one … sorry.

As I recall, anyone who was deemed cogenitally defective was “mercifully” euthanized. Part of the euthansia program included forced sterilizations. The forced sterilizations were imposed on GERMAN (no race card) deaf, blind, deformed, or otherwise handicapped.

This was simply so they could not breed and create more handicapped people. Strange how this is so reminiscent of the process of natural selection Darwin was so fond of – only the nazis were trying to speed this process up.
#209 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

This was simply so they could not breed and create more handicapped people. Strange how this is so reminiscent of the process of natural selection Darwin was so fond of – only the nazis were trying to speed this process up.

Actually it’s the precise opposite of the process of natural selection. It’s rooted in an older, and anti-Darwinian conception called “orthogenesis”, the belief that all organisms had an inbuilt tendency to senesence. The main example adduced in support of orthogenesis was the Irish Elk, with its antlers so large that it became unwieldy, causing the extinction of the species. It was feared that if the “feeble” were allowed to reproduce, they’d bring on the extinction of the entire species. That’s not Darwinian by a long shot.
#210 windy
February 21, 2008

Steven, was the eugenics program in Sparta motivated by Darwinist teaching?
#211 Steven
February 21, 2008

I happen to know a thing or two about blaming things on christians … such as slavery, the holocaust, flat earth theory, etc.

Yes. Hitler was raised a Catholic. He told his secretary he was an atheist.

Yes, Hitler hated the Jews. He wanted the Germans to share his hatred. He forced the German church to teach that Jesus was an aryan and was killed by the Jews. He knew how to stir the pot.

So, just how many atheists were raised in a christian family? anyone? Does it make you a christian because you were raised in a christian home?
#212 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

“This was simply so they could not breed and create more handicapped people. Strange how this is so reminiscent of the process of natural selection Darwin was so fond of – only the nazis were trying to speed this process up.”

1. Culling members of a population considered to be “defective” didn’t originate with either Darwin or Christianity. The Spartans practiced much the same thing. Sorry, find a new hobby horse.

2. If humans consciously attempt to artificially enhance themselves then it isn’t natural selection, retard.

3. You should read up on the difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements, as well as the natural fallacy (google them).
#213 Steven
February 21, 2008

Steven, was the eugenics program in Sparta motivated by Darwinist teaching?

Are you referring to the movie 300 ?

I really hope not.

About 3-4 months ago, archeologists rediscovered that the Spartans never actually threw deformed babies away. Its all a myth.
#214 Owlmirror
February 21, 2008

Strange how this is so reminiscent of the process of natural selection Darwin was so fond of – only the nazis were trying to speed this process up.

Actually, it was exactly like the artificial selection that humans have been practicing for going on about 10,000 years now.

And occasionally done on humans. Like the Spartans!
#215 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

“He told his secretary he was an atheist.”

Cite please.
#216 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

“About 3-4 months ago, archeologists rediscovered that the Spartans never actually threw deformed babies away. Its all a myth.”

Can’t find any references on this, got a citation or a link?
#217 Steven
February 21, 2008

http://www.medindia.net/news/Spartans-Never-Discarded-Deformed-Babies-In-An-Apothetes-30529-1.htm
#218 Steven
February 21, 2008

Don’t act so surprised

You were taught Robert E. Lee was a racist war mongerer by your indoctrinating teachers.

Just like your being taught to hate christians for not believing in evolution (when you SHOULD be taught to respect differences).
#219 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

I happen to know a thing or two about blaming things on christians … such as slavery, the holocaust, flat earth theory, etc.

And I know a thing or two about recognizing a bullshitter when I see one.

1) You have yet to reconcile your claim that Georgia was an abolitionist state with the evidence I posted that there were over 100,000 slaves in Georgia by 1810.

2) You have yet to explain exactly what religious affiliation the 15th and 16th century Dutch and Portugese had if it was not Christian

3) You have failed to provide historical evidence that Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist (handwringing about the moral and political evil of slavery doesn’t cut it when he’s talking about the evil inclination to try to stop slavery through human means in the next paragraph).

4) You have failed to provide historical evidence that Robert E. Lee only converted to Christianity later in his life.

5) You have failed to explain exactly who took over power from the Christians at the end of this entirely fictitious period of abolitionism in Georgia’s [non-]history.

In fact, you have not backed a single claim of yours with any verifiable evidence so far. Can you do better, or are you going to hold yourself to the low standards you’ve set so far?
#220 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

Did you read about that in the same place as Robert E. FUCKING Lee’s presidential campaign ?

Oh yeah, I forgot about that!

Steven, care to clue us in on when Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were both running for president of the Confederacy, and to whom they made campaign promises about abolishing slavery (considering that the President of the Confederacy was not elected by popular vote)?
#221 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

Oh, and would you care to justify your claim that “An African slave’s life was far better than a life they would have had in Africa (for the majority).”? I’d be very interested to learn that from the existing first person accounts of slavery, e.g. Olaudah Equiano’s memoirs.
#222 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

Steven,

Those findings only mean that the Spartans did not throw infants off that particular cliff. It doesn’t wholly disprove the idea that the Spartans practiced eugenics.
#223 Stanton
February 21, 2008

I am not talking about Martin Luther and his supposed “anti semitic” teachings (but I can delve in that one).

What do you mean by “supposed”? What part of Martin Luther’s “Of the Jews and Their Lies,” where he calls for Jews to be deprived of all their liberties and rights to live do you think is suspect?

This was simply so they could not breed and create more handicapped people. Strange how this is so reminiscent of the process of natural selection Darwin was so fond of – only the nazis were trying to speed this process up.

“Natural Selection” is when members of a population interact with other species (predators, prey and competitors), and with the environment, and survive long enough to produce offspring.

“Artificial Selection” is when humans select which members of a population be culled and which members be allowed to reproduce on the basis of possession of traits which the aforementioned humans deem desirable.

“Eugenics” is where the rulers and or policy-makers of a population select which members of the population be culled and which members be allowed to reproduce on the basis of possession of traits which the aforementioned rulers and policy-makers deem desirable.

Besides being unnatural, as well as stripping humans of their dignity, some scientists have pointed out that Eugenics is a bad idea in that it risks creating genetic homogeneity in the population, and that populations that have become genetically uniform are unable to adapt to the environment or interact with other species very well, and thus, are at greater risk of dying out.

About 3-4 months ago, archeologists rediscovered that the Spartans never actually threw deformed babies away. Its all a myth.

Please cite your source, or we will assume that you are lying again.
#224 Stanton
February 21, 2008

Just like your being taught to hate christians for not believing in evolution (when you SHOULD be taught to respect differences).

I was never taught to hate Christians because they did not believe in evolution, especially since the statement is false, considering that there are many Christians who accept the fact of evolution with no qualms whatsoever.

Do realize that respect must be earned, and you done absolutely nothing to earn our respect. We are not obligated to respect people who demand our respect without even attempting to prove that they are worthy of receiving any respect in the first place.
#225 Owlmirror
February 21, 2008

Those findings only mean that the Spartans did not throw infants off that particular cliff. It doesn’t wholly disprove the idea that the Spartans practiced eugenics.

No, it means they didn’t find the bones of infants at the bottom of that particular cliff.

However, a quick Google finds the following, possibly pertinent, information, about birds in Greece:

European Honey Buzzard
Black-shouldered Kite
Black Kite
Red Kite
White-tailed Eagle
Lammergeier
Egyptian Vulture
Eurasian Griffon Vulture
Eurasian Black Vulture
Short-toed Eagle
Western Marsh Harrier
Hen Harrier
Pallid Harrier
Montagu’s Harrier
Northern Goshawk
Eurasian Sparrowhawk
Levant Sparrowhawk
Common Buzzard
Long-legged Buzzard
Rough-legged Buzzard

(and so on)

http://rarities.ornithologiki.gr/en/eaop/bird_list.htm

In particular, one that specifically eats bone:

http://www.ornithologiki.gr/en/lib/engypbar.htm

I would not place long odds on scavengers not behaving like scavengers.
#226 Steven
February 21, 2008

Did you read about that in the same place as Robert E. FUCKING Lee’s presidential campaign ?

Oh yeah, I forgot about that!

Steven, care to clue us in on when Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were both running for president of the Confederacy, and to whom they made campaign promises about abolishing slavery (considering that the President of the Confederacy was not elected by popular vote)?

I would have to pull out some of my college textbooks and cite references from Lee and Jackson’s speeches. There is nothing on the internet that I can find (surprise, surprise).

However, you could always pay a visit to the Arlington memorial cemetary, visit Robert E. Lee’s home and simply read his history there. This national monumnet reveals he was an abolitionist, freed his slaves after his conversion to christianity and vied for the CSA presidency.
#227 Steven
February 21, 2008

In particular, one that specifically eats bone:

? http://www.ornithologiki.gr/en/lib/engypbar.htm

I would not place long odds on scavengers not behaving like scavengers.

Ok – but they had since the 6th century BC to eat the bones of those 18-40 yr. old males in that particular cliff in that particular place of Greece – so why didn’t they?

LOL
#228 Stanton
February 21, 2008

Ok – but they had since the 6th century BC to eat the bones of those 18-40 yr. old males in that particular cliff in that particular place of Greece – so why didn’t they?

Maybe because the bones of infants contain more cartilage than the bones of adult males, and thus, are more likely to deteriorate than the bones of adult males, AND that the bones of infants are much smaller than the bones of adult males, thus, are easier to be devoured by scavenging animals, especially those that preferentially eat bones, such as bearded vultures.
#229 Steven
February 21, 2008

I was never taught to hate Christians because they did not believe in evolution, especially since the statement is false, considering that there are many Christians who accept the fact of evolution with no qualms whatsoever.

Do realize that respect must be earned, and you done absolutely nothing to earn our respect. We are not obligated to respect people who demand our respect without even attempting to prove that they are worthy of receiving any respect in the first place.

You have been very misinformed. This entire blog was written in a way as to admonish believers in intelligent design based upon a supposed perception of a movie that hasn’t even been released yet.

I demand your respect or I will not give you an inkling of mine.
#230 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

“I demand your respect or I will not give you an inkling of mine.”

I’m sure that Stanton is losing a lot of sleep over that last bit.
#231 Steven
February 21, 2008

Ok – but they had since the 6th century BC to eat the bones of those 18-40 yr. old males in that particular cliff in that particular place of Greece – so why didn’t they?

Maybe because the bones of infants contain more cartilage than the bones of adult males, and thus, are more likely to deteriorate than the bones of adult males, AND that the bones of infants are much smaller than the bones of adult males, thus, are easier to be devoured by scavenging animals, especially those that preferentially eat bones, such as bearded vultures.

That is very well thought out

I think the article I linked to was stating that the particular cliff in question was one rumored to be where babies were thrown.

How many mothers of a newborn baby would allow this practice? The most dangerous place on this earth is between a mother and her children.
#232 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Steven:

Lee’s views on slavery

Since the end of the Civil War, it has often been suggested that Lee was in some sense opposed to slavery. In the period following the Civil War and Reconstruction, and after his death, Lee became a central figure in the Lost Cause interpretation of the war, and as succeeding generations came to look on slavery as a terrible immorality, the idea that Lee had always somehow opposed it helped maintain his stature as a symbol of Southern honor and national reconciliation.

Some of the evidence cited in favor of the claim that Lee opposed slavery, are the manumission of Custis’s slaves, as discussed above, and his support, towards the end of the war, for enrolling slaves in the Confederate States Army, with manumission offered as an eventual reward for good service. Lee gave his public support to this idea two weeks before Appomattox, too late for it to do any good for the Confederacy.

In December of 1864, Lee was shown a letter by Louisiana Senator Edward Sparrow, written by General St. John R. Liddell, which noted that Lee would be hard-pressed in the interior of Virginia by spring, and the need to consider Patrick Cleburne’s plan to emancipate the slaves and put all men in the army that were willing to join. Lee was said to have agreed on all points and desired to get Negro soldiers, saying that “he could make soldiers out of any human being that had arms and legs.”[19]

Another source is Lee’s 1856 letter to his wife,[20] which can be interpreted in multiple ways:
” … In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. ”

Freeman’s analysis[21] puts Lee’s attitude toward slavery and abolition in historical context:
” This [letter] was the prevailing view among most religious people of Lee’s class in the border states. They believed that slavery existed because God willed it and they thought it would end when God so ruled. The time and the means were not theirs to decide, conscious though they were of the ill-effects of Negro slavery on both races. Lee shared these convictions of his neighbors without having come in contact with the worst evils of African bondage. He spent no considerable time in any state south of Virginia from the day he left Fort Pulaski in 1831 until he went to Texas in 1856. All his reflective years had been passed in the North or in the border states. He had never been among the blacks on a cotton or rice plantation. At Arlington the servants had been notoriously indolent, their master’s master. Lee, in short, was only acquainted with slavery at its best and he judged it accordingly. At the same time, he was under no illusion regarding the aims of the Abolitionist or the effect of their agitation.

straight from the wiki article on Lee; do note the highlighted portion. The original cite is:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/24*.html#p425

which fails to mention, oddly any time that Lee ran for office before or during the Civil War…

better check those “textbooks” of yours again.
#233 Stanton
February 21, 2008

You have been very misinformed. This entire blog was written in a way as to admonish believers in intelligent design based upon a supposed perception of a movie that hasn’t even been released yet.

I demand your respect or I will not give you an inkling of mine.

Listen you moronic, shitheaded shit, I know for a fact that I will get no respect, or honest facts from you because you are a smarmy twit with crappy social skills who has no respect for anything to begin with. Hence, I’ve discarded any optimistic notion that you might be a reasonable person long ago.

Furthermore, Intelligent Design is not a science, and will never be a science, no matter how hard the cdesign proponentists try. The fact that Intelligent Design proponents have made absolutely no attempts to make any positive contribution to Science in the last 2 decades since the Discovery Institute started demonstrates that Intelligent Design never was about science. Anyone who says that Intelligent Design is about science should be pelted with rotting tomatoes, in fact. Expelled is a movie filled with lies, made by liars, and supported by liars. If you want to convince me otherwise, please show me.
Otherwise, go away.
#234 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

well, the title of this thread:

“Ahistorical garbage” is sure being fleshed out by Steven.
#235 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

Owlmirror,

Yes, I probably should’ve qualified that more heavily. My judgement isn’t one of a professional archeologist, but if the researcher is correct in his statement that the contemporaneous records of the activity are sparse and imprecise, combined with the lack of archeological evidence would suggest that that particular aspect of Spartan eugenics rests on some pretty shaky grounds. In any case, it does not invalidate the idea that the Spartans practiced infanticide and eugenics, as Steven claimed it did, so its a moot point really.
#236 Stanton
February 21, 2008

“I demand your respect or I will not give you an inkling of mine.”

I’m sure that Stanton is losing a lot of sleep over that last bit.

I’m also going to lose sleep worrying about whether or not Steven is an idiot who physically incapable of shutting his sass hole.
#237 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I demand your respect or I will not give you an inkling of mine.

LOL

that’s a gudun.
#238 Owlmirror
February 21, 2008

While the whole thing about the Spartan infants is actually interesting to me, it will require reading the actual research article rather than the news releases.

However! It is entirely beside the point.

Hitler thought that Spartans murdering infants was true. Hitler approved of it. Hitler copied it in his euthanasia programs. Hitler’s euthanasia program had nothing to do with Darwin.
#239 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

However, you could always pay a visit to the Arlington memorial cemetary, visit Robert E. Lee’s home and simply read his history there. This national monumnet reveals he was an abolitionist, freed his slaves after his conversion to christianity and vied for the CSA presidency.

It’s the Arlington National Cemetery. Can’t you get anything right?

And I would suspect that the historic site–not national monument; there is none for Lee–reveals no such thing, but it’s largely immaterial anyway, since the historical inaccuracy of claims made about historical sites operated by the National Park Service is a matter of record (see James Loewen’s Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong).

For the record, Lee didn’t free his slaves, he freed somebody else’s slaves. When George Washington Parke Custis, he left a provision in his will stipulating that his slaves were to be freed entirely by, at most, five years after his death. There was no way to contest the stipulation without voiding the will. Lee himself was a minor slaveowner who was never was without around half a dozen slaves.

I demand your respect or I will not give you an inkling of mine.

Oh, and by the way, since you haven’t respected us enough to not lie to us, your respect is worth nothing.
#240 Steven
February 21, 2008

straight from the wiki article on Lee; do note the highlighted portion. The original cite is:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/24*.html#p425

which fails to mention, oddly any time that Lee ran for office before or during the Civil War…

better check those “textbooks” of yours again.

I tend to stay away from “wiki” as a reliable source of information …. a national monument has more credibility.
#241 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

By the way, an inkling is a notion, not some unit of measure. If you cannot be honest with us, at least stop butchering the English language. It is a nice language that has done nothing to deserve it, even though it has been used to write the Left Behind series and Orson Scott Card’s Empire. I’m sick of going over your posts as if they were writen in Linear B, trying desperately to figure out what you could have meant by your choice of words.
#242 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I tend to stay away from “wiki” as a reliable source of information …. a national monument has more credibility.

indeed, which is why i linked to the original cite, fuckhead.

it’s public domain, too, so even a fucktard like yourself has access to it.

go on. read some real history and learn something for a change.

do you have kids? do you do this song and dance for them?

ever consider the damage you are doing to them?

no, wait, you don’t have kids, do you.

no worries then.
#243 Steven
February 21, 2008

While the whole thing about the Spartan infants is actually interesting to me, it will require reading the actual research article rather than the news releases.

However! It is entirely beside the point.

Hitler thought that Spartans murdering infants was true. Hitler approved of it. Hitler copied it in his euthanasia programs. Hitler’s euthanasia program had nothing to do with Darwin.

Richard Weikart already proved the Hitler-Darwin connection. Read his book if your interested “From Darwin to Hitler”
#244 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

I tend to stay away from “wiki” as a reliable source of information …. a national monument has more credibility.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah!

I just about died from laughing at this! If your side of the conversation is completely without honesty, at least it is not without humour. For one thing, there is no national monument dedicated to Lee. His house is simply preserved by the National Parks Service as a historic site. The fact that you cannot tell the difference really diminishes the credibility of your claim to have read support for your claims there.
#245 Steven
February 21, 2008

I tend to stay away from “wiki” as a reliable source of information …. a national monument has more credibility.

indeed, which is why i linked to the original cite, fuckhead.

it’s public domain, too, so even a fucktard like yourself has access to it.

go on. read some real history and learn something for a change.

do you have kids? do you do this song and dance for them?

ever consider the damage you are doing to them?

no, wait, you don’t have kids, do you.

no worries then.

Yes, my 4 year old has more maturity and comprehension than you.
#246 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

Richard Weikart already proved the Hitler-Darwin connection. Read his book if your interested “From Darwin to Hitler”

Here’s another hint: saying something and adducing evidence for it are unrelated concepts. Since you seem to be having problems with that concept here, I will say that just because someone publishes it in a book doesn’t make it correct. It’s the quality of the scholarship that counts.
#247 Steven
February 21, 2008

you won’t catch my kids saying this:

“YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms.”
– Eric Harris
#248 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Richard Weikart already proved the Hitler-Darwin connection.

nice imitation of James Kennedy, but you’re still wrong, and so was he.

you have all the information you need to see there in fact was no link at all between Darwin and Hitler, and that Hitler based Mein Kampf’s sociology mostly on the writings of Martin Luther.

this is historical fact. all you have to do is actually read what Hitler wrote to see for yourself.

but you won’t do that, will you?

you prefer to hear lies from the mouths of those who would abuse your trust to sell books to you?

of course you do.

pathetic.

Kennedy is dead. So is the idea that “Darwinism” has anything to do with human political and social philosophies.

only morons like yourself remain, desperately sucking their thumbs while their peers clamp hands over eyes and ears.

short version:

you’re a moron, and proud of it.

don’t have kids. really. help us put an end to mindless mindlessness.
#249 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

Richard Weikart already proved the Hitler-Darwin connection. Read his book if your interested “From Darwin to Hitler”

Weikart is brilliantly dissected here.
#250 Owlmirror
February 21, 2008

I tend to stay away from “wiki” as a reliable source of information …. a national monument has more credibility.

Not really. National monuments are very often put up by people with specific agendas, especially Confederate-revisionist ones.

If Lee ran for the presidency of the CSA, it would be somewhere on the Internet.

Hell, if there had ever been a campaign for the presidency of the CSA, it would be somewhere on the Internet.
#251 Steven
February 21, 2008

Here’s another hint: saying something and adducing evidence for it are unrelated concepts. Since you seem to be having problems with that concept here, I will say that just because someone publishes it in a book doesn’t make it correct. It’s the quality of the scholarship that counts.

Here is a tip for your hint – read the book, then judge it. You have already predetermined it is false. It is almost as if you are unwilling/unable to process information – then make a decision as to its validity.

Like I said earlier, I really DO know all the tricks.
#252 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

“YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms.”

I’m already familiar with Harris’ ravings, as I’ve read the entirety of what is publicly available from his journal. He understood evolutionary biology and natural selection about as well as you appear to, for what it’s worht (i.e., not much).
#253 Steven
February 21, 2008

Not really. National monuments are very often put up by people with specific agendas, especially Confederate-revisionist ones.

If Lee ran for the presidency of the CSA, it would be somewhere on the Internet.

Hell, if there had ever been a campaign for the presidency of the CSA, it would be somewhere on the Internet.

Ummm … ok, Jefferson Davis was gonna be like, president fuhever dude.

Arlington Memorial was actually the Yankees way of insulting the south. They kicked Rob outta his house and buried all the war time dead around it.

Go figure … an insult turned out to be a honor to be buried near his home.
#254 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

btw, you evidently know as much about natural selection as Harris and Klebold did.

does that mean you will find your own kids saying just that?

It’s something I’d worry about, if I were you.

when you teach lies to your children, this is just the kind of thing you end up with.

your kids will hate you when they learn the truth.

better not have kids then, right?
#255 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

“Like I said earlier, I really DO know all the tricks.”

No Steven, you simply have a problem we’re all too familiar with around these parts: you are pig ignorant, but you harbor the illusion of knowledge. This is a particularly dangerous combination.
#256 Steven
February 21, 2008

“YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms.”

I’m already familiar with Harris’ ravings, as I’ve read the entirety of what is publicly available from his journal. He understood evolutionary biology and natural selection about as well as you appear to, for what it’s worht (i.e., not much).

Yeah, I know that trick too.

When someone refutes evolution, it must be because they dont understand it

Of course, they must be stupid religious people. I know that trick all too well.
#257 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Like I said earlier, I really DO know all the tricks.

LOL

you don’t know shit from shinola, to borrow a colloquial phrase.

Did you ever read Weikart’s book yourself, or did you rely on third party reports on the book that synthesized the central theme in nice little digestible chunks for you?

I’m betting you actually don’t really read much original work.

I’m sure you’ll lie and say you did, though.

How much you wanna bet I know more about Weikart’s piece of crap than you do?
#258 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Yeah, I know that trick too.

what trick?

natural selection is about survival of the FITTEST, not necessarily the strongest.

can you define what fitness means, moron?

well?

we’re waiting.
#259 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

When someone refutes evolution, it must be because they dont understand it

by the by, you haven’t spent a single word of your inane ramblings actually refuting any part of evolutionary theory.

hmm.

wonder why that is?
#260 Brownian, OM
February 21, 2008

Steven, isn’t there some good in the world you should be doing? All that Christian Grace, and you’ve got nothing better to do with it than argue with a bunch of people over the internet, especially since you claim you “can see its [sic] already pointless”? Aren’t there poor people you could be feeding right now? Perhaps some injured or sick you could be volunteering to help make feel better? I’ll bet there’s at least some lonely old lady who’d appreciate you reading to her out of the Good Book.

If Christians really are all that and a bag of chips, you must be the weakest, laziest, and generally stupidest of the bunch for sacrificing so much of that precious, precious time God granted you for the good of the world on a waste of time such as us.

General Lee planned to free the slaves (well, according to you at least) and your best effort to follow his lead is to irritate a bunch of blog readers? Boy, you’re a real fucking emmissary of your faith, aren’t you? They should just send you over to Iraq. Why, I’ll bet those heathens would all convert in an instant if they could just hear a few words from you on how you honoured the legacy of the great Emancipators of Christianity by heckling on Pharyngula.

Yeah, a real fucking saint you are.
#261 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

Here is a tip for your hint – read the book, then judge it. You have already predetermined it is false. It is almost as if you are unwilling/unable to process information – then make a decision as to its validity.

Like I said earlier, I really DO know all the tricks.

Yes, apparently in addition to outright lying, you’re demonstrating the trick of misrepresenting what the other person is saying.

For the congenitally clueless-for the record, this means you-I was merely remarking that your claim that Weikart had proven anything, and that we only needed to read the book to know that, was suspect because the book is not its own proof. It’s the scholarship that goes into the book that makes its case, not the mere fact that some publisher has seen fit to unleash it on the public.

If you can provide us with some reason to believe that Weikart’s scholarship is any better than yours, then it will be worth our time, not before.
#262 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Steven, isn’t there some good in the world you should be doing?

yeah, he’s got those pretend kids he should be taking care of.
#263 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

Ummm … ok, Jefferson Davis was gonna be like, president fuhever dude.

As was already pointed out to you, Jefferson Davis was going to be president for six years. The Civil War ended the Confederacy with a full two years left to go in his term. There was no cause to be campaigning for the presidency at the time of the end of the Civil War (and Robert E. Lee had, I hear, his hands full with other matters at that time anyway).
#264 Steven
February 21, 2008

Yeah, I know that trick too.

what trick?

natural selection is about survival of the FITTEST, not necessarily the strongest.

can you define what fitness means, moron?

well?

we’re waiting.

maybe you missed something. Yeah, you did. I do not believe in the evolution theory. I believe in intelligent design.

If you can tell me how the bombardier beetle survived (in accordance with the process of natural selection) then I will answer your question.

baaaah …. baaaaahhh
#265 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

If you can tell me how the bombardier beetle survived (in accordance with the process of natural selection) then I will answer your question.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

Now answer the question.
#266 Steven
February 21, 2008

As was already pointed out to you, Jefferson Davis was going to be president for six years. The Civil War ended the Confederacy with a full two years left to go in his term. There was no cause to be campaigning for the presidency at the time of the end of the Civil War (and Robert E. Lee had, I hear, his hands full with other matters at that time anyway).

I heart Huckabee (but everyone knows Hillary was “vying” for years).
#267 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

“When someone refutes evolution, it must be because they dont understand it ”

“Refute”? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. In any case, whether you really meant “dispute” or not is irrelevant. You’ve demonstrated your lack of competence in even the most rudimentary aspects of logic and exposition, let alone evolutionary biology. That is the problem, your failure to recognize it notwithstanding.
#268 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I do not believe in the evolution theory. I believe in intelligent design.

but you said you understood the theory implicitly in your statement that we were just using a trick on you, right?

so, are you admitting you haven’t the slightest clue how the theory actually works, even at the most basic, basic level?

well, if you like ID, tell us how we can use intelligent design as a theory, and how we can then use that theory to test whether or not the bombadier beetle is intelligently designed.

can’t do that either?

uh, what good are you again?

you lied about having kids, right?
#269 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

Was that supposed to be a response?

If so:

EPIC FAIL
#270 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

And for the record, let’s list the issues Steven has dodged:

1) You have yet to reconcile your claim that Georgia was an abolitionist state with the evidence I posted that there were over 100,000 slaves in Georgia by 1810.

2) You have yet to explain exactly what religious affiliation the 15th and 16th century Dutch and Portugese had if it was not Christian

3) You have failed to provide historical evidence that Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist (handwringing about the moral and political evil of slavery doesn’t cut it when he’s talking about the evil inclination to try to stop slavery through human means in the next paragraph).

4) You have failed to provide historical evidence that Robert E. Lee only converted to Christianity later in his life.

5) You have failed to explain exactly who took over power from the Christians at the end of this entirely fictitious period of abolitionism in Georgia’s [non-]history.

6) You have failed to support your claim that both Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were campaigning for president, and making stump speeches in support of abolitionism.

7) You have failed utterly to support your claim that African slaves were far better off in slavery than back home in Africa.

This is interactive, folks, so feel free to add your list of points Steven has been running from.
#271 Steven
February 21, 2008

If you can tell me how the bombardier beetle survived (in accordance with the process of natural selection) then I will answer your question.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

Now answer the question.

If YOU can’t answer the question, but rely heavily on a website written by those who have already predetermined creationism to be a hoax (without any real proof), then sadly, you cannot think for yourself.

Yes, I know that trick too. I have read this article at least 15 times when it is cited by different so called “atheists” who claim they can think for themselves, but rely on other people’s interpretatations rather than their own. I can’t say I blame them, it certainly is easier this way for them.

Actually answering this question requires YOUR answer.
#272 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I heart Huckabee (but everyone knows Hillary was “vying” for years).

that’s it boy!

tie your wagon to a broken down horse.

oh, btw, thanks for that. It was morons like yourself loving Huckleberry that lost him the rethuglican nomination.

good job.

I should get the democratic party to cut you a check.

face it, you guys are going down in flames. Your only chance is to kill all the rest of us smart-folk to preserve your ignorant way of life.

so get on with it already.

it’s what you want, right?

you own a gun, don’t you?

you could relive the Civil War, and win it for ignorant people everywhere!
#273 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

“I can’t say I blame them, it certainly is easier this way for them.”

And I bet you thought up all your canned objections to evolutionary theory yourself and didn’t rely on pamphlets from some evangelical church in bumfuck, red state X.

You asked for a detailed explanation, someone provided one. The next proper step is to raise some objection to it, no flail your arms and gnash your teeth about who it came from.
#274 Steven
February 21, 2008

And for the record, let’s list the issues Steven has dodged:

1) You have yet to reconcile your claim that Georgia was an abolitionist state with the evidence I posted that there were over 100,000 slaves in Georgia by 1810.

I have answered this question when you were snoozing – John Oglethorpe

2) You have yet to explain exactly what religious affiliation the 15th and 16th century Dutch and Portugese had if it was not Christian

This is your interpretation of what was said – The Africans who taught the slave trade to the dutch and portuguese were not christian – the native americans who traded slaves were not christian

3) You have failed to provide historical evidence that Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist (handwringing about the moral and political evil of slavery doesn’t cut it when he’s talking about the evil inclination to try to stop slavery through human means in the next paragraph).

Go to the Arlington National Cemetery. Read the letter I posted (oh wait, you did, but didn’t understand it)

4) You have failed to provide historical evidence that Robert E. Lee only converted to Christianity later in his life.

You can be raised a Baptist but actually be an atheist

5) You have failed to explain exactly who took over power from the Christians at the end of this entirely fictitious period of abolitionism in Georgia’s [non-]history.

Again – who is John Oglethorpe? when did he lose power?

6) You have failed to support your claim that both Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were campaigning for president, and making stump speeches in support of abolitionism.

No – I actually did submit a full letter (not a snippet) from Robert E. Lee.

7) You have failed utterly to support your claim that African slaves were far better off in slavery than back home in Africa.

I did not make that claim, Robert E. Lee did. Again, your misinterpretation of what I said is astounding. Its not surprising however when you claim to know what Robert E. Lee was talking about in his letter.

This is interactive, folks, so feel free to add your list of points Steven has been running from.
#275 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

Actually answering this question requires YOUR answer.

Okay, my answer is that the claim that the bombardier beetle would have exploded is a creationist myth which has been exhaustively debunked so much that the very use of it as an argument anymore marks the user as a hopeless rube.

Now answer his question. Or answer mine.

For that matter, in your striving to absolve Christianity from any connexion to slavery, why don’t you explain why Paul sent an escaped slave and Christian convert named Onesimus back to his owner (Epistle to Philemon) and demanded that slaves were to obey their worldly masters with fear and trembling (Ephesians 6:5)?
#276 Steven
February 21, 2008

I can’t say I blame them, it certainly is easier this way for them.”

And I bet you thought up all your canned objections to evolutionary theory yourself and didn’t rely on pamphlets from some evangelical church in bumfuck, red state X.

You asked for a detailed explanation, someone provided one. The next proper step is to raise some objection to it, no flail your arms and gnash your teeth about who it came from.

Actually, my “canned objections” did not come from some evangelical church. But of course, your assumptions are ever so clever.

My information comes from University level courses I graduated from as well as personal experience. I do not regurgitate canned knowledge from a person who claims to know more about something than I. I am able to think for myself and research for myself.
#277 Michael X
February 21, 2008

Nullifidian,
You of course have only fallen to another trick. The bible is the work of someone else. You must make all your claims on evidence that you have found yourself, which cannot include the work of anyone else, otherwise you’re not researching, only parroting. Even if it’s true, it doesn’t count. As a matter of fact, especially if it’s true.
#278 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I have read this article at least 15 times when it is cited by different so called “atheists” who claim they can think for themselves, but rely on other people’s interpretatations rather than their own. I can’t say I blame them, it certainly is easier this way for them.

you can’t even define fitness, but you want the entire evolution stepwise of the traits involved in the beetle’s defense mechanism?

that’s like saying you don’t understand how to add, but want a mathematician to explain approximation theory to you.

btw, it doesn’t matter WHAT trait you choose to decide you wish to see an evolutionary history of, does it?

it’s not like actually citing research on the evolution of such a trait would be read or understood by you, right?

for that matter, it’s quite clear you don’t even understand how ID would propose such a trait developed.

*shrug*

what is the point of answering questions you won’t understand the answers to?

you haven’t actually read any of the ID work, have you? Have you read any of Bill Dembski’s inane mathematical ramblings in No Free Lunch?

no?

you haven’t actually read Weikart’s book, have you?

you don’t really know much of anything, do you?

who are you trying to convince?

your imaginary children?

do you realize you are little more than a joke?

how’s that make you feel?
#279 Steven
February 21, 2008

Actually answering this question requires YOUR answer.

Okay, my answer is that the claim that the bombardier beetle would have exploded is a creationist myth which has been exhaustively debunked so much that the very use of it as an argument anymore marks the user as a hopeless rube.

Now answer his question. Or answer mine.

For that matter, in your striving to absolve Christianity from any connexion to slavery, why don’t you explain why Paul sent an escaped slave and Christian convert named Onesimus back to his owner (Epistle to Philemon) and demanded that slaves were to obey their worldly masters with fear and trembling (Ephesians 6:5)?

Sure thing – what does the bible say about treating slaves. What is the greek and hebrew lexicon for the english word slave?

What happens when a soldier goes awol?
#280 uriel
February 21, 2008

so I will ask now and hold my peace.

Really? Great!

And, yet, you’re still here-

Babbling about a dozen different things, bringing up topics only to drop them when you’re proven ignorant, Then turning around to bend the conversation in some, completely absurd direction with a handful of new, completely non-sequitor objections. The classic Gish style.

So, basically, you lied from the start.

How very christian of you.
#281 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

The Africans who taught the slave trade to the dutch and portuguese were not christian

was the pope?

I gave you all the information you needed to research the actual history of slavery in Europe, and you didn’t even bother to glance at it, did you.

are you SURE you want us to take you seriously?
#282 Steven
February 21, 2008

You know, a soldier goes awol when they are trying to escape something.

The only reason a slave (or employee/indentured servant) would escape is to escape from a crime they committed. Such as was Onesimus situation.
#283 Michael X
February 21, 2008

After 465 comments I must wonder if anyone has asked Steven what verifiable predictions ID makes and what evidence supports those conclusions? I’m loathe to reread this whole monster for this fact alone. Can anyone elucidate?
#284 Owlmirror
February 21, 2008

Jefferson Davis was gonna be like, president fuhever dude.

Actually, he was. I know it’s true, because I read it on a Confederate national monument, somewhere in Virgina.

See? My national monument refutes yours! Mine wins!
#285 Steven
February 21, 2008

The Africans who taught the slave trade to the dutch and portuguese were not christian

was the pope?

I gave you all the information you needed to research the actual history of slavery in Europe, and you didn’t even bother to glance at it, did you.

are you SURE you want us to take you seriously?

I certainly will not take history lessons from this forum. Judging from what I have seen, so few people are able to even read implications, inflections, or comprehend at the 8th grade level.

No offense, but I have already studied the Atlantic Slave Trade. I will not rehash what I know to be fact with you.
#286 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

My information comes from University level courses

bald-faced lie.

boy, you sure are doin’ a good job representin’ there, Stevo.

ya see, you keep seeming to forget we actually DID go to college, and most of us have advanced degrees in the very fields you think yourself so knowledgeable in.

Moron.
#287 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I certainly will not take history lessons from this forum

i didn’t fucking ask you to, moron. which, again, is why i provided links directly to the original information.

you can’t lie your way out of this.
#288 Tyler DiPietro
February 21, 2008

“My information comes from University level courses I graduated from as well as personal experience.”

LOL! What “university” did these take place in? Liberty?

And what, praytell, does “personal experience” have to do with any of it? You have personal experience as a professional biologist? I rather strenuously doubt it.

“I do not regurgitate canned knowledge from a person who claims to know more about something than I. I am able to think for myself and research for myself.”

Yep, suuuuure you are. If that helps you sleep at night.
#289 Owlmirror
February 21, 2008

The only reason a slave (or employee/indentured servant) would escape is to escape from a crime they committed.

Funny, that’s exactly what the slaveowners of the South said!

Of course, they made escaping a crime, so the crime the slave was trying to escape was the crime of escaping itself.
#290 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

No offense, but I have already studied the Atlantic Slave Trade

Offense taken. You do nothing but lie. How could you not provide offense to any rational individual?

I find you utterly offensive, let alone utterly ignorant.

you reek of BS.

kindly go shove your head back up your ass where it obviously has been very happy up until you decided to let your shit spew out on this forum.
#291 Michael X
February 21, 2008

Ichthyic,
You too have fallen into another trick. Evolutionists always call bullshit when something looks askew with “reality.” Thus, when you call bullshit, trick can be stated and the point passed over.

“Trick,” is the ultimate trump card. Didn’t you know? They’re teaching that at all the university level classes these days.
#292 Steven
February 21, 2008

After 465 comments I must wonder if anyone has asked Steven what verifiable predictions ID makes and what evidence supports those conclusions? I’m loathe to reread this whole monster for this fact alone. Can anyone elucidate?

here is just one. I am going to bed soon and this is going to be my very last comment.

Wisdom of Solomon (Apocrypha) Capter 7

17: For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements:
18: The beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons:

Bear in mind, this was written well before NASA made the discovery that the sun actually rotates differentially. Also, it was written well before NASA discovered thatthe sun, every 300 years or so, affects our climate.

Of course, judging from what I have seen and read by some of the comments on this forum, some will have to attend at least a few more English courses, possibly above the 300 level to get it.
#293 uriel
February 21, 2008

This is your interpretation of what was said – The Africans who taught the slave trade to the dutch and portuguese were not christian – the native americans who traded slaves were not christian

Again, a contemptible non-sequitur.

Come on, stupid- answer the question. Regardless of what the Native Americans might have been doing, and despite the religious leanings of your imagined Africans, and ignoring the role of the English in the slave trade-

“what religious affiliation the 15th and 16th century Dutch and Portugese had if it was not Christian?”

It’s a very simple question.
#294 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I must wonder if anyone has asked Steven what verifiable predictions ID makes and what evidence supports those conclusions?

yes, we have.

he knows as much about ID as he does about anything else he has decided to ramble about. which is to say, absolutelyfuckingnothing.

which of course, is exactly what the purveyors of such claptrap count on.

Stevo is a prime example of the audience ID is directed at.
#295 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

You too have fallen into another trick. Evolutionists always call bullshit when something looks askew with “reality.” Thus, when you call bullshit, trick can be stated and the point passed over.

uh, i got news for ya, bright boy, anybody would call BS on your ramblings, it doesn’t matter who.

I bet I could find a random neighbor of yours that would also see you have been lieing your whole time here.

it doesn’t take a genius, or even someone of average intelligence, to see through YOUR BS.

really.

it’s that pathetically bad.
#296 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Again, a contemptible non-sequitur.

you better define what a non-sequitur is for him.

come to think of it, you better define ‘contemptible’ as well.
#297 Michael X
February 21, 2008

Wow, Steven.
That is of course a wonderful interpretation with the present facts known. I’m left to wonder though what people of the time would have read that to mean? Possibly, that the sun turns around the earth, which is the center of the universe? I see no reason why my reading is less than yours, if not more sensible.
#298 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

I have answered this question when you were snoozing – John Oglethorpe

You mean James Oglethorpe. And James Oglethorpe was on the Board of Trustees when Georgia was an ENGLISH COLONY!

COLONY =/= STATE

Here is what you claimed:

The State of Georgia was an abolitionist state the first 20 years of its existence because christians held the majority of political power during that time.

However, it was not the State of Georgia, but the Colony of Georgia, and it was abolitionist because it interfered with their vision for the colony and provided an opening to their enemies, particularly the Spanish, to promise freedom to escaped slaves who would fight with them against the British.

Secondly, Oglethorpe didn’t “lose power”. He was always on the Board of Trustees; he just stopped showing up to meetings.

Chalk one up towards your manifest incompetence about history–you couldn’t even get the name right!

This is your interpretation of what was said

Again, what you said:

Ka-ching, the Portuguese and Dutch were the first to cash in.

But … wait a minute, they weren’t christians. Hmmmmmm.

If you can provide any reasonable reading where that doesn’t refer to the Dutch and the Portugese, I’d love to know.

Go to the Arlington National Cemetery. Read the letter I posted (oh wait, you did, but didn’t understand it)

Go to the Arlington National Cemetery is not a response. For one thing, I doubt that you’ve been, otherwise you would not have called it the Arlington Memorial Cemetery. Furthermore, it is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate that what you claim is there is there, AND that it is accurate (remember my referencing Lies Across America? I wasn’t doing that just because the words looked pretty).

Plus, Owlmirror already demonstrated that it is you who failed to understand the Lee letter. My synopsis of it, on the other hand, was accurate.

Read for comprehension much?

Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

Dude, Robert E. FUCKING Lee is saying that abolitionists are on “an evil course”; that they are intolerant of “the spiritual liberty of others”, where “others” means “slaveowners”.

Again, not only demonstrating your historical ignorance, but also your inability to read for comprehension. What is that? Three strikes?

You can be raised a Baptist but actually be an atheist

Yes, but the point is that you have not demonstrated that Lee was an atheist at ANY time. Got it? Good. Now start with the evidence. I will call this the fourth strike.

Again – who is John Oglethorpe? when did he lose power?

Again, nobody and never. Fifth strike.

6) You have failed to support your claim that both Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were campaigning for president, and making stump speeches in support of abolitionism.

No – I actually did submit a full letter (not a snippet) from Robert E. Lee.

Which didn’t support your claim, but actually read correctly showed exactly the converse, was written in 1856, five years before the Confederacy EXISTED, and was not a campaign stump speech but rather a letter to his wife. I think we can call this strikes six, seven, and eight.

I did not make that claim, Robert E. Lee did. Again, your misinterpretation of what I said is astounding. Its not surprising however when you claim to know what Robert E. Lee was talking about in his letter.

Now you’re just proving yourself to be a liar, in addition to an ignoramus and a butcher of English prose.

Here is what you said:

An African slave’s life was far better than a life they would have had in Africa (for the majority).

Here is where you said it.

This is strike nine. You’ve been “out” three times over. Now go back to the dugout and learn something about the things you pontificate about, and stop lying and being a racist arse, then lying about being a racist arse to cover yourself.
#299 Michael X
February 21, 2008

I’m sure it’s been a long thread, but turn your sarcasm meter back on my man.

Otherwise, I’ll be scrolling back up the tread to see what evidence steve gave. I’ve heard only a few answers to that question, so I’m interested to see what he came up with.
#300 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

17: For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements:

uh, so if you can get the wisdom of Solomon (can you even prove he existed, btw?) from reading your book, why don’t you tell us what you learned about how the elements operate, and then use what you learned to explain how to construct an experiment to test the efficacy of your knowledge.

or is your book actually a worthless piece of crap that contains no explanatory knowledge whatsoever, beyond what might have been useful to a bunch of goatherders thousands of years ago?

c’mon jimmyjoebobsteven. show us how it all works. edumacate usn’s
#301 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I’ll be scrolling back up the tread to see what evidence steve gave

good luck.
#302 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I’m sure it’s been a long thread, but turn your sarcasm meter back on my man.

it’s hard to tell, given that he basically said the same damn thing several times, and he refuses to use quotes or anything to delineate what others have said when he uses it in his own posts.

Your post looked just like another one of his, and I mistook it for one.
#303 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

Sure thing – what does the bible say about treating slaves.

Nothing. This is not a response to my question about Philemon.

What is the greek and hebrew lexicon for the english word slave?

Irrelevant. Philemon wasn’t written in Hebrew, and knowing the Greek for slave doesn’t assist us in understanding how the Pauline demands that an escaped slave should return and that all slaves should obey their worldly masters with fear and trembling.

What happens when a soldier goes awol?

Irrelevant. A soldier is not a slave. However, if they go AWOL, they are court martialed and given a dishonourable or less than honourable discharge.
#304 uriel
February 21, 2008

Sure thing – what does the bible say about treating slaves.

Well, for starters:

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly”

So, basically, you can buy, sell, and will to your children other humans, as long as they aren’t your fellow Jews.

And this is different from what occurred in American slavery exactly how?
#305 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

18: The beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons:

Bear in mind, this was written well before NASA made the discovery that the sun actually rotates differentially. Also, it was written well before NASA discovered thatthe sun, every 300 years or so, affects our climate.

Bear in mind also that it was written when the sun was believed to orbit the earth, and therefore the “turning of the sun” doesn’t necessarily refer to the rotation of the sun about its axis, but rather the orbit of the sun around the earth.

And the fact that the movement of the sun was related to the seasons was already worked out by the guys who built Stonehenge and by the Pueblo and Anasazi aboriginals. BFD.
#306 Steven
February 21, 2008

17: For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements:

uh, so if you can get the wisdom of Solomon (can you even prove he existed, btw?) from reading your book, why don’t you tell us what you learned about how the elements operate, and then use what you learned to explain how to construct an experiment to test the efficacy of your knowledge.

or is your book actually a worthless piece of crap that contains no explanatory knowledge whatsoever, beyond what might have been useful to a bunch of goatherders thousands of years ago?

c’mon jimmyjoebobsteven. show us how it all works. edumacate usn’s

here I am holding your hand again (sigh)

first of all – the Apocrypha was translated into English approximately 1568 (before NASA).

The text was obviously older than that – but its important to remember, it was before NASA (rolling eyes).

You can argue all you want to about the existence or non existence of King Solomon – that isn’t important. What is important, is that it was written before the existence of NASA (shaking head).

Not only does the text read that the author knew the sun rotated, but he also knew the sun rotated differentially.

He knew about the altering of the turning of the sun. If you still don’t get it, then yes, your a moron.
#307 Steven
February 21, 2008

Well, for starters:

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly”

So, basically, you can buy, sell, and will to your children other humans, as long as they aren’t your fellow Jews.

And this is different from what occurred in American slavery exactly how?

So a US soldier isn’t property how?
#308 Steven
February 21, 2008

according to my understanding of the word “slave” as it is worded in the KJV, it basically means a person in debt.
#309 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I did not make that claim, Robert E. Lee did.

liar, you yourself made that exact claim just a few posts after you posted your quotemine of Lee’s letter.

the sure sign of a bad liar is that they quickly get their lies mixed up.

re-read what you wrote in #377, liar. to whit:

An African slave’s life was far better than a life they would have had in Africa (for the majority).

oops.

that’s you a-sayin’ that there, huckleberry.

now that it should be even clear to yourself that you are a liar, care to continue prevaricating for our amusement, or are you done?

you’re a credit to morons and liars everywhere.
#310 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

according to my understanding of the word “slave” as it is worded in the KJV, it basically means a person in debt.

And you couldn’t be more wrong. Congratulations. It’s an unbroken streak.
#311 uriel
February 21, 2008

And the fact that the movement of the sun was related to the seasons was already worked out by the guys who built Stonehenge and by the Pueblo and Anasazi aboriginals. BFD.

O.k. that was the next bit of stupidity I was going to comment on. But, since you did a better job than I would have, I’ll differ, except to say:

Really? That’s the best you can do?

Really?!!
#312 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

re-read what you wrote in #377, liar. to whit:

I posted about that already, but it ended up in P-Zed’s Spamcatcher, so I’m not sure when or if it will be posted.

*sigh*
#313 Owlmirror
February 21, 2008

Report Card for Steve:

History of the Atlantic Slave Trade: FAIL
Novel interpretation of the initiators unsupported by evidence or sanity

History of the American Civil War: FAIL
Information about Robert E. Lee garnered from an unreliable source – a so-called national monument, or possibly a crackerjack box.

History of World War 2: FAIL
Confused information from revisionist sources

Reading Comprehension: FAIL
Seems to think that a prayer for the end of slavery trumps an explicit condemnation of the slavery abolitionist movement.
Also more confusion than can be easily summarized.

General Biology: FAIL
Claims not to believe in evolution. Certainly does not understand it.

Astronomy: FAIL
Cites biblical apocrypha. Oh, dear.

Final Grade: EPIC FAIL
#314 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

The text was obviously older than that

irrelevant, but how do you know?

did you take a gander at the relevant archeology?

no?

You can argue all you want to about the existence or non existence of King Solomon – that isn’t important.

ah, good to know that the fictional nature of biblical characters is entirely unimportant to your arguments.

keep on diggin’ that hole for yourself, moron.

So a US soldier isn’t property how?

he gets paid, for one thing.

you sure have some fucked up ideas about what a slave is, boyo.

I know some marines who wouldn’t take too kindly to you calling them “slaves”.

shall I send them on over to chat with ya?

maybe you can convince them they really are slaves, and that they should return all that money and benefits they receive for their service from the Federal Govt.

LOL

yeah, I’d love to see that.
#315 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Not only does the text read that the author knew the sun rotated, but he also knew the sun rotated differentially.

i wonder if the author would have agreed with your interpretation…

I rather think not.

if you disagree, why don’t you show us how the same author managed to figure this out?

oh, that’s right, divine inspiration, yes?

so why has divine inspiration failed everybody else so horribly?

all sinners i guess, right?

LOL.
#316 Michael X
February 21, 2008

Ichthyic,
I understand the confusion. I guess that I found the tactic so outlandish that I couldn’t help but exaggerate it a bit and find it funny. Little did I realize that it wasn’t such a broad line.

And Steven, your last post was already supposed to have happened.

Though I’ll still point out that your reading is based upon current knowledge. People of that time would most certainly not have read it as you do now. The earth was stationary, (as any person who jumps and lands in the same place could tell you!) and the sun turned around it.

Your reading is not supported by the reading it would have been given at the time it was written.
#317 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

He knew about the altering of the turning of the sun. If you still don’t get it, then yes, your a moron.

if he knew about it, and you can read about it there, why can’t you design an experiment to prove it?

hmm?

what, no divine inspiration on that one?

do you understand what “explanatory power” and “predictive power” mean?

of course you don’t.

would you like to understand?

no, wait, why am I even asking?
#318 Michael X
February 21, 2008

And now having read this entire beast, I can safely say that NO, Steven has provided no predictions that ID has made, nor given any evidence to those ends.

The only thing coming close so far in support for ID is a quote from a rejected biblical text.

And I thought they had nothing to do with religion?
#319 thalarctos
February 21, 2008

Final Grade: EPIC FAIL

That’s what normal people would give it, Owlmirror, but Steven got exactly what he wanted–way more attention than anyone ever gives him in RL.

You just know he was typing with one hand the whole time.
#320 Michael X
February 21, 2008

You just know he was typing with one hand the whole time.

Wit. I love wit. I value it a nanometer below evidence in a forum discussion. To be right is foremost, but to be a joy to read and right, that is simply priceless. To eviscerate; wit can raise you to this level of making a good point, and getting a good laugh.

Not to say that I also don’t appreciate the blunt clubbing given to a troll in need.
#321 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

You just know he was typing with one hand the whole time.

oh, thankyouverymuch for that image which will now plague my nightmares as I take off for slumberland.

I’ll get you for that.

:p
#322 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

… btw, how’s the recovery coming?

ready to start diving again yet?
#323 Rey Fox
February 21, 2008

Wow.

I would, of course, just like to make one point that really should have been made hundreds of comments before all the back-and-forth on Robert E. Lee: Even if Darwin turned out to be a slaveholding, puppy-kicking, Very Bad Guy, it wouldn’t make one single solitary difference to evolutionary theory. Likewise, even if Hitler’s private diary said he did it all to glorify Darwin, it still wouldn’t make a lick of difference. Evolution happens. Always has, always will, regardless of what any murderers have to say about it.

You can all continue to kick Stevie around, but I hope you’ve at least noticed the pattern of whenever you actually ask him a question or try to pin him down on something, he just throws out more chaff (that is to say, BS) to try and distract.
#324 windy
February 21, 2008

How many mothers of a newborn baby would allow this practice?

Judging by the prevalence of infanticide in places like Tamil Nadu, quite many (they ‘allow’ it because they have no choice or because they choose it themselves). And even in the west, killing their own children is one of the most common types of murders committed by women.
#325 Ian Gould
February 21, 2008

I wonder if they reject the “pessimistic” theory of relativity because Einstein was a (nonpractising) Jew or refuse to use incandescent lights because Edison was a spiritualist.

I’m sure they reject anything built on an assembly line because of Henry Ford’s antisemitism.
#326 Ian Gould
February 21, 2008

Windy,
Never mind malaria.

Why did God create the two species of lice that exist solely on humans or the human bot fly?
#327 Ian Gould
February 21, 2008

“Hitler said that the theory of eviloution allowed him to be an intellectually fulfilled genocidal maniac.”

And Franco went to his grave convinced his services to the Catholic Church guaranteed him a place in Heaven.
#328 Ian Gould
February 21, 2008

So without reading all 500+ posts I have to ask:

Origin was published in 1859, Lincoln lived until 1865.

Did he ever express an opinion on the book either way?
#329 Ian Gould
February 21, 2008

“The Africans who taught the slave trade to the dutch and portuguese were not christian – the native americans who traded slaves were not christian”

No-one “taught” Europeans the slave trade.

The word slave derives from the word “Slav”. The Teutonic Knight, the Livonian Order and various other Christian groups enslaves and sold so many pagan Poles and other Slavs that the word “slav” become synonymous with “slave”.

And the earliest African participants in the Atlantic slave trade were the rulers of the Kingdom of Kongo – who converted to Christianity shortly after there first contact with the Portugese.

Their capital of Salvador was famous for its slave markets and its great cathedral.
#330 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

You just know he was typing with one hand the whole time.

And with one brain tied behind his back.

That had to be one of the most wretched strings of ignorant, arrogant spew we’ve seen around here in a long time. My head is still spinning from the Dutch-Portuguese-African slave trade “argument”.
#331 Ian Gould
February 21, 2008

So Steve considers the Apocrypha to be be the word of God?

Tell me Steve does that extend to the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene?
#332 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

Steve considers whatever supports his arbitrarily-determined world view to be an unimpeachable source.
#333 Lilly de Lure
February 21, 2008

You just know he was typing with one hand the whole time.

Well, apologies for being crude, but having just read through all of his awesomely silly “contributions” to this monster of a thread I think we can safely say that wherever his blood supply was being pumped to at the time he was posting, there certainly wasn’t much left to get through to his brain.
#334 Ian Gould
February 21, 2008

I should say here that Robert E Lee is getting rather harsh treatment here.

IN PRICIPLE, he was opposed to slavery.

As a matter of practicality, he thought that appealing to the conscience of the individual slave owner was preferable to fighting a war.

When Judah P Benjamin late in the civil war advocated freeing any slave who enlisted in the Confederate Army and adopting a gradualist program for post-war emancipation, Lee supported him.
#335 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

I agree, Ian, though the argument was against the characterization of Lee as an abolitionist, as Trollboy claimed.

Let’s toss another little irony onto the pile: Abe Lincoln could not accurately be described as a Christian.
#336 Carl
February 21, 2008

As a (white) South African I get really annoyed off with people like Steven who rewrite history.

I had a liberal English teacher in 1983 who pointed out that in biology we were not going to be exposed to evolution since it contradicted Genesis. In religious education we were taught by a fundamentalist, born-again moron that the black races were punished for the sins of Ham. At the Potchefstroom University for CHRISTIAN higher education (PUCHE), there was a running battle between the geology department and the administration in the 1950′s and 1960′s about the geology department teaching that the earth was billions of years old. Strangely PUCHE didn’t feel obliged to kick up a fuss about Apartheid since it was biblically consistent.

And who in the US sided with the racist creeps that ran South Africa? It wasn’t the biologists and “Darwinists”; it was the evangelical Christians.
#337 Kevin
February 21, 2008

“Darwin was a baby eating, psychopathic murderer.”

Posted by: Ichthyic | February 20, 2008 9:37 PM

Oh great, now we’ll be seeing that quote all over the place…thanks a lot…
#338 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

I would have to pull out some of my college textbooks and cite references from Lee and Jackson’s speeches. There is nothing on the internet that I can find (surprise, surprise).

Christ, you went to college? Where did you go, Bob Jones?
#339 BGT
February 21, 2008

I am still trying to understand what religion he thought the Portugese and Dutch were. That answer would have to be hilarious.
#340 Rev. BigDumbChimp
February 21, 2008

I can say, with exactly zero reservations that the Dunning-Kruger effect was exactly for people like Steve.
#341 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

BGT: What appears to be a mind-crushingly stupid allegation is actually a misunderstanding (for which, of course, he blames the reader) caused by Steven’s own abysmal prose.

He was trying to say that the Dutch and Portuguese merely (!) cashed in on the slave trades already practiced by certain Native American and African tribes, none of whom were Christian.

Ignoring, for the moment, the lunacy of the claim, he still fails to explain how that might let the Europeans, who were assuredly Christians, off the hook.
#342 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

I’m glad to see that it wasn’t the Benedryl making me foggy that had Steven’s posts coming across as so completely devoid of facts, reason, or intelligence. That’s some world-class stupid he’s showing off.

Time for a second reconstruction–and this time we’re going after the schools. No more “War of Northern Aggression” bullshit.
#343 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

Benadryl trumps Diet Coke in the wee hours, Jeff.

(I’ve got the flu, too. Moan.)
#344 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

Benadryl trumps Diet Coke in the wee hours, Jeff.
(I’ve got the flu, too. Moan.)

Yeah, rough week. Just took some more Benedryl, so we’ll see how long I’m able to stay awake.

Thank goodness for cuddly kitties and Simpsons DVDs.
#345 Ric
February 21, 2008

Steven, regardless of the truth or falsity of most of what you’ve claimed (and it is of course all false, but lets leave that aside for now), your argument all boils down to “We should reject evolution because it leads to undesirable consequences.” If you fail to see the flaw in that logic, there is not much hope for you.
#346 windy
February 21, 2008

The only reason a slave (or employee/indentured servant) would escape is to escape from a crime they committed.

So what crime did Frederick Douglass commit? (Oh, wait, I remember: learning to read.)

I wonder what lurid crimes St. Patrick committed that made him escape slavery. Ungrateful bastard!
#347 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

I wonder what lurid crimes St. Patrick committed

Uh… He forgot to close the door to the snake cage?

(As I understand it, amends were later made.)
#348 Hank Roberts
February 21, 2008

Paging Mr. Turtledove, paging Mr. Turtledove.

You have a visitor from the Alternate Generals timeline.
#349 Dave
February 21, 2008

So a US soldier isn’t property how?

Because he cannot be bought sold or willed to your children. Nor can he be kept for life; theres a reason its called a Term of Enlistment. So a US soldier is pretty much entirely unlike property.

Where on Earth did you get the idea that a US soldier was anything like property?

PS Please learn to quote properly. If you cant manage html tags, at least use quotation marks.
#350 Dr. Strangelove
February 21, 2008

Ka-ching, the Portuguese and Dutch were the first to cash in.

But … wait a minute, they weren’t christians. Hmmmmmm.

Assuming you ARE trying to say that it was the African slave traders who weren’t Christians, would you be so kind as to clarify this and admit at least that your prose stinks?

Or am I to charitable and are you indeed so stupid to believe what you wrote? I suggest you take a look in Holland and Portugal, and provide an explanation for the multitude of churches in both countries, many of the built in the 15th and 16th century. While you’re at it, also let me know who these onfortunate souls were who were burnt at the stake by the Inquisition during the Dutch Revolt and what religious group they adhered to.
#351 Olaf Davis
February 21, 2008

Steven,

“Yes, I know that trick too. I have read this article at least 15 times when it is cited by different so called “atheists” who claim they can think for themselves, but rely on other people’s interpretatations rather than their own. I can’t say I blame them, it certainly is easier this way for them.”

Sadly, the universe is too complicated for a single person to derive all its properties alone. Happily, we are able to co-operate and cite other people’s discoveries rather than reinvent the wheel every day. This is entirely necessary to the process of science, and citing a reasoned and evidenced argument is just as good as providing a new one – especially since it allows us to use reasoning which has been tested many times. If you can cite the Bible to defend its claims, can we not cite ‘Big Science’ to defend its?

“You have yet to explain exactly what religious affiliation the 15th and 16th century Dutch and Portugese had if it was not Christian”

“This is your interpretation of what was said – The Africans who taught the slave trade to the dutch and portuguese were not christian – the native americans who traded slaves were not christian”

If I may refer you to your earlier comment:

“Ka-ching, the Portuguese and Dutch were the first to cash in.

But … wait a minute, they weren’t christians. Hmmmmmm.”

It sounds like a reasonable ‘interpretation of what was said’ to me.
#352 mojoandy
February 21, 2008

They troll because they’re too stupid to sock puppet.

Steven, here’s a verse for you.

Then Jesus told this story to some who had great self-confidence and scorned everyone else: “Two men went to the Temple to pray. One was a Pharisee, and the other was a dishonest tax collector. The proud Pharisee stood by himself and prayed this prayer: ‘I thank you, God, that I am not a sinner like everyone else, especially like that tax collector over there! For I never cheat, I don’t sin, I don’t commit adultery, I fast twice a week, and I give you a tenth of my income.’ But the tax collector stood at a distance and dared not even lift his eyes to heaven as he prayed. Instead, he beat his chest in sorrow, saying, ‘O God, be merciful to me, for I am a sinner.’ I tell you, this sinner, not the Pharisee, returned home justified before God. For the proud will be humbled, but the humble will be honored.” (NLT, Luke 18:9-14)

So please. Go beat yourself (and not the way you’re doing it right now). And get raptured already.
#353 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

He was trying to say that the Dutch and Portuguese merely (!) cashed in on the slave trades already practiced by certain Native American and African tribes, none of whom were Christian.

Ignoring, for the moment, the lunacy of the claim, he still fails to explain how that might let the Europeans, who were assuredly Christians, off the hook.

I considered that possibility, but my question is still relevant in that case for the reasons you’ve already covered.
#354 Pierce R. Butler
February 21, 2008

Steven, if you’re still reading this: you’re a star!

Some of us have commented for years on Pharyngula without having a posting dedicated to us individually: you’ve made it on your first try.
#355 Stanton
February 21, 2008

I wonder what lurid crimes St. Patrick committed
Uh… He forgot to close the door to the snake cage?

(As I understand it, amends were later made.)

Actually, no, he ran away because he didn’t like the Roman pirates who kidnapped him in the first place.
#356 Aaron
February 21, 2008

Two things:

Godwin’s Law.

Argumentum ad consequentiam.
#357 dogmeatib
February 21, 2008

I put my response to Steven’s idiocy on the other thread:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/weve_got_a_live_one.php
#358 Holbach
February 21, 2008

For once, I am almost tongue-tied with raging incredulity,
and will probably wind up being incoherent trying to spit
my venom and religious hatred all over the monitor. So
suffice it to say that I think that raging demonic retard
should be nailed to a cross and have feces and urine
thrown at him on an hourly basis. And taunt the freaking
retard to appeal to his freaking god to come down and save him. Good grief, will we ever be rid of this insane shit?
#359 Keith Eaton
February 21, 2008

P.Z. Myers holds high praise for the racist darwin, the atheist darwin, considering him above the English Gentlemen of his day.

Historians must have praised the wrong people and not recognized the “abolitionist darwin”. All these years historians in understanding those who abolished the British slave trade through Parliament, through years of effort and many resources invested, mamely, have universally nemaed Bishop Wilburforce and John Newton.

Oh I forgot they were dedicated Christians and therefore members of the group you hate and despise along with Christ.

The engima here is whether the internet is a help by permitting the evolutionist douchebags propound their nonsense for all the intellectual world to laugh at or a henderence by using perfectly good bandwidth to spew hate and venom at the community of faith.

I suggest PZ and his admirers include 2+2=4 in every post so there will be one rational and factual aspect to their efforts.
#360 coathangrrr
February 21, 2008

Historians must have praised the wrong people and not recognized the “abolitionist darwin”

Except slavery was already outlawed in england by the time Darwin was around.

Oh I forgot they were dedicated Christians and therefore members of the group you hate and despise along with Christ.

How can I despise someone who didn’t exist?
#361 jeff
February 21, 2008

The bible actually supports slavery (it never forbids it), so any Christian who was an abolitionist was going against the bible. A fundamentalist would use the ‘good book’ to defend slavery.
It seems their ‘christianity’ was incidental, so you might as well say they had mustaches and that’s why they wanted to abolish slavery….
#362 J Daley
February 21, 2008

I love how creationists claim to have gone to some vague University, where they took unnamed classes and read uncited textbooks. Steve didn’t go to any University. At best he went to a bible college or got an online degree. I doubt it.

Either way, he seems to have retreated…

The Steve will rise again?
#363 RD
February 21, 2008

I fail to see what the purported immorality of a select group of Christians who died generations ago does to falsify design theory. Does Hitler being a vegatarian make vegetarianism evil? Does Walt Disney being anti-semitic mean that Disney Land does not exist?

It’s truly impressive to see so many ad hominem and reducto ad absurdum arguments compiled in one place. It’s as if you people didn’t have an actual argument behind all the fallacies.

Oh, wait.
#364 Stanton
February 21, 2008

Save your breath and typing skills, coathangrrr: Keith Eaton has a total immunity to reason thanks to his abysmal social skills and psychotic personality.

Discussing the nitty-gritty of how quantum mechanics affects houseplants with a cinderblock is a far more productive use of time than attempting to argue, or worse yet, reason with a waste of space like Keith Eaton.
#365 baloo
February 21, 2008

Solomon:”18: The beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons”

Steve: “Not only does the text read that the author knew the sun rotated, but he also knew the sun rotated differentially.”

As far as I understand this has nothing to do with rotation… The “turning of the sun” refers to the 21st/22nd of december and the 20th/21st of june, when the sun turns. Hence the phrase “change of seasons”?
#366 True Bob
February 21, 2008

RD, past is past, and we can ignore it. “Design theory” refutes itself. Bring some evidence to the table, and you’ll get an honest examination.

“Waiting For Cdesign Proponentsists’ Evidence” – might make a movie title, eh?
#367 Stephen Wells
February 21, 2008

What is “design theory?”
#368 Nullifidian
February 21, 2008

Historians must have praised the wrong people and not recognized the “abolitionist darwin”. All these years historians in understanding those who abolished the British slave trade through Parliament, through years of effort and many resources invested, mamely, have universally nemaed Bishop Wilburforce and John Newton.

Dear Darwin, not another one!

William Wilberforce was not a bishop, he was a member of parliament, and not the same person as “Soapy Sam” Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford and Winchester. “Soapy Sam” was the third son of William Wilberforce.

What is it with creationists. Are they allergic to any form of accurate, factual comment whatsoever?
#369 Stanton
February 21, 2008

What is “design theory?”

“Life as we know it is too complicated to have evolved without the mysterious and inscrutable help of ~~God, aka Our Lord, Jehovah, as described in the Holy Bible~~ a mysterious and inscrutable “Intelligent Designer.”"
#370 386sx
February 21, 2008

What is “design theory?”

Good question. Good luck with it!
#371 Stanton
February 21, 2008

What is it with creationists. Are they allergic to any form of accurate, factual comment whatsoever?

Yes, duh.
#372 thalarctos
February 21, 2008

… btw, how’s the recovery coming? ready to start diving again yet?

Short answer: not yet.

Long answer: I haven’t had the surgery yet, and now it’s been knocked down one notch in the priority list. The hernia surgery needs 6-8 weeks of recovery afterwards where I don’t do any heavy lifting or anything, to give the abdominal wall time to heal.

Since I’m unemployed and thus uninsured, I had been saving toward paying for the surgery plus paying for an extended period of doing nothing strenuous afterward (no massage work, for example). I didn’t yet have that amount saved, when a lump developed by my right eye. My doc doesn’t think it’s cancer, but she’s a generalist, so she referred me to Harborview’s poor and uninsured clinic for a joint consult with Derm, Opthalmology, and Plastics, because it’s right by my eye. I just got an appoinment for May 8(!). Like I tell everyone else, let’s hope it’s not melanoma, or I’ll be dead by then! (really, we don’t think it is; I’m [sorta] exaggerating for effect). I may be able to bump it forward, though; I have a couple of job interviews next week–nothing I would have normally chosen to take, but I will under duress to get insurance for my surgeries. If I get one of those jobs, and then get insurance, I’ll go to a doctor before May.

So getting the eye lump taken care of is now first priority; hernia will be late in 2008 at best, then 2-month recovery. Shall we make a tentative date to meet for diving in early 2009, modulo all things going as planned in the meantime?

Editorial: Hey, Arctic Oak–If wankers like Steven invested as much money, time, and mental energy in talking about real problems like the US’s fucked-up “health-care” system, instead of burying those real-life concerns just to rewrite history in the service of a racist and patriarchalist agenda, I’d be a lot more sympathetic to not smacking them down when they prove themselves to be idiots.

As it is, think of it as negative reinforcement–if you teach them they can get away with publicly lying and no one will call them on it, it’s like teaching the dog it can crap on the floor without consequences.
#373 coathangrrr
February 21, 2008

It’s truly impressive to see so many ad hominem and reducto ad absurdum arguments compiled in one place. It’s as if you people didn’t have an actual argument behind all the fallacies.

Ah, bringing out the “logic” are we. How’s that old saw go, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. That seems to be what is going on with all the “design theory” folks, a whole lot of “oh, look I learned a new word!”

And for the record, reductio ad absurdum is a sound logical form, not a fallacy.
#374 Stephen Marley
February 21, 2008

Guess where the “ID isn’t a religious concept folks” are previewing the anti-evolution film EXPELLED ?
I found the answer cruising the Answer in Genesis website.

“On Tuesday in the Special Effects Theatre of the Creation Museum, a few specially invited guests and some AiG staff were privileged to be given a preview of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which will be released in movie theaters across the country on April 18.”

What, no special previews for members of the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Smithsonian Institution or any major university? More proof – once and for all – that ID is just biblical creationism dressed up in a rented lab coat. What a fat load of crap the producers of EXPELLED are trying to foist on the US public. I’m positive that many US citizens will gobble it up.
As a response, I suggest that any corporation booking Ben Stein to advertise their product or service should hear from those of us who support real science. Let them know we’ll be taking our business elsewhere. In addition, the mainstream and entertainment press should ask Ben if he believes man and dinosaurs lived together just a few thousand years ago? … that would seem to be the case with the films target audience.

Does anyone else think it funny that the auditorium in the Creation Museum is called the “Special Effects Theatre”? They can work miracles with CG these days…
#375 bybelknap, FCD
February 21, 2008

Cavalli-Sforza is the clinal variation guy, not Lewontin. Clinal variation depends on the bits that vary between geographic areas, so it’s not the same thing as showing that there’s more variation within an area.

I am chastened. I shouldn’t post stuff like that without looking at my library. I just thought of Lewontin since he’s done a great deal of work on genetic diversity and made the false connection.

The above exchange demonstrates a significant difference between someone like Nullifidian and our good creobot Steven. Normal humans, when presented with evidence that corrects the course they are on, acknowledge that evidence, correct course, and move along in the improved direction.

On the other hand, the creobot can never, ever, admit that it has ever made an incorrect statement about anything on any topic at any time regardless of the depth of its lack of understanding of the topic at hand, and despite all the evidence in the world against its incorrectness.
#376 kmarissa
February 21, 2008

Thanks bybelknap. I had been struck by the EXACT same thing after reading that exchange, but was too lazy to hunt out the comments and post.
#377 vespera186
February 21, 2008

Hey Steven,

For the record, the slaves were doing MENIAL work, not REMEDIAL work. REMEDIAL refers to the type of classes you took in high school.

– Crabby Journalist
#378 RD
February 21, 2008

#557 – While your definition is presented in a juvenile, contrarian manner, it is essentially accurate.
#561 – It may not be a logical fallacy by literal definition, but in rhetoric it is simply a distractionary tactic that proves nothing. Nearly any concept can be stated in a way that makes it sounds absurd. Evolution is certainly no exception to this.

#554 – Therein lies the rub, eh? I post something about irreducable complexity, you counter with some well-practiced and rationalization filled diatribe, usually involving the clotting abilities of dolphins, correct?
Or I could delve into scripture, leaving the lot of you to intentionally mistake the fluidity of the Word of the Lord for contradictions or anything else that helps you prove your point to yourself.
I am well aware that there is little main stream scientific evidence available for Intelligent Design. When viewing websites like this, it is pretty easy to tell why. Few men or women would willingly subject themselves to the ridicule and ostracization that has been inexorably and unfairly linked to this young branch of science.
#379 Glen Davidson
February 21, 2008

Few men or women would willingly subject themselves to the ridicule and ostracization that has been inexorably and unfairly linked to this young branch of science.

You mean the stale old shit of Paley’s? What’s young about that, moron?

And if there were anything in ID, scientists would subject themselves to ridicule, knowing that they could win out in the end. The only reason your IDiots won’t subject themselves to the ridicule that IDists get, is that IDists deserve every bit of ridicule that they receive.

That is, they can’t counter the many even-toned fiskings of their work, nor can they take the ridicule which has followed their inability to either ‘fess up to the nonsense, or to provide some actual evidence for their noxious claims.

And you’re simply a lying jackass, RD, who apes the propaganda fed to you by the losers who whine about “persecution” when they have failed to provide evidence.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
#380 Sid Schwab
February 21, 2008

To me, this whole argument can be explained thus: anyone who repeatedly write “your” instead of “you’re” has been so poorly educated that any subsequent statements are suspect, severely.
#381 hje
February 21, 2008

KE sez: ” evolutionist douchebags” etc.

KE, I thought you were busy with some Expelled event? I see you’re back with your lame-o insults and furious copy & paste. Watch out for carpal tunnel syndrome–it may end your illustrious blogging career.

Here let me craft a response at the appropriate junior high level for you–ah yes, this will do: “Are you aware that I am rubber, and you are glue, and whatever you say to me bounces off, of me, and sticks to you?”
#382 True Bob
February 21, 2008

I am well aware that there is little main stream scientific evidence available for Intelligent Design.

Then you are misinformed. There is NO scientific evidence supporting ID/creationism. Anecdotes and argument from incredulity are not evidence.
#383 RD
February 21, 2008

#568 – If you’re talking about me I strongly suggest you reconsider your assumptions regarding the English language. Perhaps finishing fourth grade language arts would be a step in the right direction.

#567 – Winning out in the end isn’t much of a factor when you can’t get the funding to do the extensive research and experimentation needed to even make a dent in the wall of closed-mindedness surrounding evolution. That and, once the results were to be completed, everyone’s pre-concieved notions would lead them to, oh, say, not take the results seriously? Perhaps bend over backwards to try and assemble evidence that implies the contrary (a very un-scientific thing to do, I might add.)
I fail to see what I have said that can be accused of dishonesty. Making predictions, based on the current scientific climate, is not lying, even if the present majority disagrees with them.
#384 Rey Fox
February 21, 2008

“I fail to see what the purported immorality of a select group of Christians who died generations ago does to falsify design theory.”

I fail to see what the purported immorality of Charles Darwin does to falsify evolution theory. Those aren’t our tactics.

What Christians are you talking about here anyway? Martin Luther? We were just saying how his anti-semitic writings inspired Hitler. Please use quotations to back up your comments, this is a very long and tangled thread.

“Few men or women would willingly subject themselves to the ridicule and ostracization that has been inexorably and unfairly linked to this young branch of science.”

Oh…I’m hearing violins again. Some guy who did no research was denied tenure! Boo hoo! ID proponents who lie and present bad arguments are ridiculed on blogs? BAAAAWWWW!!!
#385 noncarborundum
February 21, 2008

“He told his secretary he was an atheist.”

Cite please.

Indeed. And while he’s busy searching (har) for that citation, let me offer one of my own:

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

This was spoken by Hitler in 1941 to his army adjutant, Gerhard Engel, and recorded in Engel’s diary. It is quoted in John Toland’s book Adolf Hitler. (Toland is a Pulitzer Prize winner. “Steven” is just a random guy posting on a blog.)
#386 Stanton
February 21, 2008

Making predictions, based on the current scientific climate, is not lying, even if the present majority disagrees with them.

The only prediction that Intelligent Design proponents have made is that they are the harbingers of the “end of Darwinism.”

In order to achieve this prophecy, they have indeed made numerous lies, including the slander of a wide array of people, especially actual scientists, who recognize that Intelligent Design “theory” is not science, and never will be science, especially since no Intelligent Design proponent has ever demonstrated that they are the least bit interested in making even the most trivial token effort to make a positive contribution to Science.
#387 RD
February 21, 2008

#572: I was speaking largely about references to the Dutch, Portugese, and Confederate Christians who were slave traders, and of the references in the article itself to Darwin being less of a racist than “good Christians”. As I have stated before, I am well aware that attack the messenger does nothing to combat the message, and I do not employ these arguments my self. Those ID proponents that I do see engaging in these arguments are most assuredly doing so out of exasperation as being antagonized at nearly every turn. You need to stop and think about what side of the argument is truly the aggressor: the people of faith who see design all around them, in ever tree and animal and rock (etc.), or the people who are trying to crush every effort to explain the world from a perspective that does not match their own.
#388 noncarborundum
February 21, 2008

Those findings only mean that the Spartans did not throw infants off that particular cliff. It doesn’t wholly disprove the idea that the Spartans practiced eugenics.

But imagine, for the sake of argument, that in fact no Spartan ever threw a single infant off any of the available cliffs. That doesn’t change for a moment the fact that the ancients thought they did. That is, the idea of eugenics was current at least 17 centuries before Darwin (if, as the linked article claims, the story was put about by Plutarch in the 1st century).
#389 True Bob
February 21, 2008

the people of faith who see design all around them, in ever tree and animal and rock (etc.)

Sheesh, how many times, RD? Argument from incredulity is not evidence. Ignorance does not generate scientific theories (nor, really, hypotheses).

Not attacks here, just a request – show some evidence.
#390 noncarborundum
February 21, 2008

. . . the people who are trying to crush every effort to explain the world from a perspective that does not match their own.

Oh, you mean the people who don’t want non-science taught to their kids in science class? Like, for example, the people who would rather their kids not be taught the Ptolemaic model of the solar system or the evil-eye theory of disease causation as scientifically valid “effort[s] to explain the world from a perspective that does not match their own”?

And speaking of “crushing every effort” to express a differing perspective, I suggest you take a look at ID guru William Dembski’s blog from time to time. It might give you an idea of how this is really done.
#391 Bart Mitchell
February 21, 2008

Wow, this whole set of arguments is, impressive. In size that is.

I just wanted to chime in on a breakthrough I recently had. There is a lovely lady that I regularly buy coffee from. I recently struck up a conversation that led to evolution. She told me that she didn’t ‘believe’ in it. Well, after a great deal of talking, I realized what was missing in her understanding of science. She thought that someone with the title ‘scientist’ was a person who thought they had the answers for everything, from red shifted galaxies, to abiogenesis. I relaxed, and took her through the major theories of science, and explained that the big bang theory didn’t try to explain life. That the study of evolution was not the study of abiogenesis. And that evolution was not the study of geology.

Then I explained that there were specialists within all these fields. They don’t need to know or understand the minutia of details of the other specialists. They only need to understand the how the conclusions of these specialists affect their own fields of study. All of Science is too big for only one man (well, except for Carl Sagan!) scientists depend on the research of people outside of their fields when looking at ‘big picture’ ideas, like evolution from one celled life, all the way up to sweater wearing puppies. But within the field, they will argue over the details to get a better understanding of how the mechanisms work.

I was greatly rewarded with a light bulb moment. She didn’t immediately deconvert from christianity, but I didn’t expect her to. She did have a little better of an understanding to how science works. And that is all I could ask for. Well, that and a great cup of coffee.
#392 kmarissa
February 21, 2008

You need to stop and think about what side of the argument is truly the aggressor: the people of faith who see design all around them, in ever tree and animal and rock (etc.), or the people who are trying to crush every effort to explain the world from a perspective that does not match their own.

Let’s try that again. Who is actually the aggressor?

a) Scientists who work hard to understand the world around them, and who learn things that, in turn, benefit humanity, and who teach what they have learned to children so that those children can grow up to continue those studies and benefits to humanity; or

b) People who insist on teaching non-science, for which there is no evidence and which is usually wrapped in lies, as though it is true, not only to their own children, but to entire classrooms and school districts, because it conflicts with their own personal perspective?
#393 db0
February 21, 2008

Encore! Encore! I want more of Steve!
Seriously, I’ve been eating pop-corn while reading this thread and I laughed out loud more than once. Bravo, sirs, for the fine intellectual evisceration
#394 RD
February 21, 2008

#577: As I have already stated, of empirical proof that fits into your model I have little. This evidence is fortcoming, of that you can be sure, but of course no one that wants to see it is allowed to find it, because that would be unscientific, and no one that doesn’t want to see it will acknowledge its existance.

#578: I mean scientists, bloggers and random internet-addicted liberals who’ve decided that they can never be wrong if they never stop arguing. Personally, I believe the time is not yet right for ID to be taught in schools, because ID is not yet developed. Teaching it in public schools would do a disservice to our children and to the science itself. That said, to come crashing down on the mere existance of the science, or the study thereof, is unreasonable, meaningless censorship.
#395 Stanton
February 21, 2008

Those ID proponents that I do see engaging in these arguments are most assuredly doing so out of exasperation as being antagonized at nearly every turn.

The reasons why they use such arguments are because Intelligent Design is not science, that they have no experience, ability even or motivation to engage a genuine scientific debate, and they instinctively recycle the same failed “arguments” made by Creationists.

You need to stop and think about what side of the argument is truly the aggressor: the people of faith who see design all around them, in ever tree and animal and rock (etc.), or the people who are trying to crush every effort to explain the world from a perspective that does not match their own.

If you actually read the Wedge Document, as well as comments made by Philip E. Johnson and William Dembski, you would know that the Intelligent Design movement is an attempt to make Science in the US “more Christian friendly,” a plan, that, if allowed to come to fruition, will devastate the country.
#396 Steven
February 21, 2008

I still haven’t had my questions answered

Why is it that the theory man is the product of an apelike creature still promulgated by scientists?

This theory was derived from finding bone fragments. The bone fragments were “proven” through the scientific method to be of an extinct apelike man creature. This theory is still being taught as “fact” to children.

What is not being discussed is that the bone fragments were later and discreetly found to be from a pig.
#397 Stanton
February 21, 2008

#577: As I have already stated, of empirical proof that fits into your model I have little. This evidence is fortcoming, of that you can be sure, but of course no one that wants to see it is allowed to find it, because that would be unscientific, and no one that doesn’t want to see it will acknowledge its existance.

Empirical evidence of reality and science shows itself whether or not people want to see it or not.

Intelligent Design proponents have provided neither empirical evidence, nor have they provided empirical evidence that they even want to engage in doing science at all.
#398 guthrie
February 21, 2008

So have we found someone even more monumentally stupid than AFDave? AF DAve also got confused about Portugal, although he thought the language came from French…
#399 Stanton
February 21, 2008

I still haven’t had my questions answered

Why is it that the theory man is the product of an apelike creature still promulgated by scientists?

This theory was derived from finding bone fragments. The bone fragments were “proven” through the scientific method to be of an extinct apelike man creature. This theory is still being taught as “fact” to children.

What is not being discussed is that the bone fragments were later and discreetly found to be from a pig.

The reason why it is taught that humans are descended from apes, and are apes, themselves, is because of the mountains of evidence that demonstrate that the closest relatives of humans are great apes, as well as fossil evidence of human-like primates that are more than just “bone fragments.”

“Nebraska Man” was a misidentified tooth of a pecarry found in Nebraska. Its discovery and subsequent reidentification had no bearing on Human Evolution. If you knew how to read, Steve, you would have already known this.
#400 RD
February 21, 2008

#585: Are you sure of that? Quarks, leptons and antileptons appeared to people who didn’t want to see them? You’ve got to find the information before you can see it. Or you can just try to sweep it under the rug, or stop anyone else from finding it.

#583: What, precisely, is wrong with making anything more “Christian friendly”? I fail to see how identifying a theory that happens not to contradict the Bible will do anything to harm anything. I would think that it would do just the opposite, and perhaps make it easier for young, scientifically gifted people who happen to have a strong faith in God to find their places amongst the scientific community without fear of ridicule.
#401 guthrie
February 21, 2008

Who is this RD person?

Hey, RD, are you aware that the ID’ers have spent several million pounds over a number of years, yet seem unable to produce anything with it? You are aware of the ramblings of Dembski and Behe are you not? Please explain how the multi-million dollar evangelical industry, with its bible colleges, huge churches etc, cannot afford one teensy little lab to do its work in?

Darwin mostly had his garden.
He worked pretty much by himself. Perhaps you should go and do some science yourself?

Your complaint about close mindedness merely illustrates you are an idiot with no explosure to actual science.
#402 Damian
February 21, 2008

RD, you seem to be making the mistake of thinking that ID creationism is a legitimate and honest attempt to deal with the evidence. Here are the words of some of those who purport to be engaged in a legitimate exercise:

The Wedge Strategy, leaked from the Discovery Institute:

“Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

“Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars.”

Phillip Johnson, father of the ID movement:

Johnson explicitly calls for intelligent design proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having ID identified “as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message”. Johnson emphasizes that “the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion”; “after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact … only then can ‘biblical issues’ be discussed.”

“I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.”

“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”

William Dembski:

“Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don’t have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ.”

“ID is part of God’s general revelation … Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I’ve found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ.”

“I think God’s glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God’s glory is getting robbed. [...] And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he’s not getting it.”

“You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.”

Michael Behe:

“You can’t prove intelligent design by experiment.”

In sworn testimony, Behe said: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”

He also said, under oath, that stretching the definition of science to allow ID to be taught in the classroom, would also allow Astrology to be taught, as well.

Now, you tell me if any of this, said by perfectly intelligent individuals, and those who are at the very forefront of the ID creationism movement, sounds like a genuine attempt to engage in a scientific debate?
#403 RD
February 21, 2008

#589: Citation, please? I’d like to know what, exactly, this money was spent on, and what, exactly, constitutes this “nothing” that they came up with. Surely doing any measure of experimentation or research would produce something, regardless of what that may be.
The “Evangelical Industry” as you put it, is not neccessarily and ID industry. There is a difference. Many Evangelicals have been browbeaten into such an extreme distrust of science that they still embrace the Young Earth perspective. That is, unfortunately, where most of the money rests.
#404 Steven
February 21, 2008

Those ID proponents that I do see engaging in these arguments are most assuredly doing so out of exasperation as being antagonized at nearly every turn.

The reasons why they use such arguments are because Intelligent Design is not science, that they have no experience, ability even or motivation to engage a genuine scientific debate, and they instinctively recycle the same failed “arguments” made by Creationists.

You need to stop and think about what side of the argument is truly the aggressor: the people of faith who see design all around them, in ever tree and animal and rock (etc.), or the people who are trying to crush every effort to explain the world from a perspective that does not match their own.

If you actually read the Wedge Document, as well as comments made by Philip E. Johnson and William Dembski, you would know that the Intelligent Design movement is an attempt to make Science in the US “more Christian friendly,” a plan, that, if allowed to come to fruition, will devastate the country.

I have seen exactly the opposite happen as a result of teaching evolution. Divorce rate has gone up. More school shootings. Academic freedom no longer exists.

So called scientists who claim that ID is not science need to realize a lot of the tools they use are not science as well. They are making a double standard for themselves that many people are readily able to see through.
#405 Stanton
February 21, 2008

What, precisely, is wrong with making anything more “Christian friendly”? I fail to see how identifying a theory that happens not to contradict the Bible will do anything to harm anything. I would think that it would do just the opposite, and perhaps make it easier for young, scientifically gifted people who happen to have a strong faith in God to find their places amongst the scientific community without fear of ridicule.

Among other things, the Bible contains numerous scientific inaccuracies, including saying that hyraxes (or hares) chew cud, that grasshoppers have four, instead of six legs, that bats are actually birds, that mustard seeds, rather than orchid seeds, are the smallest plant seeds in the world, and that wheat seeds die prior to germination.

Making science more “Christian Friendly” would entail making science unfriendly to scientists of other faiths.

Furthermore, the Bible does not discuss many many topics, and those “scientific” Christians who treat the Bible as a science textbook have demonstrated that they have a profound, inescapable disinterest in learning about the world around them, as they often allege that the study of topics not specifically addressed in the Bible is either sinful, or beneath their notice, and that the study of the world around them is an elaborate plot devised by Satan to tempt True Believers away from God.
#406 guthrie
February 21, 2008

Ok, my polite question for tonight, RD, is:
Have you actually investigated ID/Creationism, do you know who takes part in it, what it is, what it claims etc, or are you defening it because you have a personal version of it that you think is great?

As for funding etc, wikipedia is a reasonable place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

A subsidiary of the Discovery Institute called the Biologic institue allegedly has 3 researchers working on ID topics.

I quote from Wikipedia, regarding the DI:
“Over those nine years, $792,585 financed laboratory or field research in biology, paleontology or biophysics, while $93,828 helped graduate students in paleontology, linguistics, history and philosophy. The CSC lobbies aggressively to policymakers for wider acceptance of intelligent design and against the theory of evolution and what it terms “scientific materialism.”"

Now, if you look at all the other stuff the DI does, it spends millions on lobbying. Is lobbying the same as doing science?
#407 s
February 21, 2008

Where are these “mountains of evidence”? All I have seen are “mountains of theories” most of which has been proven incorrect.

I certainly know how to read and I have a pretty good BS detector. I, like so many others, have noticed how scientific theory changes over time. It is not result of a new discovery that further advances a theory, its a discovery that counters previous scientific conclusions.
#408 Anon from Aus
February 21, 2008

ummm… how is “a discovery that counters previous scientific conclusions” not a “new discovery”?

What the hell are you on about?
#409 RD
February 21, 2008

#590:
Quotations from your own post:
“after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact … only then can ‘biblical issues’ be discussed.”

Simply put, the Bible must be removed from the debate until scientific legitimacy can be established, something that seems impossible, because the left is so obsessed with the idea that religion is the antithesis of science.

“Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world”

This really reinforces all that I have said. ID is not yet fully developed, but, given the chance to do so, it has great potential to stand toe-to-toe with Evolution.

“Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don’t have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ.”

I believe this speaks for itself. Christ is present in all things. Presenting ID without Christ is the same as presenting Germ Theory or Atomic Theory without Christ.

I do, however, believe that Michael Behe was mistaken when he said that ID could not be proven by experiment. I realize that proving that life could not have evolved is impossible, as atheists say it is impossible to prove that God cannot exist, but I believe that thus far, scientists have simply not examines things from the correct perspective. There is nothing unnatural about God, for God is all things.
#410 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

because ID is not yet developed.

the question is, do you even have the slightest inkling why it hasn’t and can’t be developed into a testable hypothesis?

here’s a hint:

archeologists have a model to work from (humans) in order to formulate a hypothesis as to whether a specific artifact was made by humans or not.

What model does ID work from?

Teaching it in public schools would do a disservice to our children and to the science itself.

there is no science to it, whatsoever, in that sense, you could hardly do a disservice to it.

That said, to come crashing down on the mere existance of the science, or the study thereof, is unreasonable, meaningless censorship.

all you have to do is show us where the science is:

show us the repeatable experiments, for example.

it’s just a bunch of fucking lies, moron.

If we decide not to teach holocaust denial as part of a history course on WWII, is that censorship?

think for a second, if you are even able.
#411 Steven
February 21, 2008

one such scientific fact has been “soft tissue cannot fossilize”

then a soft tissue fossil of a dinosaur was found. Not only did this counter previous scientific conclusions – it countered quite a few “scientific” remarks regarding a fossilized human finger.

Finding a fossilized human finger counters quite a number of scientific conclusions. But as a person who believed in ID, I cease to be amazed at how “atheist scientists” refute obvious which counters their preconceived notions.

It takes more faith to believe in evolution.
#412 Stanton
February 21, 2008

I believe this speaks for itself. Christ is present in all things. Presenting ID without Christ is the same as presenting Germ Theory or Atomic Theory without Christ.

So then, please demonstrate for us how to present Germ Theory and Atomic Theory with Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, please demonstrate how to present a scientific theory, with Jesus Christ, to a non-Christian audience, and demonstrate how that is the appropriate way to present science.

I do, however, believe that Michael Behe was mistaken when he said that ID could not be proven by experiment.

Then please demonstrate how to perform experiments with Intelligent Design.
#413 noncarborundum
February 21, 2008

What is not being discussed is that the bone fragments were later and discreetly found to be from a pig.

You’re referring to “Nebraska Man”, and it is simply untrue that “the theory [that] man is the product of an apelike creature” was in any way based on it. For one thing, the “Nebraska Man” paper was published in 1922, which is 51 years after the publication of The Descent of Man, in which Darwin described the great apes (he called them “quadrumana”) as:

the nearest allies of men, and therefore . . . the best representatives of our early progenitors

For another thing, “Nebraska Man” appeared in exactly one scientific paper, and most scientists of the time were skeptical that it even represented a primate, much less that it was a human ancestor. Most ignored it entirely and it had exactly zero impact on evolutionary theorizing. Within a few years it was definitively proved to be the tooth of an extinct peccary, and its disappearance caused nary a ripple. In fact, it survives today only as an item in the creationist arsenal of stupid talking points.

On the other hand, there are plentiful fossils of Australopithecus spp. which are considered to be apelike human ancestors. Are these pig fossils too?

Oh, and by the way:

Nearly any concept can be stated in a way that makes it sounds absurd.

This may be true, but it has nothing to do with reductio ad absurdum, which I suggest you look up to see just how absurdum your characterization is. What you’re describing (mischaracterizing an idea to make it seem absurd) is more properly described as a “straw man” argument.
#414 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

because the left is so obsessed with the idea that religion is the antithesis of science.

not just “the left”, moron.

btw, have you ever heard of the clergy letter project?

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm

I do, however, believe that Michael Behe was mistaken when he said that ID could not be proven by experiment.

based on your vast knowledge?

LOL
#415 Anon from Aus
February 21, 2008

wow, that was full of stupid.

You complain that science changes its mind when it’s shown it’s wrong?

You *complain* that human knowledge keeps getting better with new evidence?

Would you prefer science to be like religion – and keep all its knowledge stagnant, even when it’s shown to be flatly wrong?
#416 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

hey Steven-

why haven’t you addressed the fact that you are a liar yet?
#417 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

one such scientific fact has been “soft tissue cannot fossilize”

this is called a straw-man argument.

I linked to an explanation of what that is earlier.

care to try again?
#418 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

how to present Germ Theory and Atomic Theory with Jesus Christ.

easy:

Germ Theory + Jesus

Atomic Theory + Jesus

oh, wait you wanted something else, didn’t you…

:p
#419 RD
February 21, 2008

#598: Thank you for being so aggressively, pointlessly hostile. It really makes me look like the unthinking one in this argument. You have, however, pointed out just the reason why it is so difficult to come up with concrete proof for design: to see from the perspective of God is beyond us. But that there are other ways for humans to tap into this library of knowledge I am sure. It is only a matter of time before someone stumbles upon the key, but this rampant hostility and constant derision must be slowing things dramatically. What, exactly, are you all so afraid of? Is the idea of design so terrible, or is it your souls your fear for?

#594: Those numbers you quoted combined come up well under a million dollars, so I fail to see where your “millions of dollars” figure is derived from, but I will indulge the “point” regardless. This money is spent to combat the negative advertising and lobbying going on all the time, lobbying that is for the most part free, disguised, and thus more dangerous. I realize that spending a million dollars in the face of this tide is tantamount to throwing ice cubes at the sun, but one must try, at the very least.
#420 Stanton
February 21, 2008

one such scientific fact has been “soft tissue cannot fossilize”

then a soft tissue fossil of a dinosaur was found. Not only did this counter previous scientific conclusions – it countered quite a few “scientific” remarks regarding a fossilized human finger.

Finding a fossilized human finger counters quite a number of scientific conclusions. But as a person who believed in ID, I cease to be amazed at how “atheist scientists” refute obvious which counters their preconceived notions.

It takes more faith to believe in evolution.

Steven, you are an arrogant moron.

“Soft tissue” can fossilize, and there are numerous examples of soft tissue fossils. The problem is that soft tissue is less likely to fossilize than hard tissue, such as bone and shells.

And if by “human finger fossil,” you mean Carl Baugh’s fossil finger, do also realize that Carl Baugh has consistently refused to let anyone examine it for authenticity’s sake.

Furthermore, please explain why “descent with modification because offspring are imperfect copies of their parents” requires more faith than believing that wombats, koalas and marsupial moles made it to Australia from Mount Ararat before lions, tigers and gazelles due to divine assistance.
#421 Rey Fox
February 21, 2008

“because the left is so obsessed with the idea that religion is the antithesis of science.”

It kinda is. For reasons that are about to become clear…

“Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don’t have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ.”

“I believe this speaks for itself. Christ is present in all things. ”

“There is nothing unnatural about God, for God is all things.”

Says who?

Don’t you see what bald assertions these are? That’s why ID isn’t science, because it assumes a conclusion and works backwards from it. What would you say to a Hindu scientist who said the same thing you just said, but replaced the word “Christ” with “Brahma”? How would either of you ever convince the other that he/she is wrong? How would either of you know?

Oh, and run along, Stevie, the grown-ups are trying to have a discussion.
#422 Stanton
February 21, 2008

What, exactly, are you all so afraid of? Is the idea of design so terrible, or is it your souls your fear for?

The reason for his hostility is because he knows that the literal interpretation of the Bible is not science and never will be science, and he is rightly frustrated that you have blinded yourself to the fact that you have not produced a single specific demonstration of “Bible-friendly” “science.”
#423 RD
February 21, 2008

#609: I suspect I could argue with him indefinitely, as I could with all of you, with neither side being convinced, until Jesus returns. At that point, I believe one side will be more convincing than the others. As to your other statement, this is precisely why I stated before that this science must first be established separately from religion, as many other sciences have been. Regardless, concrete proof of ID is not the same as concrete proof of Christ. A world that is designed does not rule out Brahma, Allah, Zeus or Odin.
#424 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

It really makes me look like the unthinking one in this argument.

it’s your line of reasoning (or lack thereof) that makes you the unthinking one.

it’s that simple.

to see from the perspective of God is beyond us

if you get that, then you must also realize, at least at some level, that there simply is NO WAY “Intelligent Design” can ever be science, unless “God” itself decided to appear and elucidate how it acted within the natural world, or we could directly observe same.

btw, I thought ID wasn’t supposed to be based on deism?

well, at least you saw through that lie, right?

But that there are other ways for humans to tap into this library of knowledge I am sure.

Why are you sure of this? what specifically do you base your certainty on?

what library of knowledge do you speak of?

Dembski doesn’t know what you mean.

Wells doesn’t know what you mean.

Johnson doesn’t know what you mean.

Behe doesn’t know what you mean.

harun yahya doesn’t know what you mean.
#425 guthrie
February 21, 2008

OK Rd, point us to half a dozen examples of:
“negative advertising and lobbying going on all the time, lobbying that is for the most part free, disguised, and thus more dangerous.”
in the scientific literature. I note that your mission here seems to be to obfuscate and avoid answering any questions, such as mine about your knowledge of ID.

Finally, as I said, Darwin did it himself, mostly in his back garden. The ID’ers have nothing to compare, because ID is not science.
#426 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

At that point, I believe one side will be more convincing than the others.

itmt, why don’t you run along and let those of us who actually do something productive with our lives get on with it, eh?
#427 Pat
February 21, 2008

Steven:
I wasn’t going to reply, but the claim that a US soldier is property…

Ignorance is a disease. This much is enumerated in the Hebrew Bible, many times. Go over the verses about “fools” Steven and you’ll see many parallels to yourself. Note the behavioral traits were well documented even then. That is truly the one thing the Bible does well: show that individuals are the same now as two thousand or more years ago.

And as for killing children, I suggest you take another look at Inuit practices, or African cultures, where children aren’t often even named until they are a year old due to high mortality. Your statements point to a dual cultural prejudice and profound ignorance.

And, by the way: this statement of yours is a long version of an oxymoron:

“I do not regurgitate canned knowledge from a person who claims to know more about something than I. I am able to think for myself and research for myself.”

If you don’t regurgitate canned knowledge, how do you research? Did you, de novo, make up the English language? Are you able to create facts in researching them? Apparently so.
#428 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

What, exactly, are you all so afraid of?

nothing, moron, that’s the point.

it’s not fear of productive ideas that science fears, indeed it embraces them. It’s fear of having morons like yourself return science to the dark ages, and indoctrinate our kids with idiotic nonsense that is to be feared.

We asked those who feel they created the concept of ID to produce results that show how it better explains and predicts observable data than current theory does.

we got nothing, absolutely nothing, from them.

instead, we got constant lies, misinformation, and PR stunts.

no science whatsoever.

been waiting 15 years for the latest iteration; much longer if you stretch it back to Paley’s day. eons Longer than that if you accept that the core of the idea is nothing more than creationism.

btw, was Judge Jones a “lefty”?
#429 Michael X
February 21, 2008

I’m still waiting for those predictions ID makes. I’ll even let slide the evidence since evilutionists are too mean to let you do some research, somehow…

You won’t find a better deal than that!

Come one RD, Steve? Anybody? Predictions? Method? Mechanisms? Anything?
#430 Wolfhound
February 21, 2008

Hot damn! Steven, RD, and Keith. Woo-hoo! Let’s go get Neal and Sal and Larry and we’ll have hit the creotard superfecta!
#431 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

“negative advertising and lobbying going on all the time, lobbying that is for the most part free, disguised, and thus more dangerous.”

this is an example of projection.

the PR stunts are all on the side of the Disinformation Institute, and has been repeatedly documented in near endless fashion.

people like RD don’t want to conscious acknowledge that all the lies and misinformation and spin actually comes from their side, so the project it on to whoever they currently see as an opponent.

happens all the time. I have a database of over a thousand entries representing all the times I have documented exactly this pattern of projection (and the inevitable state of denial that follows).

there is a definite and recognizable psychology to this phenomenon.

they all react just like they were indoctrinated in cults.

not saying of course that ALL religious people react this way, but there is a very recognizable pattern with folks like Steven and RD.
#432 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Come one RD, Steve? Anybody? Predictions? Method? Mechanisms? Anything?

hey, you could give them a hint.

Dembski says he has a whole list of predictions these days.

…
#433 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Are you able to create facts in researching them? Apparently so.

don’t be silly; it’s all “divine inspiration” of course!
#434 Jay
February 21, 2008

Intelligent Design is not a science? Sure it is! Intelligent Design comes together with the Study of God. Just like Geology
is the study of this, and ology is a study of that, etc. We haven’t come to the ends of all there is to know about any one particular subject, this is why we continue to study and observe and study some more. Every subject in the University is an ongoing process of adding new understanding and material. Even the theory of evolution claims to be learning more and more as time goes by. And in order to add new information to “other” information, then you must have that “other” inform there already. Otherwise you have no place to put it. Intelligent Design does the same thing. They take what they know and through observation and study and more of this and call it theology. Thats all nothing too weird. Now religion might be weird for some, and which religion is weirdest is another discussion all together, but when you look at how much of evolution isn’t based on fact and how dogmatically those theories are being defended then you see the huge contrast.

Basically the two are theories- and both sides now it- and one is being shut up and another is being supported by everyones tax dollars- the real problem is censorship

I mean really think about it…if evolution is taken down to the level of theory and not presented as fact, then it still doesn’t run the risk of being removed from the colleges…

why insist it is fact? people who say, because they live in a non absolutist world, that there is no fact, will fight this because some part of them thinks that evolution is based in fact or even in some,…sound pejorative actually

just let them be- if anything what you get is a more politically correct world
#435 Michael X
February 21, 2008

hey, you could give them a hint.

I did give them the hint, I didn’t say anything!

Duh, dum, ching!
Thank you, thank you, I’ll be here all week.
#436 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

A world that is designed does not rule out Brahma, Allah, Zeus or Odin.

the assumption of design de-facto can rule out NOTHING.

deities, aliens, time travel…

is it becoming clearer now?
#437 Monty
February 21, 2008

Holy crap. This thread far and away surpasses the epic Susan Williams-feuled, record-holding thread from the old site, by almost five to one.
#438 noncarborundum
February 21, 2008

A world that is designed does not rule out Brahma, Allah, Zeus or Odin.

The FSM gets no respect.
#439 Michael X
February 21, 2008

Jay,
You said one thing of any interest there. It is that this

Intelligent Design does the same thing. They take what they know and through observation and study and more of this and call it theology

ID is theology. Thank you for finally admitting that.
#440 Steven
February 21, 2008

Steven, you are an arrogant moron.

“Soft tissue” can fossilize, and there are numerous examples of soft tissue fossils. The problem is that soft tissue is less likely to fossilize than hard tissue, such as bone and shells.

And if by “human finger fossil,” you mean Carl Baugh’s fossil finger, do also realize that Carl Baugh has consistently refused to let anyone examine it for authenticity’s sake.

Furthermore, please explain why “descent with modification because offspring are imperfect copies of their parents” requires more faith than believing that wombats, koalas and marsupial moles made it to Australia from Mount Ararat before lions, tigers and gazelles due to divine assistance.

If you think that my posts are arrogant, its a result of being told think and not being “allowed” to question it. That is arrogance personified.

You have neglected, either deliberately (which I highly suspect) or out of sheer ignorance, to mention that Dr. Baugh’s fossilized finger was discredited by the scientific community under the premise that soft tissue cannot fossilize. Of course soft tissue can fossilize. At the time the finger was “discredited”, scientists “thought” soft tissue could not fossilize. As for Dr. Baugh not permitting anyone to examine the finger for authenticity, this is also a deliberate lie.

It comes as no shock to me at the lengths an atheist scientist will go, to deliberately deceive the public. After all, not only is their reputation at stake, so is their job.

The funny thing about about all of this – are the assumptions made by those who think they have it all figured out – only to have evidence presented that contradicts their preconceived beliefs. If you are going to jump and say “hey that is what the christians are doing!” – you would be wrong again.
#441 Steven Sullivan
February 21, 2008

“You can all continue to kick Stevie around, but I hope you’ve at least noticed the pattern of whenever you actually ask him a question or try to pin him down on something, he just throws out more chaff (that is to say, BS) to try and distract.”

That’s because, as he says, he ‘knows all the tricks’. Or at least, the one trick that every ID/creationist dickhead masters early on: changing the subject when they know they’re licked.
#442 Michael X
February 21, 2008

Still waiting on those predictions, method, mechanisms.

Come on guys? Why so quite when asked to support ID, as opposed to erecting cringe worth attacks on evolution?
#443 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

intelligent Design comes together with the Study of God

not according the the inventors and purveyors of it.

ID is NOT theology.

or do you not understand what theology is?

holy crap, Dembski et. al. must just shit their pants when they see “supporters” like yourself mangling their ideas (poor as they are).

btw, since we are on the subject of theology, many theology professors at various Universities no longer think their field has any meaning.

why do you suppose that is?

Have you ever heard of Hector Avalos?

http://www.philrs.iastate.edu/avalos.shtml

theology itself is doomed.
#444 Mooser
February 21, 2008

Many of the (public) perceptions about the Big Bang are wrong, in my experience:

Dude, you totally rawk! How the heck did you get tickets? My parents said “no” anyway. Yeah, I’d give my left nut to have seen Big Bang.
#445 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Steven, you still haven’t defended yourself against the obvious fact that you are a liar.

care to show us how you aren’t a liar yet?
#446 Steven
February 21, 2008

“You can all continue to kick Stevie around, but I hope you’ve at least noticed the pattern of whenever you actually ask him a question or try to pin him down on something, he just throws out more chaff (that is to say, BS) to try and distract.”

That’s because, as he says, he ‘knows all the tricks’. Or at least, the one trick that every ID/creationist dickhead masters early on: changing the subject when they know they’re licked.

Exactly when have any of my questions gotten an honest answer?

And when I am responding to several posts it may appear I have changed the subject – scroll back and eat your words.
#447 Michael X
February 21, 2008

Opps, I mean quiet of course.

See? I just corrected a mistake. Take note Steven.
#448 Tulse
February 21, 2008

More of Steven’s delusions:

I have seen exactly the opposite happen as a result of teaching evolution. Divorce rate has gone up.

Curiously, “divorce rates among conservative Christians [are] significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience”.
#449 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

How the heck did you get tickets?

LOL

he got them at the restaurant at the end of the universe.
#450 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Exactly when have any of my questions gotten an honest answer?

more lies.

*sigh*

your momma must be proud.
#451 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

It comes as no shock to me at the lengths an atheist scientist will go, to deliberately deceive the public. After all, not only is their reputation at stake, so is their job.

have you ever actually examined the annual budget of the Disinformation Institute, liar Stevo?

compare the money spent on research (0%)

to the money spent on PR (40%)

now tell us again who’s jobs depend on spinning their reputations.

LOL
#452 Steven
February 21, 2008

It comes as no shock to me at the lengths an atheist scientist will go, to deliberately deceive the public. After all, not only is their reputation at stake, so is their job.

have you ever actually examined the annual budget of the Disinformation Institute, liar Stevo?

compare the money spent on research (0%)

to the money spent on PR (40%)

now tell us again who’s jobs depend on spinning their reputations.

LOL

You actually believe that crap? And I am the one that is “delusional”?

My Goodness!!

0 dollars spent on research (lol)
#453 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

Actually, divorce rates and school violence started going up right around the time that “Under God” was forcibly injected into The Pledge.

Steven seems to have misunderstood The Wedge Document. His consistency is remarkable. I agree, however, that if the stated goals are reached the results will be devastating.
#454 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

You actually believe that crap? And I am the one that is “delusional”?

uh, the DI is a nonprofit, moron. their records are readily accessible.

do try to keep up.

oh, and when were you planning on showing us that you aren’t a liar?
#455 Steven
February 21, 2008

Actually, divorce rates and school violence started going up right around the time that “Under God” was forcibly injected into The Pledge.

Steven seems to have misunderstood The Wedge Document. His consistency is remarkable. I agree, however, that if the stated goals are reached the results will be devastating.

yep – not surprised at all at how history is a fleeting concept for those who study evolution.

Misunderstand one subject, and you misunderstand them all.

The divorce rate and school shootings went on the rise when prayer was taken out of schools.

Nice try – but try harder.
#456 Michael X
February 21, 2008

I believe that was another post of Steven’s that failed to produce any predictions for ID.
Nor method of research, nor mechanisms by which ID operates.

Steven, have you given any support for your position? I’ve seen nothing other than your antipathy for evolution on display. Though, this is evidence for nothing.

So, where’s the beef?
#457 Steven
February 21, 2008

Actually, divorce rates and school violence started going up right around the time that “Under God” was forcibly injected into The Pledge.

Steven seems to have misunderstood The Wedge Document. His consistency is remarkable. I agree, however, that if the stated goals are reached the results will be devastating.

Uh wait – I see your point … every time I say the word “God” I want to divorce my wife and go on a murderous rampage.

Ooops – no, that was a mistake (took a note to correct my mistakes) I actually feel that way when I am told that life was a coincidence, my ancestors were monkeys, there is no afterlife, my actions in life don’t matter because there is no judgment in the afterlife, marriage is a sham and there is no God.

just wanted to clarify.
#458 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

His consistency is remarkable.

you mean his inconsistency?

Misunderstand one subject, and you misunderstand them all.

says the one who is the perfect example of that statement. You know exactly as much about history, geology, and biology as you apparently do about anything else, sad a commentary as that is. You did graduate high school at least, right?

It’s becoming more and more noticeable that you aren’t even bothering to challenge the fact that you are a bald-faced liar.

c’mon, liar, show us how honest you are.

The divorce rate and school shootings went on the rise when prayer was taken out of schools.

LOL

yeah, show us those statistics, fool.

go ahead, we’ll wait for you to make some up.
#459 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Uh wait – I see your point … every time I say the word “God” I want to divorce my wife and go on a murderous rampage.

does your wife know you are a habitual liar?
#460 RD
February 21, 2008

I see you’ve all had quite a time repeating yourselves during my drive home. It’s a shame I don’t have the patience to address the same questions, reworded endlessly. For the time being -

#616: No, Judge Jones is a man that was bamboozled, quite forcibly, by the scientific left into mistaking the comments of a few misguided creationists as representative of a fledgling school of thought. He is only human, and was faced with quite the dog and pony show, from what I understand. I believe that many would find it difficult to find the truth within such a pile of disinformation.
#617: I too am waiting, but rest assured they are coming. All we need is the correct key, and the flood gates will undoubtedly fall open.
#624: What, exactly, do you feel you have proven by listing a few more things that ID has nothing to do with?#631: Here, I must agree. ID is not theology. It is science.
#461 guthrie
February 21, 2008

Hey, Steven, where in evolutionary biology does it say that:

“life was a coincidence, my ancestors were monkeys, there is no afterlife, my actions in life don’t matter because there is no judgment in the afterlife, marriage is a sham and there is no God.”
#462 kmarissa
February 21, 2008

EVERYONE STOP!

every time I say the word “God” I want to divorce my wife and go on a murderous rampage.

Ooops – no, that was a mistake (took a note to correct my mistakes) I actually feel that way when I am told that life was a coincidence, my ancestors were monkeys, there is no afterlife, my actions in life don’t matter because there is no judgment in the afterlife, marriage is a sham and there is no God.

We are apparently dealing with a very unbalanced person here. Unlike, well, any of the rest of us (i.e., people with ethics), Steven is tempted to go on a “murderous rampage” if any of his delusions are attacked. I suggest we all slowly back away…
#463 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

No, Judge Jones is a man that was bamboozled, quite forcibly, by the scientific left

those are serious charges. funny that Jones has never said such in any of his speeches after the trial.

in fact, he often made note of the fact that the defendants in the trial often were caught in lies.

so who was doing the “bamboozling” again, hmmm?

did you even bother to read any of the transcript?

it’s available from several sources, if you would like a link.

there is nothing to hide for our side there.

unfortunately, for your side, the defendants were proven to be liars and to have broken the law.

oops.
#464 Michael X
February 21, 2008

RD welcome back! You’re just in time to provide us with predictions ID makes. And while you’re at it please add its method of study and the mechanism by which it operates.

Steven, seems unable to produce this. I was hoping you could clarify? Being that ID is science and all. Not theology.
#465 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

Steven, predictably, missed my point entirely.

Hey! Maybe ID does have predictive power!
#466 Michael X
February 21, 2008

I remind you RD, you cannot call something a science, when you’re still waiting on the science.

So either provide predictions, or recall the claim to science.
#467 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I too am waiting, but rest assured they are coming. All we need is the correct key, and the flood gates will undoubtedly fall open.

but Dembski has already made several predictions, haven’t you been following along?

or are you just constructing your conception of ID in your own mind?

uh huh.

I would suggest you at least learn the basics of your own pet conceptualization before you decide to prognosticate.

you idiots know just as much about ID as you do about the ToE, which is to say, precious little.
#468 B8ovin
February 21, 2008

Steven, I’m going to assume you (and others who think as you do) are correct: any philosophical, social or theological movements whose members/follower/believers are shown to be evil demonstrate that the movement itself is evil. If Hilter was an atheist/darwinist, than atheism and darwinism are inherently evil. So, by this logic if we can find a single instance of a Christian acting evil we can conclude the inherent evil of Christianity. No?

You might argue that people can call themselves Christians but act in some way other than what the tenets of Christianity specify, making their actions the result of personal flaws and not flaws of their declared religion. You might also argue that the actions of individuals within a given religion do not reflect the entirety of the followers of that religion. I would agree with both. Which is why you’re bat shit crazy if you equate atheism/darwinism to the actions of an individual, or political movement. While some people are motivated entirely by belief in one faith or another, most people are more complicated and act on a series of motivations. While Robert E. Lee might have thought, based on religious morality (I’m not convinced), that slavery was evil, he obviously did not think economically and/or socially that this was a compelling enough reason to abandon slavery.

History does not take place in a religious vacuum. There are thousands of reason we war, kill, heal, love, and make art, many of them having nothing to do with biblical faith (see cave art). You expose nothing but short-sighted self-imposed ignorance in most of what you write. I would go so far as to say, that many who share your delusions show signs that your thoughts are not intelligently designed.
#469 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

What, exactly, do you feel you have proven by listing a few more things that ID has nothing to do with?

how do you know? Dembski and Johnson have not ruled out anything.

How do you know aliens or Zuess or time traveling humans aren’t responsible for perceived design?

maybe you better tell Behe et. al. how you figured it out right away!

LOL
#470 Michael X
February 21, 2008

Here let me show you how easy this is guys.

I predict that neither of you will provide predictions. This will test my hypothesis that neither of you have any support for your claims to ID being a science.

And now we’ll run our test.
#471 Steven
February 21, 2008

maybe now would be the appropriate time to mention that in the book of Exodus it states the number of “biblical” years Israel would be without a homeland.

In all fairness and accuracy, it wasn’t a prediction. A prediction is a “guess”.

That’s right, read it, do the math according to the “biblical” year, and the end result is the year 1948.

So much for disinformation.
#472 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

maybe now would be the appropriate time to mention that in the book of Exodus it states the number of “biblical” years Israel would be without a homeland.

hey, did you know that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a tribe of israelites ever wandered the desert?

that the writings the book of Exodus are based on aren’t nearly as old as they tell you?

btw, does your wife know you are a habitual liar?

that there is no archeological evidence to support that anything IN exodus ever happened?

bet they forgot to tell you that in high school, eh?
#473 Dr. Strangelove
February 21, 2008

yep – not surprised at all at how history is a fleeting concept for those who study evolution.

Quite a statement from someone who claims the 16th century Dutch and Portugese weren’t Christians. I’m still waiting for some evidence on that, Steven. But don’t worry, I’m not holding my breath for it.
#474 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

LMAO. A prediction is not a guess. Steven, go back to whatever “university” you went to, and demand your money back.

Whoa… 1948? Very interesting!

Please show your work.
#475 Sastra
February 21, 2008

This is one very long thread, I’ve only read the beginning and very end, but I want to post something anyway:

Steven #645 wrote:

I actually feel that way (I want to divorce my wife and go on a murderous rampage) when I am told that life was a coincidence, my ancestors were monkeys, there is no afterlife, my actions in life don’t matter because there is no judgment in the afterlife, marriage is a sham and there is no God.

How very odd — do you really think that people who don’t want to hurt other people even IF there is no God will somehow be impressed with the character of someone who says they do? That’s like saying “I’d happily steal money if the security camera wasn’t on” and then jeering at people who don’t think there’s a security camera, and still don’t steal, because that makes them immoral.

For the record, our actions in this life matter to others, with or without an afterlife. Our marriage matters to our spouse, with or without God. If other people really don’t matter to you at all — why do you pick God over Satan, when you think you have a choice?

The first choice is always love over hate — regardless then of evolution OR creationism, atheism OR Christianity, God OR no-God. You’re getting it backwards.
#476 Michael X
February 21, 2008

Forgive me Steven if I’m a little confused. That wasn’t a prediction for ID right?
As I understand RD to have put it:

A world that is designed does not rule out Brahma, Allah, Zeus or Odin.

So I don’t think a christian bible verse will work. Otherwise, we’d be right back into that whole theology morass again. And of course you don’t want that.

So, what are ID’s real predictions? As in what are ID’s predictions based upon its proposed hypothesis?
#477 Stanton
February 21, 2008

Actually, Steven, Carl Baugh’s “fossil finger” was discredited because it does not look like a human finger: it looked more like a plug made from the hole of a pistol shrimp.

Furthermore, you have conveniently neglected to explain why “descent with modification occurs because offspring are imperfect copies of their parents” requires more faith than believing that wombats, koalas and marsupial moles made it to Australia from Mount Ararat before lions, tigers and gazelles due to divine assistance.

ID is not theology. It is science.

RD, please demonstrate this.
#478 Sastra
February 21, 2008

ID is not theology. It is science.

Is the existence of God a science theory?

Why — or why not?
#479 Sastra
February 21, 2008

Hey, yeah! I come in late and get the magic number! Neener neener…
#480 Yossarian
February 21, 2008

Sastra,

That just proves you’re evil and we shouldn’t listen to you.
#481 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

The divorce rate and school shootings went on the rise when prayer was taken out of schools.
Nice try – but try harder.

OK, I’m a sociologist…that means I study society. Steven, where are divorce rates the highest in this country? In places that are the most conservatively religious.

Your analytical skills are nonexistent.
#482 Steven
February 21, 2008

Actually, Steven, Carl Baugh’s “fossil finger” was discredited because it does not look like a human finger: it looked more like a plug made from the hole of a pistol shrimp.

Furthermore, you have conveniently neglected to explain why “descent with modification occurs because offspring are imperfect copies of their parents” requires more faith than believing that wombats, koalas and marsupial moles made it to Australia from Mount Ararat before lions, tigers and gazelles due to divine assistance.

I am not hesistant to say that you are promulgating deliberate lies. Because you even know of Dr. Braugh, I can say you would also know of the medical examination of this finger. It was proven to be a human finger and NOT a (enter atheist scientist discrediting label here).

As for the deluge – yeah, I can certainly delve into that topic. But first, lets try to use our God given brains. This may seem like a trite question at first, but it has its implications. How many breeds of dogs were there 500 years ago?
#483 noncarborundum
February 21, 2008

The divorce rate and school shootings went on the rise when prayer was taken out of schools.

Actually it all started when Ronald Reagan became a member of the Republican Party. It’s been all downhill since then.
#484 Michael X
February 21, 2008

Well, damn. I’ve got a fundraiser to go to here in a few minutes and I still haven’t gotten even the slightest inkling of a thought in the dream of an answer.

But no matter, at this fundraiser you see, we’ll be gathering money to make this movie that calls ID into question about why it won’t let us poor, attacked evolutionists do any science, that way the audience will miss the fact that we really don’t want to do science at all, because this whole thing is driven from our ideological roots.

I hope no one beats us to the idea….
#485 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

It was proven to be a human finger

reference, liar?

or was that too in one of your lost textbooks?

how do you keep all your lies straight?

oh wait, you don’t even bother, do you.

proceed.

How many breeds of dogs were there 500 years ago?

something tells me you haven’t the slightest clue as to the actual answer to your own question, but go ahead, lie for us again.
#486 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

But first, lets try to use our God given brains

an unreasonable assumption on the face of it.

you should try returning yours if you actually believe that.
#487 Steven
February 21, 2008

The divorce rate and school shootings went on the rise when prayer was taken out of schools.
Nice try – but try harder.

OK, I’m a sociologist…that means I study society. Steven, where are divorce rates the highest in this country? In places that are the most conservatively religious.

Your analytical skills are nonexistent.

I am sure that being a self proclaimed expert gives you a semblance of authority.

Your failing to see a fallacy in your argument, or your trying to implicate the ills of society on christians. Where is your evidence? Much better question is – where is the proof?

I have evidence that Hitler was a Darwinist and an Atheist.
#488 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

something tells me you haven’t the slightest clue as to the actual answer to your own question, but go ahead, lie for us again

He’s not lying for us. He’s lying for Jesus, which makes it ok.
#489 Steven
February 21, 2008

It was proven to be a human finger

reference, liar?

or was that too in one of your lost textbooks?

how do you keep all your lies straight?

oh wait, you don’t even bother, do you.

proceed.

How many breeds of dogs were there 500 years ago?

something tells me you haven’t the slightest clue as to the actual answer to your own question, but go ahead, lie for us again.

Its funny how you don’t even look this stuff up for yourself. Shooting from the hip?

Oh wait … I’ve been holding your hand every step of the way – go look it up little boy.
#490 Michael X
February 21, 2008

And just for the record Steven:

YOU HAVE NO PREDICTIONS BECAUSE YOU DON’T DO SCIENCE.

You have what we call, propaganda. Religiously inspired propaganda no less.

I’ll also remind you, that my hypothesis @658, now has more evidence than yours does.
#491 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

He’s not lying for us. He’s lying for Jesus, which makes it ok.

well, ok then.

I have evidence that Hitler was a Darwinist and an Atheist.

go ahead, but you better damn well be providing evidence from things Hitler himself said or wrote, and not things made up by Weikart, which, btw, you’ve still never read.
#492 Damian
February 21, 2008

I am not hesistant to say that you are promulgating deliberate lies. Because you even know of Dr. Braugh, I can say you would also know of the medical examination of this finger. It was proven to be a human finger and NOT a (enter atheist scientist discrediting label here).

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/finger.htm

So, where is the independent verification, Steven?
#493 Yossarian
February 21, 2008

“I have evidence that Hitler was a Darwinist and an Atheist.”

Yet you have yet to actually post it here or provide a link.
#494 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

Here ya go Steven.

Look which state has the lowest rates…yup, Massachusetts.

Nevada is the outlier, because it has minimal residency requirements. But, it’s conservative southerners that really seem to like divorce.

Then again, you got nothing, Steven. Nothing.
#495 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Its funny how you don’t even look this stuff up for yourself. Shooting from the hip?

no, that’s your job.

proceed.

after you have shot yourself in the foot for the dozenth time, then I can laugh for the dozenth time.

does your wife know you are a habitual liar?
#496 Yossarian
February 21, 2008

“Look which state has the lowest rates…yup, Massachusetts.”

But that CAN’T be right! They’re the ones trying to DESTROY it by letting gays get married!
#497 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I am sure that being a self proclaimed expert gives you a semblance of authority.

just as we are sure that being a complete moron will cause you to lie and make shit up as you go along.

tell me, does your wife let you diagnose medical conditions for her, too?
#498 Steven
February 21, 2008

ok ok stop your whining little boy …..

Dale H. Peterson, M.D.

1050 E. 2nd, # 242
Edmond, OK 73034
Phone 405-340-8836
dpeterson1@mmcable.com
Fax 405-348-9564

give him a call about his medical examination of Dr. Carl Braugh’s fossilized finger.

There you go crybaby.
#499 mattmc
February 21, 2008

Wow… The only thing that could make the ass kicking Stevo and this RD clown have been handed in this thread better at this point would be for the Truth Machine to show up and finish them off.
#500 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

It appears that Steven has taken the Ronald Reagan approach to knowledge:

“Facts are stupid things.”
#501 Steven
February 21, 2008

this is fun …..

watching so called experts trip up on their own lies. I have noticed no “real” documentation regarding any evidence in concerns to christians causing the divorce rate to go up. Because there isn’t any.

Oh my … go figure.
#502 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

so one guy who says he examined the finger says it’s human, and dozens of others who examined it as well don’t.

hmm.

ever hear the term: cherry picking?

no wonder you idiots fall for ID.
#503 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

watching so called experts trip up on their own lies.

oops, catch us in a lie, there, liar.

after all, since you lie so demonstrably often (and you have yet to deny it), you should be expert in catching others at lies, right.

so, point them out for us, like I pointed out just one of your lies in #497, referring to the lie you told in #377.

you reek of desperation, idiot boy.
#504 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

My quote:

Steven, where are divorce rates the highest in this country? In places that are the most conservatively religious.

I provided data demonstrating that the states with the highest rates tend to be in the South, which also tend to be more religiously conservative populations. Steven, rewrites the issue as “Christians and divorce.”

In other words, I addressed the issue and he moved the goalpost. Shock of shocks!
#505 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Shock of shocks!

heh, i wonder what he would conclude if he took a gander at the old AFDave threads on PT and Dawkins.net?

would he recognize himself, I wonder?

I’m betting not, even as obvious as it is.
#506 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

what the hell…

hey Stevo-

check this guy out, and see if you recognize a kindred spirit…

http://truthmatters.info/afdaves-creator-god-hypothesis/
#507 Ian
February 21, 2008

Those divorce rates are given in divorces per 1,000 population. I would be interested to know whether the marriage rate similarly correlates. After all, you can’t have a divorce without a marriage, right?
#508 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

Predctably (there’s that word again!) Steven seems to be showing no awareness or grasp of the difference between correlation and causation. What a lazy thinker. Lazy, lazy, lazy. He’s even lazier than I am!
#509 Steven
February 21, 2008

so one guy who says he examined the finger says it’s human, and dozens of others who examined it as well don’t.

hmm.

ever hear the term: cherry picking?

no wonder you idiots fall for ID.

Why don’t we move the goal post a little further ….

list the so called dozens of “others” that examined this finger

LOL

You are so full of BS its making me retch.
#510 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

generally, it’s an issue of marriage age. In those areas with higher divorce rates, people tend to marry younger (and they tend to be poorer). It just so happens that in more conservative areas people tend to marry younger, and to divorce more.

Then again, I actually study things. Unlike Steven, who just pulls shit out of his ass and flings it in every direction possible.

It’s actually rather pathetic to watch him flail about, demonstrating his ignorance and lack of intellectual ability for everyone to see. I’d be embarrassed for him if he weren’t such an asshole.
#511 Damian
February 21, 2008

Did you get that from here, Stevo:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossilized-human-finger.htm

I am afraid that you are going to have to do better than that. I can find little else on the internet about the supposed Dr Peterson. Is this what constitutes evidence, to you?

That explains why you believe as you do, though it is not exactly surprising at this point.

And, it seems that Dale Peterson is often used to verify these sorts of “finds” for Carl Baugh. From a 1996 NBC broadcast entitled The Mysterious Origins of Man.:

The next segment featured Carl Baugh, who talked about the supposed human footprints found alongside dinosaur tracks at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas. The voice-over introduced him as archaeologist Carl Baugh, but the on-screen title referred to him as anthropologist Carl Baugh. In real life, however, Baugh is best known as Reverend Carl Baugh. Baugh claimed some of the Paluxy trackways include 16-inch human footprints, 12 in a series, alternating left-right-left-right, the right distance apart… No mention was made of the painstaking research performed by Glen Kuban, Ronnie Hastings, Laurie Godfrey and others a decade ago, which showed conclusively that these trackways are made by dinosaurs. When mud fills in the toes of a fresh tridactyl dinosaur print, the resultant track can look similar to a human’s. Some of the alleged human prints belong in the same left-right series as obvious dinosaur tracks. Kuban and associates also found color indications of dinosaur toes in tracks which were supposedly human. At least these tracks are not obvious fakes, unlike Baugh’s next bit of supposedly most compelling evidence which was discussed: the Burdick Print. This and similar prints first appeared in the 1930s. They are clearly suspect: the features (toes, heel, etc.) are abnormally shaped, and much too well delineated. The Burdick print looks nothing like a real imprint of a foot in the mud, and bears little resemblance to human anatomy (even for a supposed giant). However, expert Dr. Dale Peterson, M.D. assured the audience that the print was clearly human.

Do anyone else smell something?
#512 Steven
February 21, 2008

it seems to be a trend to make predetermined assumptions about something within this corner of the scientific community over something that hasn’t even been personally “seen”.

Shock of shocks?

This whole blog was set up to ridicule a movie before its even been released.

If that isn’t transparent enough, I don’t know what is.
#513 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

hey liar stevo:

As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Baugh and other promoters of the “fossilized finger” have not conclusively established that it is a real fossil. Nor have they demonstrated a clear association with an ancient formation, undermining its possible value as an out-of-place object. Without this evidence, the object is no more than a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place fossil.

tell me where this came from.

ah, making fun of the credulous.
smells like napalm in the morning.
#514 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

it seems to be a trend to make predetermined assumptions about something within this corner of the scientific community over something that hasn’t even been personally “seen”.

like making conclusions from books you have never read, right liar stevo?

pathetic.

did you check out AFDave’s site?

see anything familiar?
#515 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

This whole blog was set up to ridicule a movie before its even been released.
If that isn’t transparent enough, I don’t know what is.

Umm. no. This blog existed long before “Expelled” was ever conceived. This POST ridicules the liars who made it, but the blog is years old.

It is rather interesting to plumb the depths of Teh Stoopid.
#516 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

If that isn’t transparent enough, I don’t know what is.

we could fill an entire forum with what you don’t know.

oh, wait…
#517 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

…btw, in case you hadn’t actually noticed (no surprise), perhaps you should re-read the actual entry that started this thread.

is it about the movie Expelled?

it isn’t, is it.

oops.

where are those preconceptions coming from again?
#518 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

Steven wrote:

I have seen exactly the opposite happen as a result of teaching evolution. Divorce rate has gone up. More school shootings. Academic freedom no longer exists.

Then he wrote:

I have noticed no “real” documentation regarding any evidence in concerns to christians causing the divorce rate to go up. Because there isn’t any.

Uh-huh.

I have noticed no evidence whatsoever showing that the rise in divorce rates, the increase in school shootings, or the demise of academic freedom – the last of which is itself undemonstrated, let alone shown to be the result of anything at all – are attributable to the teaching of evolution.

That is your claim. Back it up, Steven.

BACK. IT. UP.

Of course, Steven will not, or perhaps cannot, admit the obvious inconsistency, rank hypocricy, and intellectual dishonesty exhibited by this small sample of what his lazy, lazy mind produces.

OR WILL HE? Surprise us all, Steven! Take the high road! Strike a blow, against all odds, for honesty!
#519 Jay
February 21, 2008

“Finally”…this is a well known belief held by many serious thinkers of both sides. Evolutionist can very well admit that ID is a theory- instead they say it is a doctrine

if you go back and understand what these words really means and you’ll see that there is a difference between these understandings

Creationist (whatever- gap, young, or old earth) say it is a theory among the other theories that there must be an ID’er- its only one theory among the another when looking at the world we all live in. doctrine however will discuss the moral aspect of those implications. and belief goes beyond either one of them- believe is not (like wishful thinking)a word that means ‘someone’ must believe, it is the actual belief that is held without apology, like someone who says my name is Mike or whatever

Of course you are going to have some believe the ID at each level of belief- so what? It doesn’t mean that its not just theory (study of…design). They aren’t saying lets study God. they are saying lets study design? Who really doesn’t study design or at least have to address it in anything they do? when you say their is structure you say it was designed- so what? this is rather silly to deny- so why the heartache – I mean what is the real danger?

is the danger that Christianity will make a come back and become a superpower and imperialist- or is it already that?

I think we are really speaking out both sides of our mouth if we cry for freedom of speech and then want to shut others up– this stuff is all in th mind anyway

what would really be a “finally” matter is when the evolutionist ‘finally’ see that this is all that most theologians are saying

of course you have some religious folk (of all religions) that say their personal account is correct on how creation all started and forms, and each are dogmatic in their own way, so what? Is the question really the “religion” or that they have a belief that they hold dogmatically? If its the belief that is not liked then so what too? but why care to censor that- after all serious evolutions have already admitted that they only have a theory too, and some will dogmatically saying that its more then that….

what are the root words of theory- whats the word come from?
check it out and understand that theology in the colleges ranked first among the sciences- they aren’t asking for it to find its way back to the top– get real- we need to really understand the argument

Both theories raises serious questions for both sides- for some it reinforces their beliefs and for others it causes then to abandon their belief….would you rather everyone abandon all beliefs and except only one? if not, then which beliefs are ok to have? and who is going to decide which ones are ok? will it be majority? or will majority have to be accommodated to the minority opinion

someone might say evolutionist are being accommodated because they are the minority- if this were so wouldn’t you agree it was good to live in a place where it was made possible? This is the real question? the deal is not that evolution be destroyed like some spooky bedtime story of “Burn the books” and “God almighty, burn the books”
#520 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

shorter Jay: I got nothing.
#521 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

i’ve never heard such rambling BS.

shorter Jay:

“Can’t we all just get along?”

no.

Who really doesn’t study design or at least have to address it in anything they do? when you say their is structure you say it was designed- so what? this is rather silly to deny- so why the heartache – I mean what is the real danger?

your mistake is in thinking there really IS design, instead of the mere perception of it. nobody actually researches “design” because because there really isn’t any. When you see the word “design” in an actual publication, it is ALWAYS referring to either a human design, or the perception of a design (as in: that structure appears designed to do the following…). NOT ACTUAL DESIGN. This is exactly why there IS no “design research”, as readily admitted by the supporters of the concept of Intelligent Design to begin with.

get it?

and i didn’t need a thousand plus words to express why you are wrong, go figure.
#522 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

as to the etymology and usage of the term “theory”, suggest you actually learn wtf you are talking about before spouting off like yet another ignorant moron:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
#523 Ian Gould
February 21, 2008

“Indeed. And while he’s busy searching (har) for that citation, let me offer one of my own:

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” ”

Wow, that’s almost word for word what Tim McVeigh said while in prison awaiting execution.
#524 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

Embrace the designedness!

Hmmm, on top of that, I don’t think theology and theory do have the same Greek root, appearances to the contrary…
#525 Jay
February 21, 2008

Ichthyic: You are right it is doomed but you don’t hear the tone you say this in. And if you do then you are just as totalitarian as those you’d laugh at for being religious

this is what the ID’ers are pointing out! and for the sake of freedom of speech I am hoping the film EXPELLED awakens the minds of people to the fact that there are those who believe this theory so dogmatically that they feel they are actually getting back at religion for years of suppression- they believe that the tables have already turned on the religious

just know that theology is very much alive and that religious people aren’t on the run- they are only addressing one of the few areas that need attention

don’t worry you have the ACLU working busy for you- I think thats a pretty fair trade- we are keeping each other busy
#526 Joshua Zucker
February 21, 2008

I will admit that I haven’t read all the above comments, but on the topic of

One of his campaign promises (he was vying for presidency of the confederacy) was to abolish slavery in the south.

I am surprised nobody found the proper source to back up this claim, after all that arguing. In Guns of the South, by Harry Turtledove, Lee runs for president of the confederacy after they win the war thanks to the AK-47s brought by time-travellers from South Africa hoping to establish a racist utopia. The Afrikaners are so surprised when Lee turns out to favor abolition!

Sheesh, can’t you all find a simple historical reference like this?
#527 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

Meh. Ichthyic beat me to it. (No surprise there!)
#528 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

check it out and understand that theology in the colleges ranked first among the sciences-

actually, theology within many universities is being relegated to the dustbins.

if you don’t know why, suggest you actually visit a major university with a theology dept., and speak with someone conversant in the field.

or, you could read the book of one of the leading theologists in the country:

http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=4005518247825&pid=1591025362

appropriately titled:

The End of Biblical Studies.
#529 coathangrrr
February 21, 2008

It may not be a logical fallacy by literal definition, but in rhetoric it is simply a distractionary tactic that proves nothing. Nearly any concept can be stated in a way that makes it sounds absurd. Evolution is certainly no exception to this.

I suggest you stop using phrases and concepts you don’t understand. Reductio ad Absurdum is a valid argument. It is not, as you seem to believe, misstating others views in an absurd manner.

I’m a bit late I realize, but better late than never.
#530 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

this is what the ID’ers are pointing out!

where?

show me.

the producers of Expelled are not IDers.

show me where someone who actually puports to be involved in the conception of Intelligent Design says they are concerned about the demise of theology as a field of study.

put up or shut up.
#531 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

@#714:

ROFLMAO!

that’s it! you nailed it.
#532 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

and for the sake of freedom of speech I am hoping the film EXPELLED awakens the minds of people to the fact that there are those who believe this theory so dogmatically that they feel they are actually getting back at religion for years of suppression- they believe that the tables have already turned on the religious

it’s hardly an issue of freedom of speech when someone can make a fucking movie detailing their own conceptualizations now, is it?

exactly how are the producers of expelled, or yourself, or Steven, or Behe, or Dembski being silenced, exactly?

just because what you say has nothing whatsoever to do with legitimate science, and we don’t want our kids taught utter nonsense, that has nothing to do with free speech.

stop lying, to others and to yourself.
#533 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Meh. Ichthyic beat me to it. (No surprise there!)

sorry;

I’m almost burned out on this one.

10 more minutes and I’m done.

c’moooonnnn stevo!

say one last, stupid thing for me.
#534 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

don’t worry you have the ACLU working busy for you-

newsflash:

the ACLU works hard for YOU, too.

you might actually want to look at the court cases they have supported sometime.

even they recognize this is not an issue of free speech.
#535 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

Guns of the South does prove, however, that the Afrikaaners – who are, after all, nothing more than microevolved Dutch – aren’t Christians. This irrefutable fact drops the blame for slavery right back in the laps of… dang, who was it again? The Scientists? Or was it Elvis?

I never was very good at History.
#536 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

you might want to cut the ACLU a check sometime, or at least some slack:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
#537 Jay
February 21, 2008

Ichthyic: real classy there youz

you can look back<<<<<, like back in the history at a time when theology was not only ranked as the first science of universities but it was the foundation it was built on

so what though- its not on top any more– is that better— do you want it gone all together? if so then you are among your peers here at this site who are deciding to not understand the argument, hold your opinion (which is perfectly legal and tolerable), and some who think its fun to badger

I am not taunting you- in fact I’m not even defending myself or anyone religion- and so because I have nothing to prove here in words I am going to spend my time elsewhere– I’m gonna go find another way to stay busy–I don’t however anticipate I will purposely try to keep you busy– its just the nature of having different views, what can I say?

good luck here
#538 Ian Gould
February 21, 2008

“The divorce rate and school shootings went on the rise when prayer was taken out of schools.”

It’s both fascinating and mystifying how so many far right fundies appear to believe that America is the world.

So, Steve, why aren’t school shootings epidemic in the Czech Republic and Estonia, the two countries with the highest percentage of atheists?

How come the divorce rate here in Australia (where there’s no prayer in school ) is lower than in the US?
#539 Jay
February 21, 2008

Whoooo what the heck? This site just edited my last post! what a sham!!!!!!

tsss…
#540 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

so what though- its not on top any more– is that better— do you want it gone all together?

no, there are many talented philosophers and sociologists involved in theology departments.

their talents would be missed if they didn’t use them in departments better suited to their actual pursuit.

I personally know at least 2 people with theology degrees that would get excellent placement in a dept. of philosophy.
#541 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

Whoooo what the heck? This site just edited my last post! what a sham!!!!!!

What are you babbling about now? did the post not show up? Sometimes that happens (I’ve had it happen here). did it change words?

Or, did god do it ….whoooooooooo
#542 Ian Gould
February 21, 2008

“Uh wait – I see your point … every time I say the word “God” I want to divorce my wife and go on a murderous rampage.

Ooops – no, that was a mistake (took a note to correct my mistakes) I actually feel that way when I am told that life was a coincidence, my ancestors were monkeys, there is no afterlife, my actions in life don’t matter because there is no judgment in the afterlife, marriage is a sham and there is no God.

just wanted to clarify. ”

While we’re clarifying, are you aware that the overwhelming majority of Christians world-wide accept the theory of theistic evolution?

In other words, they believe that evolution was the mechanism through which God created man.

I had a conversation once with a geologist who was a Scots Prsbyterian, he was an outspoken critic of Young Earth Creation ism precisely because of the Biblical injunction to “speak the truth to all men in all things”.

Even if your “I don’t want it to be true so its false” argument wasn’t logically invalid, it’s based on a false premise.
#543 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Whoooo what the heck? This site just edited my last post! what a sham!!!!!!

yes, it’s such a sham you can write about it being a sham and not have your post touched.

ever thought there might be another reason other than “conspiracy” to explain why part or all of a previous post didn’t show up?

incorrect tags maybe?

also, all posts containing more than 2 links are automatically held for approval.

past that, couldn’t tell you. it’s not like there is a language filter round these here parts.

but, leave it to morons like yourself to jump to the conclusion that it’s all a conspiracy to silence you.

LOL
#544 Flying Fox
February 21, 2008

Steven is correct that chattel slavery was illegal in the first decade after Georgia was founded. that’s it. Georgia was founded as a military buffer zone between Spanish Florida and British Carolina. Georgia’s founder General Oglethorpe believed that slavery in Georgia would pose a security risk (a group of people the Spaniards could tap into should they invade Georgia) and that slave and indentured labor (restricted in Oglethorpe’s Georgia) would invalidate his plan to make Georgia a haven for debtors. This never lasted. Georgia adopted slavery after the crown assumed control of Georgia in the 1730s b/c Oglethorpe’s plan was not paying off.

Robert E. Lee came to oppose slavery on economic grounds, similar to George Washington’s actually, but he did indeed own slaves. And he was not an abolitionist, he thought abolition on a large scale was a bad thing. He opposed a plan, repeatedly, to recruit blacks into the Confederate army b/c it would undermine the CSA’s ideology. In March 1865 the Confederacy was in such bad shape Davis overruled Lee and demanded the army recruit blacks. Too little too late. This business about Lee running for president, WTF?
Oh, and the Nazis rejected the Theory of Evolution b/c it meant they shared common ancestry with the untermenschen (Jews, like me).
#545 Jay
February 21, 2008

whoooo yea maybe God did it – why didn’t I think of that- man you must be more spiritual then I am- do you have any books I can read?

alright guys you have fun now I’m outta here– see ya at the theaters

and yea it edited my last message- part of it showed up though- whatever no biggy- it wasn’t going to change your guyses minds anyway….

bit this site is a sham for doing that (humm I wonder if this one will go through….
#546 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

if so then you are among your peers here at this site who are deciding to not understand the argument

when you get around to posting an argument, I can figure out if I am deciding to not understand it.
#547 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I’m outta here-

we’ll miss you.

make sure to take you meds before going out.
#548 AntiDickHead
February 21, 2008

Nice going ultimate dickhead liberal jackoffs……..NOTHING you have posited here has any sense to it whatsoever. NOTHING. FUCKTARDS know-nothing-asswipes. BWAHHHHH HAHAHAHHAHAHHA
#549 Steven
February 21, 2008

I waited and waited for Ichthyic to grasp the concept that Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist – apparently he/she cannot understand basic grammar.

So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.

General Robert E. Lee, May 1, 1870
#550 Ian Gould
February 21, 2008

700: “This whole blog was set up to ridicule a movie before its even been released.”

Yeah, the really hard bit was to travel back in time to several years before Expelled was ever announced and write thousands of entries totally unrelated to Expelled to disguise this fact.
#551 Mena
February 21, 2008

I have evidence that Hitler was a Darwinist and an Atheist.

Oh, so you have evidence that a guy who thought that some groups of humans were inferior to others also believed that all of those groups descended from a common ancestor? Were the Jewish apes considered above or below the gypsy apes in his speeches and writings?
Sorry Steven, but it really does sound like you, RD, and perhaps Jay are some of those fake Christians that Charles Barclay warned us about. The comments about “the left” and liberals kind of gave it away. Turn off the Fox News and the hate radio people, they are just trying to sell you books and get advertising revenue by keeping their ratings high with stuff that is definitely scripted. Remember that Fox is the main stream media. The come off sounding like ranting lunatics from the fringe but they aren’t. Just like with the DI, all you are to them is money. They will say anything to their loyal followers to keep it flowing.
Oh, and Steven, please use html. You really should be using something to set the quotes apart from your replies.
#552 Steven
February 21, 2008

I often asked, if slavery was the issue of the American Civil war -

Why was Robert E. Lee vigorously aoopposed to slavery? Why didn’t he own slaves?

Why did many Union Generals own slaves?
#553 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

Jay, some of your text was probably swallowed by bad HTML tags. It happens. If you think “the site” is censoring you, you’re mistaken. The filters never silently swallow text. Ever. If you didn’t get a moderation notice, or some other notice from the site suggesting that it objected to what you were trying to post (the spam filters do weird things sometimes, especially inside hyperlink tags) then it was almost certainly your error. I know this from bitter first-hand experience.
#554 AntiDickHead
February 21, 2008

STFU MENA ya dumbass Dr. Goebbels would be proud of you ZEIG HEIL (Nazi= socialist) get used to it moron–perhaps the pot or such has gotten to your critical thinking nodes.
#555 Steven
February 21, 2008

I have evidence that Hitler was a Darwinist and an Atheist.

Oh, so you have evidence that a guy who thought that some groups of humans were inferior to others also believed that all of those groups descended from a common ancestor? Were the Jewish apes considered above or below the gypsy apes in his speeches and writings?
Sorry Steven, but it really does sound like you, RD, and perhaps Jay are some of those fake Christians that Charles Barclay warned us about. The comments about “the left” and liberals kind of gave it away. Turn off the Fox News and the hate radio people, they are just trying to sell you books and get advertising revenue by keeping their ratings high with stuff that is definitely scripted. Remember that Fox is the main stream media. The come off sounding like ranting lunatics from the fringe but they aren’t. Just like with the DI, all you are to them is money. They will say anything to their loyal followers to keep it flowing.
Oh, and Steven, please use html. You really should be using something to set the quotes apart from your replies.

I don’t use html tags because I am lazy and arrogant.

Why don’t you explain, in your own words, how eugenics fits into the third reich’s “master race” ideology? How does eugenics fit into Darwin’s natural selection theory?

Hmmmmmmm ….. Darwin wasn’t all about apes you know (but you knew that).
#556 Mena
February 21, 2008

Antidickhead, you really need to get a new hobby. Comments like that don’t get anyone mad, we usually just skip over them, like I did with your previous one and most of this one. Yaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn………
#557 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

How does eugenics fit into Darwin’s natural selection theory?

It doesn’t.
#558 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Why was Robert E. Lee vigorously aoopposed[sic] to slavery?

he wasn’t.

Why didn’t he own slaves?

he did. this was pointed out several times to you.

guess you missed that part in your continuing delerium.

Why don’t you explain, in your own words, how eugenics fits into the third reich’s “master race” ideology? How does eugenics fit into Darwin’s natural selection theory?

um, weren’t you the one bragging about your evidence?

having fun lying yet?
#559 Mena
February 21, 2008

Thanks MAJeff. I only popped in for a second and it looks like I struck a nerve. Sorry, I never stick around with these long threads and I’m not going to make an exception for this one. It’s supper time. Toodles, Steven. I never called you arrogant and/or lazy. You need to develop some thicker skin.
#560 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

ADHD has been heard from.

Steven, Lee did own slaves. Though you refuse to see, it has already been demonstrated that Lee, by his own words in a passage you yourself cited, was not an abolitionist. The fact that he was sympathetic to the plight of the slaves, and was more than glad in retrospect to see the era of slavery in America come to an end (with the exception of illegal immigrants and members of the Armed Forces, of course) does not make him an abolitionist. He believed that slavery would end in God’s good time, and that man’s interference in that process should be minimal.

By the way, I’m still waiting on the evidence showing that rising divorce rates, an increase in school violence, and the demise of academic freedom are the sad result of the teaching of the theory of evolution.
#561 Zarquon
February 21, 2008

How does eugenics fit into Darwin’s natural selection theory?

The idea of selective breeding is as old as agriculture. The same ideas applied to people were the ideas of aristocracy. The Nazis thought Germans were a naturally aristocratic race, it had nothing to do with Darwin.
#562 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

Yes, Steven, you ARE lazy and arrogant. That’s the first honest thing you’ve said. Good on you, dude! I knew you had it in you! *beams*

But just in case you’re being timid, and simply don’t know how to blockquote but are afraid to admit it and ask for help:

<blockquote>text to indent</blockquote>

The blockquote tag has its limitations, though. Hard carriage-returns have a way of terminating the block, and anything following the CR will appear unindented. I’ve had pretty good results with using the <p> tag in place of a CR within a blockquote.

So this:

<blockquote>text to indent<p>more text to indent after a newline</blockquote>

winds up looking like this:

text to indent
more text to indent after a newline

Also:

blockquotes

can be

nested!
#563 PZ Myers
February 21, 2008

If you actually look at photographs of Baugh’s “finger”, it’s obvious that it is no such thing. It is a cylindrical piece of stone with an internal structure that does not correspond to any details of human anatomy. It’s a rock, nothing more.

Now you’re reminding me of Ed Conrad.
#564 Stanton
February 21, 2008

Does anyone else here notice how Steven has conveniently neglected to explain why “descent with modification” requires more faith to accept than the idea that marsupial moles, wombats and koalas were able to make it to eastern Australia from Mount Ararat before lions, tigers and gazelles?
#565 Mena
February 21, 2008

Now you’re reminding me of Ed Conrad.
Actually that was my first thought too because he also used another name, didn’t he? Ted something perhaps? It wasn’t Baugh though.
#566 Leni
February 21, 2008

How does eugenics fit into Darwin’s natural selection theory?

Again, it doesn’t. Natural selection is the idea that a trait that is advantageous under one circumstance may not be in another, or may not continue to be an advantage if the environment changes.

For example, think about polar bears, white fur, and shrinking polar ice caps. Hypothetically, were they to migrate to areas without snow and survive, we would probably expect to see a change in their fur color. That’s just a quick example, but it doens’t say anything about the “value” of white fur over other potential colors, except that white fur works for them now and so is selected for. It may not always, though.

Eugenics, on the other hand, is a discriminatory practice against certain socially undesirable individuals for largely prejudiced reasons. It has nothing to do with genetic advantage, which often can’t even be detected by looking at someone. Some of those undesirable traits might even be related to other unknown desirable traits.

Further, attempts to homogenize the gene pool are exactly what you don’t want to do. In general, lots of genetic variability is a good thing and is the very reason why having babies with close relatives is generally frowned upon. Although most eugenics practices would probably not have any real affect on the human population as a whole, the fact that in principle it goes against what we know about the usefulness of large gene pool should tell you something. Namely, eugenics has nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with regular human failings and prejudice.
#567 Scott Hatfield, OM
February 21, 2008

Incredible. 753 posts, much of them in dueling with the weird private universe of someone who thinks that Darwin (who of course opposed slavery) is somehow responsible for the fall of the Confederacy. Darwin was no more a racist than Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday he shares. And what in the name of Dixie does Robert E. Lee’s private views on God have to do with evolution?

Like I said, weird.
#568 AntiDickHead
February 21, 2008

Doesn’t matter MENA you are an asshole anyway that’s all I need to know…..jackoff
#569 Matt
February 21, 2008

If one has access to journals online (sorry if you don’t!), you may find the following article interesting. I’ll post the reference and abstract.

Kruger, J. and D. Dunning
1999 Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(6):1121-1134.

Abstract:
“People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of the participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.”

Not that it’s relevant to our creationist friends…
#570 Gingerbaker
February 21, 2008

Oh god, I can’t believe I ate the whole thing.

What an amusing thread.

Ichthyic, you are absolutely killing me!
#571 Jim
February 21, 2008

This thread has run long enough to call the competition to a close. Although a number of posters have made admirable efforts to displace him, PZ Myers remains The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere.
#572 River
February 21, 2008

Steven,

“I have seen exactly the opposite happen as a result of teaching evolution. Divorce rate has gone up. More school shootings. Academic freedom no longer exists.”

This is faulty logic. A study done years ago considering ice cream and violence made the same mistake. They found a correlation between the two during summer. Violence increased during summer time. Ice cream consumption also increased during summer time.

What they failed to recognize is that it is just a correlation. Correlations do not imply causality. There are a multitude of reasons for why divorce rates skyrocketed initially–a lot of women (and men) were in unhappy relationships. When it became more socially acceptable, they divorced instead of staying in an unfulfilling relationship. Recent data clearly show that divorce rates have in fact been falling. Here is a link to a graph showing as much:

divorce rates through 2000

“The divorce rate and school shootings went on the rise when prayer was taken out of schools.”

This also suffers from correlational fallacy. Again, correlation does not imply causality. Learn statistics. Please.

“Exactly when have any of my questions gotten an honest answer?”

Many times. You cannot fault other people when you choose to ignore what they are saying. It’s a bias. Look it up.

“It comes as no shock to me at the lengths an atheist scientist will go, to deliberately deceive the public. After all, not only is their reputation at stake, so is their job.”

Not all scientists are atheists. Moreover, science does not seek to misinform the public. Science is a method for discovering the truth. The basastronomer wrote a really good post about the nature of science. However, reading through the previous 600 or so comments, I’ve noticed what seems to be a general trend towards you not clicking links because “you’ve already been there” and “it’s a trick”, so I will sum the highlights for you. I hope you understand them:

-The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules.
-If the universe obeys rules, then the rules should be revealed through observation
-Through science (using the scientific method), we accumulate knowledge
-It’s a method, a way of finding this knowledge. Observe, hypothesize, predict, observe, revise. Science is provisional; it’s always open to improvement.
-Science is based on evidence.
-Are there holes in this knowledge? Of course. Science doesn’t have all the answers. But science has a tool, a power that its detractors never seem to understand.

There you have it. Science is a method of understanding the universe around us, and it’s a pretty damn good method. All the theories and laws we have come to understand are derived from science. The computer you’re using to dole out your trash? Yeah, that came from science. Any medicine you take to stay healthy? SCIENCE. The internet? SCIENCE. Do you see where I’m going with this?

In all it’s years of existence, religion in and of itself has rarely produced anything meaningful outside of faith, hope, a sense of community between like-minded individuals, and lots of wars. I have yet to hear of a war based solely upon science.

Science is not a faith or a set of beliefs. It’s a method. Get it. Please. And do it quickly.
#573 Steven
February 21, 2008

Does anyone else here notice how Steven has conveniently neglected to explain why “descent with modification” requires more faith to accept than the idea that marsupial moles, wombats and koalas were able to make it to eastern Australia from Mount Ararat before lions, tigers and gazelles?

Of course, you didn’t answer my question. But you keep bringing yours up again and again. Pay attention.
#574 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

Jim, you’re far too modest. Sing your own insufferable praises!
#575 Steven
February 21, 2008

Ichthyic,
I understand the confusion. I guess that I found the tactic so outlandish that I couldn’t help but exaggerate it a bit and find it funny. Little did I realize that it wasn’t such a broad line.

And Steven, your last post was already supposed to have happened.

Though I’ll still point out that your reading is based upon current knowledge. People of that time would most certainly not have read it as you do now. The earth was stationary, (as any person who jumps and lands in the same place could tell you!) and the sun turned around it.

Your reading is not supported by the reading it would have been given at the time it was written.

The flat earth theory has also been blamed on christians. Turns out that was an urban legend. Scientists thought the earth was stationary and flat. Not christians.

But it sounds so good atheists repeat it.
#576 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere.

who cares?

only people who failed to prove him wrong.

…besides which, there are several people here who qualify as far more insufferable asses than PZ.

I think one of them is on vacation, but I’d throw my own hat in the ring and probably get pretty far. hell, for being an insufferable LYING ass, Steven has everyone else here beat hands down.
#577 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Scientists thought the earth was stationary and flat.

show us which scientists those were, please.

oh, forget it, you’re just babbling inanities at this point.

go and take your meds, would ya?
#578 RD
February 21, 2008

704 posts, and probably 650 ad hominem attacks. It’s great to see how willing everyone here is to have mature, open discourse. How terrible it would be to actually consider the point of view of another, or even read anything that he/she writes from a point of view other than “What can I attack most easily?” You all purport to be the ones who fight against closed mindedness, whilst shutting out countless perfectly valid points of view before even giving them the chance to develop. Hypocrisy at its finest.
#579 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

It’s great to see how willing everyone here is to have mature, open discourse

*yawn*

once you put up some actual discourse, instead of a continual string of ad-hominems, you might get a response on point. you still have yet to make an actual argument.

hypocrisy at its finest indeed.

moron.

note that this is NOT ad-hominem (not that you even know what that means).

perfectly valid points of view

still waiting to see what those are…
#580 Owlmirror
February 21, 2008

I see Carl Baugh has come up again.

In August of last year, I got into a long debate with a Creationist — and compared to Steve, here, he was a model of politeness, sanity, and honesty. Not that that’s saying much, but credit where due.

Still, he did bring up Baugh’s little anomalies. So I am copying and pasting a few paragraphs from that thread:

———————

When Baugh’s name was first mentioned as a source, I didn’t really dig into his background at all, because, hey, one Creationist is as much of a liar as another.

After reading the talkorigin’s pages on his persistent pattern of deceptive practices, I realized that I had been wrong. Some Creationists lie more than others.

Baugh is so full of horsehit that even Answers in Genesis felt moved to repudiate him.

? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html

All the creationist scientists that we have spoken to regard Mr. Baugh’s teaching as a serious embarrassment.

And note that “Mr.”. For Baugh to arrogate to himself the honorific of “Dr.” is yet another example of horseshit, and is an insult to those who actually spend years of their lives working towards bachelors, masters, and doctorates in the hard sciences.

Baugh: Humbug!

———————

Maybe you are not really interested in Dr. Baugh’s credentials?
In case I am wrong, you will find Dr. Baugh’s biography at the following link:
http://www.creationevidence.org/bio/bio.html

Actually, I suddenly became fascinated by Mr. Baugh’s credentials, or rather, lack thereof.

I see that he has some alleged degrees in theology. Whoop-dee-doo. Since theology is essentially the study of a work of fiction, it’s not that hard to get a degree, as long as you make sure that your lies aren’t too different from the lies of every other theologian in your particular sect. This is called “dogma”.

And since theology has nothing to do with actual cosmology, biology, geology, paleontology, or any other hard science, even if those degrees in theology are valid, they would prove nothing about Baugh’s knowledge in those fields.

How about those other degrees, from the Pacific College of Graduate Studies? Wait. What the hell is the “Pacific College of Graduate Studies”?

Oh, look:

? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html

Pacific College Incorporated (a.k.a Pacific College of Graduate Studies and Pacific International University)[26], from which Baugh claims a master’s degree in archaeology, traces to a small, private, religious school in Australia, whose president is Clifford Wilson.[27] Ian Plimer, a member of the Australian Research Council and professor of geology at Newcastle University, reported that PCI is not accredited or authorized to grant degrees. Plimer stated, “Any degrees from this ‘College’ are illegal in Australia and are clearly being used fraudulently in the U.S.A.[28]

(emphasis mine)

Baugh: Humbug!
#581 Ian Gould
February 21, 2008

“Why did many Union Generals own slaves?”

ONE prominent US general, Ulysses S Grant, owned a total of two slaves.

They were in fact the property of his wife who was a southerner and became his property automatically upon their wedding.

He freed them prior to the start of the civil war.

Manumission of slaves was actually illegal in several southern states and freed salves were, in some ways, treated even worse than slaves.
#582 Owlmirror
February 21, 2008

It’s great to see how willing everyone here is to have mature, open discourse.

Shrug. I think there’s some mature and open discussion that went on earlier, but the thread has been pretty much poisoned by Steve.

You all purport to be the ones who fight against closed mindedness, whilst shutting out countless perfectly valid points of view before even giving them the chance to develop.

I do hope that you’re not trying to imply that any of Steve’s points are valid, in any way, shape, or form.
#583 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

You all purport to be the ones who fight against closed mindedness, whilst shutting out countless perfectly valid points of view before even giving them the chance to develop.

And what would those be again?

Here’s the thing that’s so bloody frustrating (and much of what you’ll see is an attack out of frustration borne of having to deal with the same nonsense again and again and again….).

The folks proposing that ID be introduced are rejecting the entirety of scientific investigation because it doesn’t explicitly bow down to the idea of a supernatural creator. Yet, other than religious belief, there is no reason whatsoever to accept such hypotheses. People want to force Biblical ideas into science, yet they provide no reason to do so other than “the Bible says so.” That, in and of itself, is supposed to make become a scientific statement, yet it is exempted from scientific investigation.

And fools like Stephen, RD, Keith and YOU refuse to accept that. No, because a bunch of ancients repeated a story over and over and over, it’s supposed to supplant everything else. And our frustration suddenly becomes reason to reject the work of thousands of scientists engaging in research in favor of a bunch of stories that don’t even have historical, anthropological or archaeological evidence. The stories alone must be true, simply because the must be true.

As a scientist (and even as a social scientist which some of my colleagues here would question) I say, fuck off.
#584 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

The folks proposing that ID be introduced are rejecting the entirety of scientific investigation because it doesn’t explicitly bow down to the idea of a supernatural creator.

…but of course ID has nothing whatsoever to do with religion according to the Disinformation Institute.

nosireebobbo.

I do love how these people continually shoot themselves in the head…

over and over and over and over…

it’s like watching Python’s “Twit of the Year” competition, but in real life!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss
#585 Steven
February 21, 2008

the only repititon I see in this entire blog, is the consensus that anyone who refutes evolution is a fool. I have seen some open and flagrant mocking of christians, even though there are atheists who refute evolution as well.

I used to sit patiently in a biology class lecture listening to “your opinions” without causing any fuss or discussing mine. I was never given the chance to question the validity of “your” claims.

I am astounded to hear about biology professors who will fail a student who refutes evolution, or fire a scientist who refutes evolution.

As for the open mocking of christians, since when did the 1st ammendment declare there was freedom “from” religion? It doesn’t say it anywhere. Thomas Jefferson may have agreed that there should be freedom from religion, but the US Constitution does not declare it anywhere. Citing Thomas Jefferson does not change federal law.

These despicable acts of failing students, firing professionals based on a belief is a violation of federal law and a violation of academic freedom. People who do such acts are criminals.
#586 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

Steven the Trollboy grunted:

Of course, you didn’t answer my question. But you keep bringing yours up again and again. Pay attention.

What a dishonest malen’kiy mal’chik you are! You’ve ignored a huge percentage the questions and rebuttals addressed to you.

By the way, Trollboy, with regard to the whole “flat earth” thing, there’s nothing to refute. YOU are the one who brought it up. I grant that you are correct to object to the notion that Christianity played a big role in perpetuating the flat earth model, but you’re the only one who has made an issue of it. Nobody here has made any such claims. Therefore your complaint is fabricated from pure straw. Well, have at it. Flail away. Flail away, Merill. Flail away.

Your claim that it was “scientists” who thought the earth was flat is even less supportable. A Greek “scientist” made a reasonable estimate of the earth’s circumference over 200 years before the birth of Christ. There was some dispute concerning the sphericity of the earth amongst leading philosophers of Christianity’s first half-millenium, but certainly by the Middle Ages the spherical earth model had gained widespread acceptance in the western world. As the second millenium of Christianity dawned, exposure to Islamic astronomy nourished the coming Renaissance and the scientific thought which accompanied it. We’d be hard-pressed to find any theologian OR scientist of that age who believed the earth was flat.

So you’re right to complain about the “urban legend” – not that anyone other than you has bothered to mention it here – but your claim that it was “scientists” who believed the earth was flat is, like most of your claims… pure fiction.

Perhaps you’d like to talk about heliocentricism instead?

Perhaps you’d like to answer one of the questions I posed earlier?

Perhaps you’d like to explain how you managed to mistake a work of fantasy fiction for a textbook?
#587 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

is the consensus that anyone who refutes evolution is a fool.

i dunno, why don’t you finally get around to actually trying to refute it so we can see if you’re as much a fool there as everywhere else?

didn’t you have some evidence you wanted to show us about something or ruther, Oliver?
#588 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

firing professionals based on a belief

I think you’ll find all the professionals that have been fired in the last 20 years for beliefs, have been fired for questioning YOUR worldview, not science.

shall we gather up a list for you?

Chris Comer is a relatively recent addition.

Know about her?

now let’s see… who is the “expelled movie” focusing on?

Sternberg?

well he wasn’t fired now, was he.

Gonzales?

he wasn’t fired either, and he himself admits his religious beliefs had nothing to do with why he was denied tenure (not that that is any big deal; most of us are denied tenure, actually).

so, let’s see the list of people “fired” for questioning evolutionary theory.

c’mon bright boy, surely you MUST know, right?

or were you just assuming it to be so, because the producers of Expelled, a movie you haven’t seen, said it was so?
#589 Steven
February 21, 2008

Ichthyic why are you so hell bent on falling flat on your face time and time again? Must I hold your hand this time too?
#590 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Ichthyic why are you so hell bent on falling flat on your face time and time again? Must I hold your hand this time too?

LOL

yeah, keep projecting, Anne Elke…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tZ14RSCesE&feature=related
#591 Steven
February 21, 2008

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/07/biologist_fired_for_beliefs_suit_says/

there is just one – perhaps you haven’t discovered google yet?
#592 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

Steven,

You are a liar. You are a fool. I am finished with your nonsense.

The world is an amazing place. It’s even more amazing when we learn more about it. You would have us wallow in ignorance. Fuck you. You aren’t worth it, and your fetishization of ignorance is insulting to me as a human.

Begone. You have nothing of value to add, as is evidence by this thread. Those of us who are actually curious, who want to learn and figure out things, will keep up our work despite you. In spite of you. The world is too amazing, too wonderful to be captured in your silly myths. And your limited mind, your hateful ideology, they serve no purpose.

Bye now.
#593 Stanton
February 21, 2008

Ichthyic why are you so hell bent on falling flat on your face time and time again? Must I hold your hand this time too?

So do you have the functioning brain cells to provide evidence that Ichthyic is wrong, or lying and demonstrating your arrogant stupidity all you’re good for?
#594 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

there is just one

Is there? Just one, I mean?

Lessee now… oh my goodness… even without looking at that article, I’m gonna guess… (and yes, this is a “guess” not a “prediction”, Steven) … I’m gonna guess that this is the case of the creationist “biologist” who took a job based in evolutionary biology at WHOI by concealing and/or misrepresenting his anti-evolution philosophy from his employers.

Am I right?
#595 Stanton
February 21, 2008

LOL

yeah, keep projecting, Anne Elke…

Don’t you mean Anne Wilkes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptpaEntid74
#596 Stanton
February 21, 2008

Is there? Just one, I mean?

Lessee now… oh my goodness… even without looking at that article, I’m gonna guess… (and yes, this is a “guess” not a “prediction”, Steven) … I’m gonna guess that this is the case of the creationist “biologist” who took a job based in evolutionary biology at WHOI by concealing and/or misrepresenting his anti-evolution philosophy from his employers.

Am I right?

Of course…
Creationists are the only people who count in this world, after all.
#597 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

there is just one – perhaps you haven’t discovered google yet?

keep going… did you happen to notice that this is a court case that has NOT been resolved yet?

of course this person couldn’t be lying about why they were fired now, could they?

why would you believe what they say as opposed to the statement from Wood’s hole itself:

Woods Hole officials released a statement saying, “The Institution firmly believes that its actions and those of its employees concerning Dr. Abraham were entirely lawful,” and that the center does not discriminate on the basis of religion.

did you perhaps catch that maybe, just maybe, this person was let go because:

Abraham said he did not want to work on “evolutionary aspects” of the National Institutes of Health grant for which he was hired, even though the project clearly required scientists to use the principles of evolution in their analyses and writing.

so he was fired for refusing to do the work he was fucking hired to do.

do you actually work, moron? would your boss not fire you for refusing to do the work you were paid for because of some religious ideology?

you just don’t get it, do you?

LOL

btw, did you look up what happened to Chris Comer? She was fired from the Texas BOE for calling attention to a lecture by Eugenie Scott.

google that one up, fool.
#598 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

“The battle between science and creationism has reached the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, where a former researcher is claiming he was fired because he doesn’t believe in evolution.”

~Yesssssss!~

(Where’s Keith Knight when I need him?!)
#599 Ian
February 21, 2008

As for the open mocking of christians, since when did the 1st ammendment declare there was freedom “from” religion? It doesn’t say it anywhere. Thomas Jefferson may have agreed that there should be freedom from religion, but the US Constitution does not declare it anywhere. Citing Thomas Jefferson does not change federal law.

Freedom from religion and freedom of religion are the same thing. You want freedom to practice your religion? Fine. You want freedom to not be forced to practice somebody else’s religion as well? Guess what: that’s what freedom of religion is.
#600 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

“I have a cleaning woman who is a Seventh-day Adventist and neither of us feel any tension,” said Michael Ruse

perfect.

I’m not a big fan of Ruse, but that was a gudun.
#601 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

I love how Steven flops around like a live flounder on a hot griddle. (Umm, not that I’ve ever actually seen such a thing.) He goes from Slavery to Evolution to Flat Earth to Expelled! to Hitler to Darwin and back, touching each subject with as little of himself for as short a time as humanly possible, just to avoid the burn.

Sigh.

Ok. I lied.

I don’t love it.
#602 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

oh, btw, I have to thank Steven (Oliver*) for actually contributing something worth looking at for the very first time on this whole thread.

it was far from supporting his position, but it was worthy of adding as a bookmark for future reference, when we discover this idiot was indeed fired simply for failing to do the work he was hired to do.

now that you’ve gotten your google-fu going, Oliver, keep that ball rolling and actually spend some time looking at any one of the inane lies you chose to spew ’round here.

*did you watch the Twit of the Year? Oliver is the one that managed to run himself over with the car.
#603 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I don’t love it.

irrelevant, so long as the pattern is noted.

it’s a common one amongst creobots.

they don’t get that what this indicates to everyone else is that they really don’t know anything about any of the topics they intend to “discuss”.

brain damage will do that to ya.
#604 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Abraham did not return a telephone call seeking comment. An Indian citizen, he now works at Liberty University, a Christian university in Lynchburg, Va., founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

shocker!

ROFLMAO
#605 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

*sigh*

ok, I’m burned out on this. It’s just too easy, and reminds me too much of the AFDave thread that went on for 4K posts over on PT a while back.

Floor’s yours, Oliver.

try not to get too much blood on it, ‘K?
#606 Epikt
February 21, 2008

RD:

You all purport to be the ones who fight against closed mindedness, whilst shutting out countless perfectly valid points of view before even giving them the chance to develop. Hypocrisy at its finest.

The hypocrisy is yours. You relentlessly jabber about keeping an open mind. Yet you admit that you can provide no evidence at all for ID. You expect the scientific community to change the rules of the game because you can’t compete under the existing rules. Give me one reason why we should do that. It is not close-minded to demand the same level of rigor from you and your ilk that we demand of each other. If this is a problem for you, then perhaps you’re not really fit to play our game. As they say, other sports beckon.

…before even giving them the chance to develop.

No, I’m not going to let you get away with that whopper. Creationism has had decades in which to demonstrate even a tenuous connection with real science. It has failed, completely and utterly. That, ultimately, is the reason creationism is considered a joke. And until creationists start providing evidence that their “science” makes verifiable, detailed predictions, it’s going to stay a joke.

The benchmarks are there, if you care to look. The steps you need to take to get creationism taken seriously as science are in plain sight. Physics, chemistry and biology operate effectively in that environment. Creationism cannot, and no amount of special pleading is going to get it excused from the rigor required of real sciences.
#607 Stanton
February 21, 2008

shocker!

ROFLMAO

Actually, no, it isn’t, Ichthy
Don’t you know that Liberty University is the Great Creationists’ Secret Burial Ground where the greatest among them go to bury their careers?
#608 Kseniya
February 21, 2008

Comer wasn’t literally fired, but in being forced to resign, she was surely Expelled!

Her transgression, in being non-existent, was far less egregious than Abraham’s. Yet the creobots cry, cry, cry.

Cry, baby. Cry. Cry for the injustice. Cry over the unfair treatment a dishonest fool brought upon himself.

Do it, baby. Defend the liars. Villify the honest public servants who are trying to do what they’re hired to do. DO IT.

There you go. Now admit it: It feels good, doesn’t it?

Too bad it’s intellectually and morally insupportable.

How do you sleep?

Now if I have any sense, I’ll retire.
#609 hje
February 21, 2008

Steven sez: “These despicable acts of failing students, firing professionals based on a belief is a violation of federal law and a violation of academic freedom. People who do such acts are criminals.”

But when a Christian/Bible college does this (expelling students or firing a professor for their beliefs), then it’s acceptable? Oh, I know–that’s different.

And yeah, I’ve seen it happen. For trivial reasons, not some kind of perceived “heresy.” Just pure pettiness & politics.

And let’s be honest–you would love to be able to have any biologist/geologist/astronomer fired for teaching something you don’t agree with. Or any historian fired that does not agree with your revisionist American history.

Fired? Imprisoned? Re-educated? Executed? What’s your particular dominionist preference?
#610 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

I love how Steven flops around like a live flounder on a hot griddle. (Umm, not that I’ve ever actually seen such a thing.) He goes from Slavery to Evolution to Flat Earth to Expelled! to Hitler to Darwin and back, touching each subject with as little of himself for as short a time as humanly possible, just to avoid the burn.

“The wonderful thing about Tiggers

Is Tiggers are wonderful things

Their tops are made out of rubber

The bottoms are made out of springs

They’re bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy

Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun

But the most wonderful thing about Tiggers is

I’m the only one

The wonderful thing about Tiggers

Is Tiggers are wonderful chaps

They’re loaded with vim and vigor

They love to leap in your laps

They’re jumpy, bumpy, clumpy, thumpy

Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun

But the most wonderful thing about Tiggers is

I’m the only one

Tiggers are cuddly fellows

Tiggers are awfully sweet

Everyone else is jealous

That’s why I repeat

The wonderful thing about Tiggers

Is Tiggers are wonderful things

Their tops are made out of rubber

Their bottoms are made out of springs

They’re bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy

Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun

But the most wonderful thing about Tiggers is

I’m the only one

IIIIIII’mmmmmm the only one!

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr ! ! ! !”

yeah, I wish he was the only one.
#611 MAJeff
February 21, 2008

yeah, I wish he was the only one.

the tattoo on my calf proves I’m the only Tigger!
#612 Alan Kellogg
February 21, 2008

#637,

It was the Big Bang Burger Bar, and after the show we all got together and drew up all sorts of crazy shit on paper napkins. Got so engrossed in it we almost missed the shuttle back up to the 20th century, and got so rushed catching our ride we left the napkins behind. I hate to think anybody decided to put our crap into action. Shit, you should’ve seen what we came up with for Shurgleshug III. Stuff you really wouldn’t believe …

Ah …

…

…

Hold on a minute …

…

…

Oh fuck …

…

… we’re on Shurgleshug III.

How was I to know radar domes as dorsal fins on sharks wasn’t such a hot idea?
#613 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

Creationism has had ~~decades~~ millennia…
#614 Alex
February 21, 2008

800th comment!
#615 Ichthyic
February 21, 2008

How was I to know radar domes as dorsal fins on sharks wasn’t such a hot idea?

you should have known after what happened when we had frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads.
#616 Alex
February 21, 2008

Oh right, something relevant.

“Communism is an incredibly optimistic idea — human beings are perfectable, societies are working towards an inevitable workers’ utopia, etc. It’s highly non-Darwinian, unlike capitalism, which is very Darwinian. It’s like they don’t even think their own arguments through.”

Creationists intellectually dishonest, unthinking idiots? No way!
#617 Janine
February 22, 2008

I used to sit patiently in a math class lecture listening to “your opinions” without causing any fuss or discussing mine. I was never given the chance to question the validity of “your” claims.

Posted by: Steven | February 21, 2008 10:36 PM

I changed one word. Why? Shits and giggles. You you know that you are a rather silly little man.
#618 Rey Fox
February 22, 2008

Shorter RD @ #765: “I’m taking my ball and going HOME!”

In case you’re still reading, here’s a quick tip: Insult does NOT necessarily equal ad hominem.

For a perfect elucidation of why ID makes us so mad, and why we’re so unmoved by the cries of “censorship” and all that from the ID camp, see MAJeff’s comment #769. It ties in quite well with what I was saying about the designer assumption (and, by extension, the Christ assumption) being just a big bald assertion with nothing to recommend it but the insecurity of those who assert it and how they can’t seem to just observe the universe as it is without trying to discern some “purpose” behind it, with them at the center of that “purpose”. And they call US arrogant…
#619 carl
February 22, 2008

I still think Mr.Dr.Baugh’s “finger” looks like a french stick. Only smaller.
#620 Michael X
February 22, 2008

Holy fucking christ on a cracker. Hundreds of comments later, and still not a single prediction for ID.

In all this fuss, one of the greatest things the creationists could have used against us was evidence of the claim that they actually have science on their side (just like they say they do), by showing it to us.

Even its most intellectualized state of simple testable prediction with no lab tests needed would have been something. But, what do we have?

NOTHING

Pitiful.

My hypothesis is far stronger than even I imagined it was.
#621 Michael X
February 22, 2008

And Steven? What’s with quoting my point about how your reading of the bible would be out of line with the time it was written, and tying it to some nonsense about a flat earth?

I was talking about Heliocentrism. In a heliocentric universe the sun “turns” around the earth.

Do you actually understand the point I’m making? I’m beginning to actually worry about your mental health.
#622 Michael X
February 22, 2008

Meh, what do I actually care? You bore me. Don’t bother responding to that question Steven or any attempt to get you to name a scientific prediction detailed by ID.

Not that you could.

Just as I predicted
#623 tinyfrog
February 22, 2008

I’m guessing Steven has never heard of the “Curse of Ham”, which was the Biblical justification Christians used for the slavery of blacks. Oh wait – Christians approved of slavery, and used the Bible to justify it?
http://www.qkw.com/racematters/noahscurseslaverysrationale.htm

How’s this quote for you, Steven:
“[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.” Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm
#624 Nullifidian
February 22, 2008

I have evidence that Hitler was a Darwinist and an Atheist.

I hope it’s better than your evidence that Robert E. Lee was an atheist in his early life, and an abolitionist after he converted to Christianity, and that he was running for the presidency of the Confederacy and making stump speeches in support of abolitionism, which, when queried, look suspiciously like a letter to his wife written five years before the Confederacy even existed.
#625 Nullifidian
February 22, 2008

I am surprised nobody found the proper source to back up this claim, after all that arguing. In Guns of the South, by Harry Turtledove, Lee runs for president of the confederacy after they win the war thanks to the AK-47s brought by time-travellers from South Africa hoping to establish a racist utopia. The Afrikaners are so surprised when Lee turns out to favor abolition!

Sheesh, can’t you all find a simple historical reference like this?

Oh my.

I’m picking myself off the floor after two minutes of hysterical laughter.

I think you’ve accurately identified his “source”. Harry Turtledove seems to be an popular one for idiots trying their hand at history. Jonah Goldberg, for example, relies on Turtledove for his understanding of the history of fascism.
#626 Nullifidian
February 22, 2008

And a blast from the past:

I would have to pull out some of my college textbooks and cite references from Lee and Jackson’s speeches. There is nothing on the internet that I can find (surprise, surprise).

Now I’m curious to find out what college assigns Guns of the South as a history textbook.
#627 Nullifidian
February 22, 2008

The fact that he was sympathetic to the plight of the slaves, and was more than glad in retrospect to see the era of slavery in America come to an end (with the exception of illegal immigrants and members of the Armed Forces, of course) does not make him an abolitionist.

Zing!

I’ll say one thing for this thread. It’s certainly keeping me laughing.

Hats off to you.
#628 ZekeCDN
February 22, 2008

Thanks for all the entertainment folks. Although I can’t believe I read the whole thing … what an appropriate way to procrastinate when I should be studying for an Evidence final!

If Steven has any strange ideas concerning Tax law, perhaps he could drop by next week?
#629 battletoad
February 22, 2008

@ 607:

“…to see from the perspective of God is beyond us. But that there are other ways for humans to tap into this library of knowledge I am sure. It is only a matter of time before someone stumbles upon the key, but this rampant hostility and constant derision must be slowing things dramatically. What, exactly, are you all so afraid of? Is the idea of design so terrible, or is it your souls your fear for?”

RD, I don’t think anybody here “fears for their soul,” and I don’t think you have to worry much either(as souls don’t exist).

But, let me tell you, I do fear every second that religion is allowed to spew its BS to the world.

Science and reason are the keys to life’s salvation, not magic sky daddies and prayer.

Why must you project your own (religious) fears on us?

And

God isn’t beyond us, he is behind us, as in long ago. There will never be knowledge that magically unlocks itself; it takes hard work, observations, and science to do that. ID is not science. ID is not knowledge. The bible is not knowledge. What is knowledge?

SCIENCE
#630 Feynmaniac
February 22, 2008

Steven’s Guide to The History of Slavery

Many people think the Civil War was a result of slavery. Wrong! Despite the fact that the historical record is filled with Southerns saying so it had to do with states’ rights (1). Even fact when Robert E. Lee was campaigning for president of the Confederacy he promised to abolish it (2).

Slavery began with Dutch and Portuguese atheist scientists (3). They took Africans, who had a terrible life in Africa, to America where they were better off. What horrible people! Anywhoo, Georgia was Christian state so they outlawed slavery. Slavery was caused by Darwinist and was abolished by Christians (4).

References
(1) Right out of my ass
(2) I can’t find anything on the ENTIRE internet to support this but I saw it on a national monument once, I think
(3) Forgot to take my medication once and I ended up typing that 10,000 times.
(4) Ibid.
#631 Jim
February 22, 2008

Come on boys and girls, the competition is over. Give it a rest. Despite your best efforts, PZ remains The Most Insufferable Ass in the Blogosphere. There’s no need to keep demonstrating to the browsing public that defenders of Darwinism are so rude and witless that they think using the “f” word utterly destroys any arguments against Darwinist dogma. You can’t smooth over the theoretical and evidentiary shortcomings of Darwinism by demonstrating to the world that you’re complete asses. Leave that to PZ. Darwinism (and evolutionary biology in general) suffers enough damage to its public plausibility from one consumate ass defending it; it suffers even more when a whole army of asses defends it. Darwin, who was a champion of science as human dialectical argument, would be appalled by the lot of you. Grow up.
#632 Nullifidian
February 22, 2008

You can’t smooth over the theoretical and evidentiary shortcomings of Darwinism by demonstrating to the world that you’re complete asses.

Evolution hasn’t been about Darwinism for the last eighty years, since the development of population genetics and the synthesis of Mendelian genetics and evolution.

If you have any “theoretical and evidentiary shortcomings” of evolutionary biology as understood today, not 150 years ago, feel free to present it.
#633 Bronze Dog
February 22, 2008

Something tells me Jim is doing his hardest to avoid reading the actual content.

Of course, the Creationists don’t respond to reasoned argument given in a polite tone: They just ignore everything we say when we do that, and it probably emboldens them instead, since it implies that we take their silly arguments seriously. We can’t ignore them, since they’d be emboldened by the lack of opposition. That leaves ridicule, which occasionally shows some progress.

So thanks, Jim, for being a mindless concern troll.
#634 Nullifidian
February 22, 2008

Darwin, who was a champion of science as human dialectical argument, would be appalled by the lot of you.

Oh forgot about this. Just throwing around philosophical terms you do not understand does not actually stake you out any position of intellectual superiority. To the extent that your statement is meaningful, it is false. Darwin’s form of argument in the Origin had nothing to do with dialecticism as understood by Hegel or practically anybody else. Darwin was inspired by William Whewell’s proposal of hypothesis formulation, working out the real-life consequences, and the consilience of results with predictions.
#635 True Bob
February 22, 2008

Jim, the “f” word most appropriate here describes each of you trolls perfectly – “fool”.

BTW, I was glad to see one of my pet peeves – no freedom from religion in the USA. Very amusing coming from christers (or chews). See, back in the day, when some Roman rulers insisted on being recognized as divine, some chews and christers wouldn’t do so (they were free to enjoy their own religions, as long as they also admitted Caesar was a god). So they were persecuted, even kilt daid. That’s freedom “of” religion without freedom “from” religion, in a vivid historical example.

Those who do not learn the lessons of the past…
#636 sadundergrad
February 22, 2008

It pains me to see so many bright people – profs, post-docs, grad students, what have you – spend so much time on an internet forum trying to educate dunces who would otherwise not make it into a university classroom.
#637 True Bob
February 22, 2008

sadundergrad, I’m sure some of these guys could make it into a university classroom. Classrooms need cleaning, too.
#638 Kseniya
February 22, 2008

Something tells me Jim is doing his hardest to avoid reading the actual content.

He always does. Why should this time be any different?
#639 Epikt
February 22, 2008

Ichthyic:

Creationism has had ~~decades~~ millennia…

Different context. Of course, you’re right in the broad sense; I was referring to the time during which creationism has actively pretended to be science.
#640 Bronze Dog
February 22, 2008

A point I forgot to mention:

Darwinism (and evolutionary biology in general) suffers enough damage to its public plausibility from one consumate ass defending it;

We’re talking about people who believe in sorcery! Somehow, I don’t think their complaint has anything to do with plausibility. Or that the plausibility has anything to do with the manner of speech from one of its defenders.
#641 Jim
February 22, 2008

Nullifidian: “Evolution hasn’t been about Darwinism for the last eighty years, since the development of population genetics and the synthesis of Mendelian genetics and evolution.”

I use “Darwinism” in the sense given by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy….

http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/darwinism/

>Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth. Its original formulation is provided in the first edition of “On the Origin of Species” in 1859. This entry first formulates ‘Darwin’s Darwinism’ in terms of five philosophically distinctive themes: (i) probability and chance, (ii) the nature, power and scope of selection, (iii) adaptation and teleology, (iv) nominalism vs. essentialism about species and (v) the tempo and mode of evolutionary change. Both Darwin and his critics recognized that his approach to evolution was distinctive on each of these topics, and it remains true that, though Darwinism has developed in many ways unforeseen by Darwin, its proponents and critics continue to differentiate it from other approaches in evolutionary biology by focusing on these themes.< Nullifidian: "If you have any 'theoretical and evidentiary shortcomings' of evolutionary biology as understood today, not 150 years ago, feel free to present it."

I'd be happy to discuss with you the theoretical and evidentiary shortcomings of Darwinism (and the case for ID), but not here. I enjoy a good debate, but I have no patience for the infantile argumentation that is so characteristic of Pharyngula (which is why I said that I'm done with it, meaning that I don't intend a reprise of my participation last September). There's apparently something in the Darwinist Kool-Aid that infects the herd of independent minds who imbibe it, causing them to make sneers, jeers, and ridicule the primary weapons in their polemical arsenal. (The contrast between the level of discourse here and the level of discourse on the ID blogs - such as Dembski's Uncommon Descent - is stark.) If you want
to talk, come over to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/
The forum is moderated to ensure at least a minimum level of cordiality (which may leave you with little to say), but the conversations there tend to be a lot more substantive than the vulgar, insult-laden diatribes here.

If you haven’t figured out why Pharyngula is so harmful to the case for Darwinism, perhaps the following will help. It’s taken from an essay by attorney Edward Sisson that appears in “Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who
Find Darwinism Unconvincing,” edited by Dembski….

“…in judging the nature of the debate over the origin and subsequent diversity of life, there is (an) aspect of litigation that sheds light on why the debate is conducted as it is. A psychology that commonly operates in litigation is that opposing lawyers are primed to reject every statement by the other side – for there is no advantage in considering that the statements might be true. Lawyers are not engaged in a mutual search for the truth. In comparing the writings of the science-trained advocates of intelligent design with the writings of their opponents, I see that psychology occurring again and again on just one side of the debate: the side of the science establishment. That psychology is not evident in the work of intelligent design proponents that I have read. The fact that it is
missing from their work is one reason why I have come to trust them more than their opponents in this debate. I think that the intelligent design advocates want to talk with me about looking for the truth. In sharp contrast, the science establishment is primarily engaged in using
intimidation, ridicule, and innuendo against its critics.”

Pharyngula demonstrates the validity of Sisson’s observation beyond dispute. The rhetoric of PZ Myers and his amen chorus gives no one who is not already committed to the “truth” of Darwinism any reason to trust them. This is harmful, not helpful, to the case for Darwinism. I encourage you to keep up the good work, with full confidence that you will.

#642 RD
February 22, 2008

Keep chittering away, and maybe you’ll eventually convince yourselves you’re right, and that all you’re doing is “subjecting ID to the same rigors” as other sciences. On the internet you’re never wrong if you get the last word, right?

As a side note, the possibility of a God gene, as detailed here from a rather biased perspective, as can be expected from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene , to me indicates the presence of design. No, I have not read the book yet, but I have a passing familiarity with the concept. If human beings are “hard-wired” to seek out the spiritual, even though faith is often counterintuitive to survival, this points very strongly to a designer who seeks subtly to point his creations in the right direction.
#643 True Bob
February 22, 2008

RD, do you know that experiments have created OOB experiences in subjects, and others have also been made to feel a “presence” in their proximity? These were done by tricking the mind, not by exposure to some god.

Try dropping acid, maybe you’ll see god. The brain is an electrochemical marvel, with all sorts of abilities and quirks, including errors and incorrect assessments. Perhaps you are biased in favor of expecting a god in everything. Perhaps I am biased to see no gods in anything. Actual evidence tends towards my interpretation/expectation. Until some solid evidence (and I’m not talking the gaps in ToEW nonsense) to support divine intervention, you have nothing.

BTW, I sure don’t feel a need to seek the “spiritual”. Do you think I’ve evolved past that?
#644 True Bob
February 22, 2008

Durn, I have fat fingers this morning.

ToEW
#645 Rey Fox
February 22, 2008

I thought you said you were leaving, Jimjim. So leave already. Shoo. Quit banging your head against a wall if you find it painful.

(predicts Jim is going to reply “Ah, so you Darwinianists admit that arguing with you is like banging one’s head against a wall!” only 1,000 words longer and whinier)
#646 RD
February 22, 2008

#831: Perhaps you would feel a need to seek the spiritual if you would allow yourself an open mind. I, for one, was an agnostic for years before the truth finally came to me. I come from a very lax religious background, my family consists of very few people of faith, I hardly feel that I have been set up with a bias towards faith.
#647 Stanton
February 22, 2008

RD, Jim, please demonstrate how Creationism and Intelligent Design are capable of being experimentally verified, and demonstrate how they are superior explanations for describing how the diversities of life seen today and previous times came to be than “descent with modification,” or shut the hell up.
#648 True Bob
February 22, 2008

RD, I have an open mind. There are no faeries in the bottom of the garden, no matter how beautiful that garden is. And as for your epiphany – you have my condolences.
#649 kmarissa
February 22, 2008

Keep chittering away, and maybe you’ll eventually convince yourselves you’re right, and that all you’re doing is “subjecting ID to the same rigors” as other sciences.

The Wedge Document makes it perfectly clear that ID proponents want to change the rigors of science itself, so that they don’t have to be subjected to them. Why would they do that, I wonder?
#650 Owlmirror
February 22, 2008

Y’know, Jim, at comment #201 above, I asked you a question. I phrased it very politely, too. You didn’t answer. That was a bit rude, but perhaps you just didn’t see it. So I’ll ask it again, now:

Jim, last September, you were invited to read Kevin Padian’s Dover testimony, as well as many other biological resources. Did you ever do so? Have you ever read any book on what you so continually denigrate, modern evolutionary biology?
#651 Stanton
February 22, 2008

True Bob, when you have your brain so open-minded that it fell out, leaving the emptied cranium free to be stuffed with mental garbage; that squishy *thud* the brain makes upon impact with the ground is not an epiphany by any definition of the word.
If anything, it’s a sound closest to the sound an angel makes when it’s killed with gross stupidity.
#652 kmarissa
February 22, 2008

Stanton, they’re TRYING TO! Just, every time you ask them about that sciency stuff, don’t you see that you’re CENSORING them? All this talk about experiments and verification and other, you know, science whatchamacallit is censoring their VIEWS!!!
#653 True Bob
February 22, 2008

Stanton, I had originally put that joke in my post, then pulled it. Thanks for adding it in!
#654 Stanton
February 22, 2008

The Wedge Document makes it perfectly clear that ID proponents want to change the rigors of science itself, so that they don’t have to be subjected to them. Why would they do that, I wonder?

Rather than wait for another thousand years before RD will address this indirectly with one his/her grating platitudes, I’ll answer it, in that, in order to grant Intelligent Design scientific legitimacy and supremacy, they fully intend to fatally cripple the American scientific community, regardless of the dire consequences.

Jim, last September, you were invited to read Kevin Padian’s Dover testimony, as well as many other biological resources. Did you ever do so? Have you ever read any book on what you so continually denigrate, modern evolutionary biology?

Undoubtedly not: Jim is the sort of moron who dares not so much as even come within 100 feet of even an elementary science textbook for fear of contamination by its evil, sinful nature.
#655 Owlmirror
February 22, 2008

By the way, Jim, it’s interesting that you bring up that lawyer’s comments, because they’re exactly backwards.

When scientists discuss evolution, they point to the evidence.

It is the ID proponents use “intimidation, ridicule, and innuendo” to argue against evolution. Look at the original posting that set off this thread: Rather than discuss the evidence in favor of ID, the producers of Expelled thought it would be somehow meaningful to ridicule Charles Darwin, using lots of innuendo against his character, and promote the character of Abraham Lincoln.

And as PZ noted, the essay included some baldly false statements, and ignored some important historical contexts for both Darwin and Lincoln.

But what does that have to do with demonstrating the evidence for ID?
#656 RD
February 22, 2008

#842: Show me where, in the “Wedge Document”, it is stated that the rigors of scientific review should be reduced, removed or suspended for ID. In the portions quoted much earlier in this thread nothing that could even be construed as having those implications appeared. I fail to see why evidence that you supposed is so damning would be withheld for hundreds of posts.
#657 kmarissa
February 22, 2008

“However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism…Governing Goals: To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.”

How is ID going to be subjected to the rigors of science, if it doesn’t want to be bound to observable, physical, testable phenomena?
#658 Kseniya
February 22, 2008

RD, if you read the damned thing, you’d know the answer to that.
#659 RD
February 22, 2008

#846: That’s what we call a cop out.

#845: Eroding this human obsession with the visible world is a far different idea than destroying the scientific method.
#660 Kseniya
February 22, 2008

Right, kmarissa. It’s an agenda based on an argument from consequences. It’s not scientific. It’s not about exploring the real world, it’s about achieving predetermined social and political goals. They want to insert “design theory” into every aspect of life, whether it fits or not. It’s about imposing an orthodoxy on every aspect of public life. It is, in a word, fascism.

Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.

To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Jim calls the wording of these goals “unfortunate.” I call it “definitive.”

Get it now, RD?
#661 True Bob
February 22, 2008

RD, are you now going to bring in evidence from the invisible world? Realize that science can now see what was once invisible, both macro and micro – for crying out loud, individual ATOMS have been imaged! Seen any images from Hubble, deep space? That stuff was once invisible. So show us your invisible evidence, since it’s the only kind you have.
#662 Bronze Dog
February 22, 2008

What, RD, you got a better method for examining the invisible?

Sorry, but the scientific method is the best thing we’ve got for studying the invisible, unless you’ve got a new system to propose.
#663 kmarissa
February 22, 2008

Eroding this human obsession with the visible world is a far different idea than destroying the scientific method.

RD, again, how is ID going to be subjected to the rigors of science, if it doesn’t want to be bound to observable, physical, testable phenomena? How do you practice the scientific method on non-observable phenomena?
#664 Owlmirror
February 22, 2008

Eroding this human obsession with the visible world is a far different idea than destroying the scientific method.

Mm. No, you’re wrong there.

It doesn’t say “the visible world”, it says “scientific materialism”. The scientific world view necessarily covers everything that can be tested or examined; that which is not visible can be translated by some tool in some way into something that is visible. The scientific method is founded on testability, and it is therefore the scientific method that they most assuredly want to destroy.
#665 Kseniya
February 22, 2008

Excuse me? Cop-out?

Have you read it? The entire document? A simple “yes” or “no” will do.

Eroding this human obsession with the visible world is a far different idea than destroying the scientific method.

Oh? What do you call the imposition of an unscientific ideology onto the world of science and science education?

The “human obsession” is an obsession with the light and dark phantoms born of ancient fears and superstitions. It’s time to grow up, people. We’re adults now.
#666 Nullifidian
February 22, 2008

(The contrast between the level of discourse here and the level of discourse on the ID blogs – such as Dembski’s Uncommon Descent – is stark.)

Yes, indeed, it is a very stark contrast. On Uncommon Dissent, people who disagree with Dembski are banned outright, no matter what tone they take. Meanwhile, the head honcho himself is an infantile wretch who thinks that posting Mickey Mouse voices reading from Judge Jones’ decision overlaid with flatulence is the height of wit.

Here, we do not censor people like you, as a rule, unless they become egregiously offensive. There are several reasons for this. One is that, unlike the ID sites, we do not need to censor dissenters because the dissenters have literally nothing to go on. This leads to a degree of openness on blogs that acknowledge and accept science vs. those which want to tear it down in favour of mediaeval thinking.
#667 Stanton
February 22, 2008

RD, please read AND ANSWER my request in comment #835, or please shut the hell up.
#668 sadundergrad
February 22, 2008

#854

exactly… and they say they are “expelled”.
#669 Nullifidian
February 22, 2008

Lastly, if you weren’t a hypocrite about civility, and weren’t using it as a shield to deflect sound criticism, then it is obvious that you wouldn’t be making derogatory comments about PZ and similar swipes at other people here.
#670 guthrie
February 22, 2008

Wait, has RD been here before? I thought they might be a newbie. Ahhh well.

Ichthyic- I see you are a man of education, knowing Monty Python like that.
#671 brandonab
February 22, 2008

Better RD:

“#845: Eroding this human obsession with reality is far easier than learning the scientific method.”

Enjoy your ignorance, kiddo. While you and Jesus and the angels have a little lapsit time giving each other wet-willies and talking about the really deep questions, we’ll be driving around in our sciencey horseless carriages, quaffing scienced-up antibiotics, and cloning our thumbs for fun and profit.

Your argument boils down to: science is too hard and it makes some people feel uncomfortable.

That’s not an argument, that’s a whine.
#672 hje
February 22, 2008

Jim sez: “In sharp contrast, the science establishment is primarily engaged in using
intimidation, ridicule, and innuendo against its critics.”

You are of course kidding, right? The ID crowd never uses these techniques against their critics?

Intimidation: Trying posting an honest question about ID dogma over at UD and see how long it takes you to get banned (WD: “I don’t like your tone …). Or better yet, try articulating a non-creationist point of view in a typical evangelical church and see how quickly you become persona non grata. The journal Science has a sad article yesterday about one man’s persecution by his family and church for his acceptance of evolution as a valid theory.

Ridicule: I’m sure the many derogatory terms that Denyse et al use on their blogs, like “Darwinoids,” are actually terms of endearment. And how long do you think it would take to find an example ridicule of mainstream scientists on the UD blog? Microseconds? And don’t get me started on Dembski’s highbrow fart humor … Talk about Expelled!

Innuendo: Darwin = Hitler = Stalin–What’s the harm of a little rhetorical little well poisoning between friends? Who cares if it’s a big lie–it works so well to motivate the masses.
#673 Hap
February 22, 2008

RD #566:

In order for ID to be a branch of science, it has to play by certain rules. Ask a question. Generate potential answers for the question (that can be distinguished by observable data). Gather data. Figure out whether the data is consistent with any of your answers. Refine answers.

ID hasn’t answered any question – disproof of Darwin’s theory of evolution (and descendants) would not prove ID correct, only that evolution as theorized didn’t happen. Just because you can’t think of something else does not mean something else didn’t happen. You have to make a guess, and then substantiate the guess with data. ID hasn’t bothered to do any othese things. It hasn’t even made testable predictions that are difficult to carry out (like string theory) – it hasn’t made any.

Science is about asking and answering questions about the observable world and dealing with the answers. ID is dictating to the world what the answers are and ignoring anything that contradicts your wishes. Most places have a better term for that – insanity.
#674 Kseniya
February 22, 2008

Heh… That comment gets two thumbs-up, hje. It’s so typical of the weak-minded to project their own lack of integrity onto their opponents, then play the victim when challenged.
#675 Michael X
February 22, 2008

Come on Jim,
Give it up buddy. You’re really just making your side look worse, which is an accomplishment in itself, but really, why? Why come onto this blog with the sole intent of being a troll? Why dodge several polite and incessant requests for even a single prediction made by ID? You talk of being civil yet begin your own posts with calling PZ an “insufferable ass” and then attempt to chastise us for using insults?

So why should I believe that you have any evidence whatsoever? And why must it be presented elsewhere? Do the facts change depending on where they are presented? No excuses Jim. Either you actually have evidence here and now, or you don’t.

You’re walking the thin line of a hypocrite here. Here, is your chance to show some evidence and change that situation. This is me making a direct, civil, specific challenge to you Jim. Your response will dictate how you’re viewed.
#676 Nathan
February 22, 2008

Quoting:
To me, this whole argument can be explained thus: anyone who repeatedly write “your” instead of “you’re” has been so poorly educated that any subsequent statements are suspect, severely.

Posted by: Sid Schwab | February 21, 2008 2:30 PM

I’m not sure how attacking individuals’ intelligence or capabilities is worthwhile conversation. I’m not even sure which side (Evolution/Creation) this guy is on, but it should be “…who repeatedly writeS “your” instead…” There should be an ‘s’ there. Merely attacking the person or setting up straw men or poking fun because people inadvertently mistype (did I type that right?) while emotionally charged isn’t really helpful in any case. Rather, it shows forth fallacy and an inability to engage in useful dialogue. My intent here is not to malign nor to damage the person I quoted above (lots of people have been doing the same basic thing). Rather, I encourage people with excellent intellects to act like it.
#677 Michael X
February 23, 2008

And thus ends a sad thread.

856 comments. No ID predictions, no evidence, nothing worth a damn.

And people wonder why we give no respect to creationists…

The real sad thing for me is, I’m always waiting to cut my teeth on a sharp creationist. But I never seem to find one. I leave these threads disappointed. The only people worth arguing with I agree with most of the time.
#678 Michael X
February 23, 2008

…………… 866, now, thanks to my not being able to count ………..
#679 VANILLA S
February 23, 2008

DOES THIS DEBATE HAVE TO BE SO HOSTILE AND BASE? WHATEVER HAPPENED TO RESPECT FOR OTHERS BELIEFS? I’VE RARELY READ SUCH UNPLEASANTNESS. COME ON PEOPLE. RISE UP AND ACT LIKE OTHER HUMANS ARE WORTHY OF RESPECT – OH, WAIT, – WHY SHOULD THEY BE? – THEY’RE JUST ORGANISMS THAT CRAWLED UP OUT OF MATTER ACCIDENTALLY.
#680 Michael X
February 23, 2008

Way to go Vanilla. First off, ignore those who weren’t insulting, then ignore why those who were, were. Then forget where the caps lock is.
#681 grendelkhan
February 23, 2008

hje: The journal Science has a sad article yesterday about one man’s persecution by his family and church for his acceptance of evolution as a valid theory.

Sounds interesting. Link?
#682 Stanton
February 23, 2008

And thus ends a sad thread.

856 comments. No ID predictions, no evidence, nothing worth a damn.

And people wonder why we give no respect to creationists…

Maybe because the vast majority of creationists who make the grueling pilgrimage to Professor Myers’ blog demonstrate that they have stunted social and etiquette skills on par with those of a 6 year old bully, and that they have allowed their colossal, ziggurat-like egos blind them to the fact that making a paltry reference to the Bible can never replace even a rudimentary education in Biology, Science, or World History, or that creationists hypocritically appeal to us to turn Science into a democracy so that they can turn it into a theocracy, nevermind that Science can only function as a meritocracy?

The real sad thing for me is, I’m always waiting to cut my teeth on a sharp creationist. But I never seem to find one. I leave these threads disappointed. The only people worth arguing with I agree with most of the time.

I’ve met a few sharp creationists, though, what impressed me the most was the way they regarded me as being human.
#683 J
February 23, 2008

I’m sure this will be posted soon, but check out this upcoming debate between William Dembski and Niall Shanks:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=9776501534
#684 REY FOX
February 23, 2008

“THEY’RE JUST ORGANISMS THAT CRAWLED UP OUT OF MATTER ACCIDENTALLY.”

HEY I DEMAND YOU RESPECT MY BELIEFS YOU UNPLEASANT CLODHOPPER.
#685 katie
February 23, 2008

“I am never surprised by this band of elitists including PZ in their defense of Marxism, I am aware of the politics of Dawkins, Gould, etc. while living off the U.S. taxpayer dole and teat his entire paltry, meaningless, and non-productive career”.

Um…call me crazy, but I thought Dawkins was British???
#686 Alex
February 24, 2008

He’s British, but he was born in South Africa I think.
#687 grendelkhan
February 24, 2008

Alex: He’s British, but he was born in South Africa I think.

Kenya, actually.
#688 Phil
February 25, 2008

Wow. The amount of hatred bursting forth from this blog, and particularly from the commentators, is staggering. The arrogance is suffocating.

I’m curious. How exactly do you handle it when someone comes along who is every bit as intelligent as you (as measured by things like academic achievement, IQ test scores, etc) but who is a believing, devout, orthodox Catholic? And, not only that, but someone who is a recent Catholic convert? Let me guess: You would deny the premise that the person in question is highly intelligent. Right? How predictable. And pitiful.
#689 Tukla in Iowa
February 25, 2008

@464: I am able to think for myself and research for myself.

Much like the TimeCube guy, from what I’ve seen, Steven.
#690 Steve_C
February 25, 2008

No we wouldnt. Many highly intelligent people do great science despite their religious delusions. We don’t start calling them unintelligent until they started saying dumb shit.
#691 Rey Fox
February 25, 2008

“The amount of hatred bursting forth from this blog, and particularly from the commentators, is staggering. ”

Doesn’t make us wrong. You’re welcome to try and refute what PZ said in the initial post if you disagree.
#692 Phil
February 25, 2008

“Doesn’t make us wrong.”

No. It just makes you hateful.

“You’re welcome to try and refute what PZ said in the initial post if you disagree.”

No thanks. I’m not particularly interested in any of that. I was just making the observation that there seems to be a lot of venom being spewed about.
#693 Rey Fox
February 25, 2008

“No. It just makes you hateful.”

We hate liars.

“No thanks. I’m not particularly interested in any of that.”

Then there are plenty of other blogs with more interesting content out there.

“I was just making the observation that there seems to be a lot of venom being spewed about.”

Congratulations, you’re the 500th person to come and make that observation. No, you don’t win a prize.
#694 Ichthyic
February 25, 2008

still going…

I’m curious. How exactly do you handle it when someone comes along who is every bit as intelligent as you (as measured by things like academic achievement, IQ test scores, etc) but who is a believing, devout, orthodox Catholic?

we take arguments as they come regardless of who makes them or what their background is.

shit arguments are given what they deserve, a quick burial in an outhouse pit.

honest arguments are engaged quite differently, as you might have noticed, even in this thread, if you had bothered to look more carefully, rather than attempt to reinforce your preconceptions.

your loss.
#695 PZ Myers
February 25, 2008

“You’re welcome to try and refute what PZ said in the initial post if you disagree.”

No thanks. I’m not particularly interested in any of that.

I am not at all surprised by that. Obviously, you’re the kind of person who thinks a blatant lie spoken with a honeyed tongue is more virtuous than a truth spoken bluntly.

Please don’t hang around. All we can do with your ilk is spit more venom in your direction.
#696 Nullifidian
February 25, 2008

I’m curious. How exactly do you handle it when someone comes along who is every bit as intelligent as you (as measured by things like academic achievement, IQ test scores, etc) but who is a believing, devout, orthodox Catholic?

And I’m curious. Why are you singling out Catholics? I read this thread through from the beginning, and I hadn’t seen any expression of Catholic-hatred. In fact, if you want to see that, you’re far more likely to find it from the producers of Expelled than you are to find it here.
#697 Michael Woelfel
February 26, 2008

Let’s face it, no one alive was present when mankind originated. Really verbal abuse is so childish and typically comes from the weakest side in an arguement. For any of you who have a sincere and open mind and would like to see some interesting items such as Ancient Egyptian chariot wheels in the Red Sea, look at: http://www.covenantkeeper.co.uk and also, http://www.arkdiscovery.com
#698 Ichthyic
February 26, 2008

Let’s face it, no one alive was present when mankind originated.

are you saying god is dead?

hey! guess what?

it’s just one step beyond to say there aren’t any deities.

you can do it!
#699 Michael Woelfel
February 26, 2008

Oops it is http://www.covenantkeepers.co.uk (plural)
Again to the subject, Scientific American magazine stated in an article “Bioinformatics Gold” I think it was, that the recent completion of the human genome contains so much information that if it were all put on compact discs in their cases- standing upright, shelf space would need to be nearly one half mile long! No one can dispute that white rabbit DNA is ‘naturally selected’ in snow where dark rabbits are easy prey. However, the extreme complexity that we see in all living things mitigates more readily to an intelligent designer than randomness. Consider the following analogy: Eons ago, deep in the ocean, iron ore began to form into sheets, holes developed followed by rivets. Soon by this process a fully formed ship floated into harbor… Contrast that idea to: Where there is a watch there is a watch maker; where there is a world, there is a world maker. Actually there is no such thing as a truly honest minded atheist… here’s why. If you drew on paper a square that we will say represents the sum total of all your knowledge. You cannot know that God does not exist outside of your knowledge… you are agnostic, or not knowing. May all of you truth seekers have a great day! mw
#700 Stanton
February 26, 2008

Let’s face it, no one alive was present when mankind originated.

So are you saying that what happened in the distant past never occurred or existed because none of the witnesses are alive today for interviews? Really, it is sad and pathetic that creationists like yourself, Michael, don’t care to realize that they continue to reinforce the stereotype of Christians as being reason-hating morons.
#701 Ichthyic
February 26, 2008

I think it was, that the recent completion of the human genome contains so much information that if it were all put on compact discs in their cases- standing upright, shelf space would need to be nearly one half mile long!

have you ever looked at what the head of the human genome project, the project you just mentioned, Francis Collins had to say on how the results of that project provided nothing BUT support for the theory of evolution?

no?

read away:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm

you might even LIKE the idea of theistic evolution.

(HINT: Collins is a xian, like yourself)
#702 Nullifidian
February 27, 2008

Let’s face it, no one alive was present when mankind originated.

No one alive today was present when Abraham Lincoln was born, but there doesn’t seem to be any trouble establishing that he was born.

For any of you who have a sincere and open mind and would like to see some interesting items such as Ancient Egyptian chariot wheels in the Red Sea, look at: http://www.covenantkeeper.co.uk and also, http://www.arkdiscovery.com

For those of you who know this is the work of that old fraud Ron Wyatt, I’d encourage you to not bother.

Again to the subject, Scientific American magazine stated in an article “Bioinformatics Gold” I think it was, that the recent completion of the human genome contains so much information that if it were all put on compact discs in their cases- standing upright, shelf space would need to be nearly one half mile long!

Actually, you could fit the complete sequence of the generic human genome on two compact discs with room left over for an e-text of On the Origin of Species. The human genome is only three billion base pairs long, after all.

However, even if your claim were true, what does that have to do with evolution?

However, the extreme complexity that we see in all living things mitigates more readily to an intelligent designer than randomness.

You’re not using the word “mitigates” correctly, and you’re presenting a false dichotomy.

Consider the following analogy: Eons ago, deep in the ocean, iron ore began to form into sheets, holes developed followed by rivets. Soon by this process a fully formed ship floated into harbor…

And what is this supposed to be an analogy of?

Contrast that idea to: Where there is a watch there is a watch maker; where there is a world, there is a world maker.

What’s the contrast? They’re both stupid.

Actually there is no such thing as a truly honest minded atheist… here’s why. If you drew on paper a square that we will say represents the sum total of all your knowledge. You cannot know that God does not exist outside of your knowledge… you are agnostic, or not knowing.

Consider an entity that knows everything which does exist, and nothing that doesn’t. The existence of copies of Great Expectations is known to this entity, but the intimate details of Miss Havisham’s life is not, for example. One day, someone asks this entity if God exists, knowing that an entity that knows everything that exists would be able to answer the question. This entity searches its extensive but finite stores of knowledge and answers, “No, God does not exist.” This is perfectly logically conceivable, and shoots a large hole in your claim that nobody can possibly know that god doesn’t exist outside one’s knowledge.

Furthermore, what happened to simply accepting the possibility of being wrong about the existence of god? Even if I do not have sufficient knowledge to rule out the existence of god–which you haven’t shown–what’s the major problem with simply ruling out god’s existence anyway based on my assessment of the odds against a god’s existence? Why is this the one issue which we cannot be wrong about, and why do the people who think so seem to be so wrong about everything else?
#703 Marcus Gioe
February 27, 2008

@890 – Actually, your all-knowing entity would most likely say “I don’t know if God exists” or even “There is no way for me to know if God exists.” MW actually gets close to what I personally consider the right idea when he talks about the finite “box of knowledge.” There is a limit to what science can investigate. (Science can’t “prove,” per se, only strengthen or weaken a theory.) Any “God” necessarily exists outside that “box.” But since science cannot comment on, study, or falsify anything outside the box, the existence of God is not something that science can comment on. Rather, the possibility of the existence of an all-powerful being is a philosphical/religious question.

Ultimately, the question of “Does God exist?” falls into the same category of “Where did we all come from?” It’s a question that science cannot (and shouldn’t have to or try to) answer.

It is unfortunate that the loudest voices in any room are often the most uninformed. As is almost always the case, the truth in any arguement most likely lies between the two extremes. Personally, I believe in God, and I believe that the theory of evolution is the best theory we’ve got on how the natural world works. So I suppose that makes me a proponent of Theistic Evolution.

At the same time, I realize that the theory of evolution does still have “gaps”- things that will probably never be proved conclusively. This isn’t surprising, considering that the theory includes pretty much everything that’s happened on the entire planet since there was an entire planet. That doesn’t mean I’m a “God of the Gaps” proponent either- it’s just I understand that as of today, there do exist “gaps” that “God” could fill. The problem with a “God of the Gaps” arguement is twofold: First, it is falsifiable. It is theoretically possible for all the “gaps” in the theory of evolution to be closed by science. Not likely, but possible. Second, the “God of the gaps” theory can never be proved, as it requires proof of the existence of God to complete a scientific theory, thus muddling science and philosphy.

Instead the TE view understands that there is likely a scientific explanation for all natural phenomenon, and relgates God to that area outside the “box” in which science operates. TE would argue that a creator who could design and build a complex system such as the one we live in is far more magnificent than one who needs to tweak a system that has already been created. But ultimately, TE subscribers understand that this theory does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God. That, as one earlier poster mentioned, is all “just hope.” I prefer to call it faith, but I suppose the idea is the same.
#704 Reynold Hall
February 27, 2008

Well, just to piss you all off, here’s a YEC tool taking the exact tack of going after Darwin’s book title:

Instead, as documented in the current Journal of Creation,3 Nazis eagerly made use of the evolutionary concepts already entrenched in German academia. Note that the subtitle of Darwin’s The Origin of Species by means of natural selection was: The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Evolutionary teachings were simply carried to their logical conclusion by the Nazis who tried to exterminate the ‘inferior’ races like the Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs, as well as the ‘unfit’ (e.g. the handicapped). This is confirmed by the evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote:

‘The German F�hrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’4

Too bad that neither Sarfati or Keith ever read Mein Kampf or The Origin of Species.

From the first comment here:
Here the term “races” is used as an alternative for “varieties” and does not carry the modern connotation of human races – the first use in the book refers to “the several races, for instance, of the cabbage”, and Darwin proceeds to discuss “the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants”

God, these people have no honesty. Safarti doesn’t mention that Hitler said in Mein Kampf that it was Luther he admired, not Darwin, Sarfati quotes from the Nuremberg proceedings that Striecher figued xianity would get in the way of their plans, but he doesn’t mention that Striecher also said that the Nazis were just carrying out Luther’s plans for the Jews and that if Luther were there, he’d be in the dock with them.

With these bastards, its always what they don’t tell you is what trips you up.
#705 Nullifidian
February 27, 2008

Actually, your all-knowing entity would most likely say “I don’t know if God exists” or even “There is no way for me to know if God exists.”

It doesn’t matter what you think it would be likely to say, the point is that it would have an absolute rational warrant to say that no gods exist. Again, if there is an entity which knows all things which do exist, and none that don’t, and it doesn’t know of the existence of any god, then it has the rational warrant to say that god doesn’t exist when questioned about the existence of god (which would have been the first time my hypothetical being would have heard the word). It is not meant to conclusively demonstrate the non-existence of god, as it is just a thought experiment. As a though experiment, however, it does show that the argument MW presented as an apologetic against atheism was fundamentally wrong.

MW actually gets close to what I personally consider the right idea when he talks about the finite “box of knowledge.”

MW is simply trying on an argument from ignorance. It doesn’t usually fly.

Any “God” necessarily exists outside that “box.”

Necessarily? Why necessarily?

But since science cannot comment on, study, or falsify anything outside the box, the existence of God is not something that science can comment on.

The purpose of the illustration was not to argue that science can or cannot comment on the existence of god, merely that using the common apologetic argument of claiming that unless one knows everything, one cannot rule out the existence of god is logically deficient as well as a rhetorical cheap trick.

Rather, the possibility of the existence of an all-powerful being is a philosphical/religious question.

An all-powerful being which cannot interact with and produce causal change in material universe in any way? I would highly doubt such a creature would be all-powerful, and I sincerely doubt that its existence would be relevant to anyone not already devoted to theism.

Ultimately, the question of “Does God exist?” falls into the same category of “Where did we all come from?” It’s a question that science cannot (and shouldn’t have to or try to) answer.

Well, actually science answers the “Where did we all come from?” question very well, for certain reasonable definitions of the word “we”. Humans evolved from hominin ancestors. Every individual present in the world today was born of a sperm and egg and developed in a more or less standard process of embryology the steps of which are well-known.

It is unfortunate that the loudest voices in any room are often the most uninformed. As is almost always the case, the truth in any arguement most likely lies between the two extremes.

I would dearly love to see some argument for the claim that it “is almost always the case” that “the truth in any arguement…lies between the two extremes” which doesn’t start by assuming its conclusion.
#706 Marcus Gioe
February 27, 2008

It doesn’t matter what you think it would be likely to say, the point is that it would have an absolute rational warrant to say that no gods exist.
No. There are two possibilities. The first is that your entity is limited in what it knows by the rules of science. In this case, the entity would not be able to determine if God exists, it would only have an absolute rational warrant to say that it had no information on the subject. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The second possibility is that your entity in fact, knows everything in which case it is “God” and, one would assume, knows as much.

Any “God” necessarily exists outside that “box.”
Necessarily? Why necessarily?

Because the box is defined as “that which science can measure, observe, and/or falsify.” By definition, anything inside this box has limitations and boundaries. Since the definition of “God” is an all-powerful being, such a being cannot exist inside the “box,” so to speak.

…common apologetic argument of claiming that unless one knows everything, one cannot rule out the existence of god is logically deficient as well as a rhetorical cheap trick
A common misconception. In an arguement about any other topic (identical snowflakes, dwarves, bigfoot) you would absolutely be correct. But since, as I’ve mentioned before, science can’t observe/measure God, ruling out the possibility of God is, in fact, the logically defecient course of action. Any non-biased scientist (including those at the National Academy of Science) would be smart enough to say that science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of an all-powerful being.
An all-powerful being which cannot interact with and produce causal change in material universe in any way? I would highly doubt such a creature would be all-powerful, and I sincerely doubt that its existence would be relevant to anyone not already devoted to theism.
On the contrary- an all powerful being, assuming that said being exists outside of what we call time, could easily have created the universe in such a way as to meet all of our prayers, needs, etc… For example, many scholars argue that the “Nativity Star” was nothing more that a convergence of Jupiter, Saturn, and Venus. How fortuitous that such a convergence was taking place. The Bible is full of such examples. You’d call them “coincidence,” while I’d call them “the will of God.” Again, the point is that science cannot provide any commentary on which one of us is more correct.
Well, actually science answers the “Where did we all come from?” question very well, for certain reasonable definitions of the word “we”. Humans evolved from hominin ancestors. Every individual present in the world today was born of a sperm and egg and developed in a more or less standard process of embryology the steps of which are well-known.
Perhaps I should have been more specific in my point. I was discussing the greater “we” as in the universe in general. It’s the problem of infinite regression. Where did all “this” come from? Scientifically, there has to be a starting point- but what existed before that point in time? This is a philosophical question- not a science question. Science can and will continue to strive to answer more and more questions about the origins of the universe, but will never be able to solve the problem of infinite regression. Science provides a quantifiable amount of discrete information- a “box” inside of which we understand how things behave and operate. It cannot, however, comment on anything outside said “box.”
I would dearly love to see some argument for the claim that it “is almost always the case” that “the truth in any arguement…lies between the two extremes” which doesn’t start by assuming its conclusion.
Apparently, I was either unclear when I made the comment which prompted this response, or you are proving my point. Logically, those with middle-of-the-road views tend to be less passionate about them. If you are a proponent of evolution and have no opinion on the existance of God and I am a theistic evolutionist, then our scientific viewpoints are the same and you would have no qualms with my religious beliefs. If you were an atheist and held the same views on evolution, our scientific viewpoints would be the same but our religious values would clash. Finally, if I was a 6-day creationist, then both our scientific and religious beliefs would be in conflict. I have no issue with those that use science to argue their viewpoint on evolution vs. 6-day creation. They have a valid arguement, and one I tend to agree with. However, those that believe that science can defend their religious preference (God or lack thereof) do not understand the limitation of what science can and cannot do. If you chose to espouse the belief that there is no God, that is your choice. But understand that it is a philosophical choice, not one based on science.
#707 Nullifidian
February 28, 2008

No. There are two possibilities. The first is that your entity is limited in what it knows by the rules of science. In this case, the entity would not be able to determine if God exists, it would only have an absolute rational warrant to say that it had no information on the subject. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. The second possibility is that your entity in fact, knows everything in which case it is “God” and, one would assume, knows as much.

And there’s the third possibility that you actually read what I write and respond relevantly. First of all, I didn’t bring science into it. It does not matter what my hypothetical entity’s source of knowledge is, just that it has it. Secondly, my hypothetical entity does not know everything. That was the whole point. My hypothetical entity does not know anything about things which do not exist. Miss Havisham’s life is a closed book to it, Ahab’s obsessions mean nothing to it, etc. I don’t know why this argument is so opaque to you, save that you’re simply turning your brain off.

Because the box is defined as “that which science can measure, observe, and/or falsify.” By definition, anything inside this box has limitations and boundaries.

So the physical universe is bounded? If you can demonstrate that, there might be a Nobel in your future.

On the contrary- an all powerful being, assuming that said being exists outside of what we call time, could easily have created the universe in such a way as to meet all of our prayers, needs, etc…

*sigh*

I wasn’t talking about our prayers and needs. For one thing, I wouldn’t use the first person plural. I was talking about a god which is utterly incapable of interacting with and producing causal change of any sort, good, bad, or indifferent, within the universe because that’s what you have to have if you’re going to claim that a god is forever beyond the purview of science.

Perhaps I should have been more specific in my point. I was discussing the greater “we” as in the universe in general. It’s the problem of infinite regression. Where did all “this” come from?

How the universe arose is nothing to do with an “infinite regression”, and apologists are generally very incompetent in dealing with transfinite mathematics anyway. The best explanation is that the universe arose as a fluctuation manifested as a spacetime curvature in an empty vacuum. General relativity indicates that under such conditions, the slight curvature will expand exponentially. Einstein made nothing of that possibility, but today it’s called the Inflationary Theory.

Science can and will continue to strive to answer more and more questions about the origins of the universe, but will never be able to solve the problem of infinite regression.

Again, you’ve not demonstrated that there’s an “infinite regression problem” to be solved.

Apparently, I was either unclear when I made the comment which prompted this response, or you are proving my point. Logically, those with middle-of-the-road views tend to be less passionate about them.

That’s not logical, nor is it even true. There’s a long history of passionately committed ideologues each positioning themselves as the “middle-of-the-road” option. Michael B�rub� writes a whole book (What’s Liberal About the Liberal Arts?) in a “pox on both your houses” style of ‘moderation’, excoriating the political left and right and positioning his vanilla liberalism as the middle-of-the-road position, while Ann Coulter derides Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the “lunatic left”. Nancy Davis, a social democrat, frequently presents her socialist views as the middle of two extremes while a standard-bearer for unfettered capitalism like Hillary Clinton is portrayed by the right-wing as a raving socialist, and people like me disdain her for her unbearable shift to the right.

Contrary to your claims, the more fervently one holds to a position, the more likely they are to portray it as the middle ground of sweet, unbiased reason (at least in modern day circles where Enlightenment values have that kind of traction). I don’t bother with that nonsense, personally, because it would be absurd to describe my political positions as in the middle of anything, and I know it.

If you are a proponent of evolution and have no opinion on the existance of God and I am a theistic evolutionist, then our scientific viewpoints are the same and you would have no qualms with my religious beliefs. If you were an atheist and held the same views on evolution, our scientific viewpoints would be the same but our religious values would clash.

But I am an atheist, and I don’t give a damn about your religious opinions, which is why I didn’t bother to respond to any of your testimony. So much for your preconceptions. Nor does any of this actually make a case that the truth of an argument lies between two extremes. It doesn’t even fulfill the minimal requirement of identifying where the extremes are and what the middle ground is between them.

If you chose to espouse the belief that there is no God, that is your choice. But understand that it is a philosophical choice, not one based on science.

Physician, heal thyself. You’re the one who’s banging on about “science” when I’m trying to make a philosophical argument countering the implication that one must know everything to know that god doesn’t exist.
#708 Bah Bah Black Sheep
February 29, 2008

OMG I can’t believe you guys are still posting stuff down here. This comments list is so long, no one’s going to read this crap!
#709 Michael X
February 29, 2008

Allow me to state the simple and obvious. If we are dealing with “science and god” then any god who makes claims upon the world and acts upon it can be tested and can fail.

The bible is replete with such claims on gods power over and in the physical world and each and every claim fails. This of course only rules out the god dictated by those constraints, i.e. one who answers prayers, makes the sun stand still, causes floods, etc. Though, each of these claims is found fantastically wanting. Thus, any rational observer would decide that such a being who is said to do these things does not exist. And we decide so the same way we rule out Santa and the Tooth Fairy. We learn that their claims as to what they do are false. Thus, we conclude that any such being with those traits as defined is falsified and we cease to believe in the existence of any being with those traits. And so it goes with any god who makes clams upon the natural world. We can test them, and they fail. And the simple reason is: They are not there.

While this alone does not rule out the place of a “god,” as in a prime mover or one who only serves to initiate the universe, this vagary also does not give any evidence in favor of any god that any religion has ever created. So we don’t put any belief in those unimagined gods either. We return to the natural default of not believing in a god, as we have no evidence of one and the prime mover “god” is for all intents and purposes no different from who we view the world now. That is, one with no divine intervention.

And on a side note, it has been stated so many fucking times in innumerable places that if the universe must have a cause, then so must a god. And if god gets a free pass at not needing to be created, then why not the universe? <>Something must be self-existant. And a lack of imagination (read: ignorant) argument does not fly.
#710 Michael X
February 29, 2008

And Black Sheep my friend, this argument isn’t necessarily meant for other readers. It is one we are having amongst ourselves. Though, it is one you are more than welcome to join if you feel you have anything to add.
#711 xtiger70
March 1, 2008

God Bless America. You would have been stoned in the middle ages for your blasphemy. America’s belief system of ‘free speech’ is allowing you the right to criticize this movie and its subject, and from what I gather, your right to do so is the underlying issue the movie is addressing.

Being a Christian, and professing Christian beliefs, has unwittingly (or possibly, wittingly) been the target of ridicule by academia, the press, and our government.

People feel self-conscious about speaking about their faith in public because of public pressure. In today’s society its okay to be anything but a caucasian Christian male. I dare you to publicly criticize the Islamic, Buddhist, or Native American Indian faiths publicly . . . what, cat’s got your tongue now. That’s what I thought, its not appropriate, but yet somewhere down the line it became appropriate to tarnish the most well documented, well-preserved religion ever!

I am a baby-Christian, and I have more questions than the next person. I search for answers to my biblical questions with an open mind to be able to find the truth in the clutter of today’s society. When our American institutions begin to put forth organizational, financial, or personal agenda’s in the way of people finding out facts, I have a real problem with that. If you are an atheist, that’s a belief system; when we are looking for evidence to support or disprove our beliefs, I want the evidence to be objective.

I’ve ranted enough, God Bless America. America doesn’t allow free speech, the people within her boarders allow free speech. If we fail to permit free speech, there is no one to blame but ourselves.
#712 Michael X
March 1, 2008

xtiger,
I ridicule Islam all the time. Buddists and native Americans usually do less to warrant my bile, but I have no love for any system of belief build upon blind faith. In this thread you find christianity being ridiculed because it is the faith held by those doing the damage they do in the name of it. But take a look around this blog and you’ll find a good number of posts criticizing Islam.

Also, remember, Atheism in and of itself, is nothing more than the lack of belief. It is not a belief system. While atheists do all have beliefs and those beliefs may very well be influenced by the lack of a belief in a deity, atheism itself does not have a set list of beliefs, and thus cannot be a “belief system.” It’s a belief system like a test pattern is a tv show. It’s not.

Also, I’d be a little careful about throwing around claims like “well preserved” in regards to christianity. Scientology is probably the most preserved as it has had the least time in which to devolve. And keep in mind “well documented” does not equal everything that has been written about that religion. That would be “the most written about religion.” In fact Christianity has a frightening lack of independent documentation as to the claims made in its holy book. It isn’t well documented at all.

And by the way, you began by being appreciative (I hope) of the fact that we will not be stoned to death today as we would have been in the middle ages; an age overrun with religious belief. Think about that for a second and realize that the religious didn’t stop stoning people of their own accord. If your religion, of which you are a new member, hadn’t been fought against, it would be stoning us still.
#713 Brownian, OM
March 1, 2008

You would have been stoned in the middle ages for your blasphemy/

Are we supposed to be thankful? 2000 years ago you would have been crucified for your douchebaggery.

Ah, those were the days.

Fuck you.
#714 Brownian, OM
March 1, 2008

Sorry, that was rude.

Fuck you, you bigoted assface.
#715 Nullifidian
March 1, 2008

God Bless America. You would have been stoned in the middle ages for your blasphemy. America’s belief system of ‘free speech’ is allowing you the right to criticize this movie and its subject, and from what I gather, your right to do so is the underlying issue the movie is addressing.

First off, this is a blog with an international readership, not just an American one. Secondly, the theme of the movie is a bunch of wanna-be theocrats whining that they’re not getting their way. Ho hum.

Being a Christian, and professing Christian beliefs, has unwittingly (or possibly, wittingly) been the target of ridicule by academia, the press, and our government.

Assuming that you’re continuing the standard American myopia and mean the American government when you refer to “our government” in an internationally-read blog….

The majority of universities and colleges in America is private, and a majority of these private institutions are sectarian Christian. So what are you whining about?

Likewise the press. You’ll never see any group more fawning over the Christian faith than the American media. Most newspapers, including my local paper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, even have a regular weekly “faith” section dominated by Christianity. Again, what are you whining about?

And lastly the American government is ridiculing Christianity? That one sends my Bullshit Meter off-scale. In American electoral politics, you simply cannot be elected without genuflecting before the religious lobby. This goes for both major political parties.

People feel self-conscious about speaking about their faith in public because of public pressure.

And yet you, a self-described “baby Christian”, are doing just that. The big grown-up televangelists get their own stations, and airtime on all the major networks every Sunday. You were saying?

In today’s society its okay to be anything but a caucasian Christian male.

Yes, pity the poor victim of the Black Atheist power structure.

I dare you to publicly criticize the Islamic, Buddhist, or Native American Indian faiths publicly . . . what, cat’s got your tongue now.

You don’t read this blog very often, do you? I’d link you, but the magnitude of links would be interpreted as spam and sent for moderation. I suggest you just search for the words “Islam” in the search bar.

That’s what I thought, its not appropriate, but yet somewhere down the line it became appropriate to tarnish the most well documented, well-preserved religion ever!

Well-preserved? There are no less than twenty thousand Christian sects. Plus, the original Christians of James’ times kept kosher, circumcized their male infants, observed Shabbat, etc. It was a main source of friction between the Pauline and Jamesian strains of Christianity.

By the way, if you’re going to answer your own questions, it would behoove you to do a little internet search so that you don’t look like an idiot.

I am a baby-Christian, and I have more questions than the next person.

That’s amazing, because you already have managed to find in yourself a Big, Grown-Up Christian Arrogance.

I’ve ranted enough, God Bless America. America doesn’t allow free speech, the people within her boarders allow free speech. If we fail to permit free speech, there is no one to blame but ourselves.

Here’s news for you: coming here and making a plea for free speech in defense of a movie is self-defeating, which is, albeit, one thing that the idiots who are producing Expelled haven’t figured out yet.
#716 MAJeff, OM
March 1, 2008

I am a baby-Christian, and I have more questions than the next person. I search for answers to my biblical questions with an open mind to be able to find the truth in the clutter of today’s society. When our American institutions begin to put forth organizational, financial, or personal agenda’s in the way of people finding out facts, I have a real problem with that. If you are an atheist, that’s a belief system; when we are looking for evidence to support or disprove our beliefs, I want the evidence to be objective.

you see, your first problem is looking to the bible for any kind of guidance, especially in the modern world.
#717 Stanton
March 1, 2008

Being a Christian, and professing Christian beliefs, has unwittingly (or possibly, wittingly) been the target of ridicule by academia, the press, and our government.

Your own supreme hubris prevents you from realizing that the only self-professed Christians who deserve and receive ridicule by academia, the press and the government are those who overstep their bounds by demanding that they receive special privileges that they have made absolutely no effort to earn. In other words, Creationism is not a science and never will be a science ever since scientists realized that a literal reading of the Bible is not an accurate depiction of the world as people see it over three hundred years ago. No amount of Hollywood magic or political spin-doctoring will ever change this, especially since the proponents of Creationism today are wholly, physically incapable of demonstrating how a literal reading of the Bible is science. The only people who say that Creationism is a science and that it deserves a place in science curricula are either blasphemous, hypocritical slanderers, or the mouth-breathing saps suckered by the aforementioned slanderers. Both groups deserve every single bit of scorn and ridicule they have rightly earned.

I am a baby-Christian, and I have more questions than the next person. I search for answers to my biblical questions with an open mind to be able to find the truth in the clutter of today’s society.

Unlikely: Those Christians who have enshrined their ignorance as “faith,” such as yourself, have demonstrated they lack the motivation, drive or brain power to ask any questions. Furthermore, I find that, whenever a person boasts of having “an open mind,” that person once left their heads so open that their brains fell out, whereupon the emptied cranium was filled to the brim with useless mental garbage and then welded closed. Furthermore, why do your “biblical questions” take priority over trying to understand Nature and the Universe? Unless, of course, “biblical questions” is a euphemism for “navel contemplation.”

When our American institutions begin to put forth organizational, financial, or personal agenda’s in the way of people finding out facts, I have a real problem with that. If you are an atheist, that’s a belief system; when we are looking for evidence to support or disprove our beliefs, I want the evidence to be objective.

If you had not welded your own eyelids shut, you would realize that Creationists are a group of institutions whose agendas require that people stop finding facts. Your own arrogant ignorance makes you into a raging hypocrite. Furthermore, as once mentioned in this blog, atheism is not a belief system. The lack of belief in the divine is no more a belief system than “off” is a channel on the television set.
#718 Janine
March 1, 2008

God Bless America. You would have been stoned in the middle ages for your blasphemy. America’s belief system of ‘free speech’ is allowing you the right to criticize this movie and its subject, and from what I gather, your right to do so is the underlying issue the movie is addressing.

And most of western and northern Europe is even more secular than the US. Our “blasphemy” is allowed not because big sky daddy blessed this country; it is because brave people all around the world have worked to move us from being dominated by theology.

Being a Christian, and professing Christian beliefs, has unwittingly (or possibly, wittingly) been the target of ridicule by academia, the press, and our government.

Granted, some people from academia are anti-religious but you will also find much more who are. You really do not check out your local book store much.

Are you say that the press is anti-religious? It is just so hard to find religious themed publishing companies and publications.

Um, when was the last time you heard of a president, senator or member of the house of representatives who admitted they were an atheist or agnostic? And under the current administration, you have heard of faith based initiatives.

People feel self-conscious about speaking about their faith in public because of public pressure. In today’s society its okay to be anything but a caucasian Christian male. I dare you to publicly criticize the Islamic, Buddhist, or Native American Indian faiths publicly . . . what, cat’s got your tongue now. That’s what I thought, its not appropriate, but yet somewhere down the line it became appropriate to tarnish the most well documented, well-preserved religion ever!

Life is just so hard for the white christian male in this country. You so very rarely heard from the likes of George W Bush, Pat Robertson, Trent Lott, James Dobson, Bill O’Reilly, Mel Gibson…do I really need to go on. Where is the oppression of christian males?

You have never read this blog before. You are making accusations based on your ignorance. It is not that the cat has our tongue. Please, go over past threads and see the ones where Islam is roasted. As for criticizing Buddhists or Native American believes, rarely do we have to deal with the nut jobs that may follow those paths, unlike the nut jobs that follow christianity of islam. Also, if you think christianity is so well preserved, pleased be advised that there is no documented remnants of the bible until around the four century.

xtiger70, the reason people here are ripping your comments apart is not because we are out to oppress you. (Thought you calling what is happening here “blasphemy” tips off what you would like to do to us.) It is you are basing your rant on a noxious combination of ignorance and stupidity. I would suggest one of two things; either learn more about everything around you or stay away from here. It really is that simple.
#719 mo
March 1, 2008

For someone who claims to be an intellectual, you’re pretty ignorant.

If you watched the movie before attacking it, perhaps you would realize that its not a religious attack on science, but rather pointing out that TRUTH is being withheld and freedom is being suppressed. It dives into a very important issue and simply presents the case and then asks the individuals watching to do what they will with it.

I feel sorry for you that you are so insecure in your beliefs you need to not only defend yourself, but attack others!
#720 MAJeff, OM
March 1, 2008

perhaps you would realize that its not a religious attack on science, but rather pointing out that TRUTH is being withheld and freedom is being suppressed.

In other words, the basis of the film is a lie, and mo doesn’t have the analytical skills or useful knowledge to understand that the problem lies in the very premise s/he is presenting.

So, what’s the problem with calling that out?
#721 Steve_C
March 1, 2008

How dare we attack a lie!!!

Mo, you and your compadres are both boring and predictable.

Bunch of hypocrites.
#722 Brownian, OM
March 1, 2008

If you watched the movie before attacking it, perhaps you would realize that its not a religious attack on science, but rather pointing out that TRUTH is being withheld and freedom is being suppressed. It dives into a very important issue and simply presents the case and then asks the individuals watching to do what they will with it.

PZ is in the movie and we know exactly what lies it contains, you dumb fuck.
#723 Owlmirror
March 1, 2008

TRUTH is being withheld

No, it isn’t.

TRUTH is that which is supported by facts and evidence.

“Intelligent Design” and other forms of creationism are not supported by facts and evidence.

Therefore, no truth is being withheld.

freedom is being suppressed

No, it isn’t.

Freedom of speech is almost completely permitted in the United States of America, where this movie was (mostly) made and is being presented. No-one is preventing the film from being shown. No-one is preventing “Intelligent Design” and other Creationist ideas from being published. Any church in the land is permitted to present apologetics that favor Creationism and “Intelligent Design”.

However, science has higher standards for TRUTH than the United States of America. Science has higher standards for TRUTH than churches. In order to be considered part of science, an idea must be supported by facts and evidence. “Intelligent Design” and other Creationist ideas are not supported by facts and evidence. Therefore, they cannot be taught as science.

It really is that simple.
#724 Brownian, OM
March 1, 2008

Mo, you and your compadres are both boring and predictable.

And gullibly stupid. Go climb back into bed with your sister, you half-witted yokel liar for Jesus.
#725 Bronze Dog
March 2, 2008

Perhaps an IDer would like to provide us with some predictions and experimental results that are being “suppressed?” Heck, I’ve been unable to find any content in ID, unless you’re arguing that the Illuminati suppresses blog comments in real time. I’ve dealt with some IDers at my blog, and not one of them was able to provide any substance.

Quite frankly, it’s the IDers who keep getting caught in shoddy attempts at suppression. Horror of horrors! Someone wrote a review of the sneak peek and didn’t sign the nondisclosure agreement!

Horror of horrors! PZ’s openly challenging the makers to release the whole, unedited interview they performed under false pretenses. What do they do? Chicken out.
#726 Ichthyic
March 2, 2008

If you watched the movie before attacking it

five bucks says “mo” hasn’t actually seen the movie.

takers?

It just sounds SO much like all those demented fuckwits who criticize the God Delusion, and have never actually read a single page, or the critics of “Origins” (like our recent Canadian moron who challenged the title of the book) who also have never read a page of it.
#727 Ichthyic
March 2, 2008

… to clarify, it’s the arguments that sound the same, regardless of whether we are talking about something they criticize (Darwin), or something they support (Behe).

doesn’t matter – it becomes readily obvious they never bother to actually peruse either.

they just project dogma and authoritarianism. It’s in their nature to do so.
#728 Stanton
March 2, 2008

… to clarify, it’s the arguments that sound the same, regardless of whether we are talking about something they criticize (Darwin), or something they support (Behe).

doesn’t matter – it becomes readily obvious they never bother to actually peruse either.

they just project dogma and authoritarianism. It’s in their nature to do so.

In other words, all of the supporters for Expelled! have been repeating the same thing:

I will believe what I was programmed to believe!
-Robot peasant, Futurama
#729 Ichthyic
March 2, 2008

Heh.

essentially, if you substitute peer pressure and conditioning for programming, that about sums it up in a lot of cases, I think.

seriously, how many times have you seen a creobot come here (or pick any science blog, for that matter), rag on Dawkins or Darwin, and we quickly find out they have read neither.

gotta be in the hundreds over the last 3 years or so, yes?

same with Behe and Dembski, but instead of crticism, it is unqualified support.

none of them have the slightest clue what NFL even means (past it being an abbreviation for a popular american sporting league).

what’s more, in this specific case, as was noted far earlier in the thread…

I don’t actually see PZ attacking the movie “Expelled” anywhere in this thread.

Instead, what PZ did is attack a PUBLISHED argument put forward by the producers of the movie. A well thought out attack, based on actual reading from what the producers wrote themselves, I might add.

now if they wanted to attack PZ’s actual argument wrt to the subject of THIS thread, at least that would be relevant.

Instead, It’s like watching a bunch of idiots complaining about something Hitchens said 20 years ago at some random public appearance, on a thread devoted to analyzing a specific argument presented in Dawkins’ God Delusion.

IOW, interesting from a sociological perspective, but that’s about it, really.
#730 Ichthyic
March 2, 2008

…PZ also notes a similar pattern in the producers of “Expelled”:

As far as optimistic theories go, has this bozo ever read the Communist Manifesto? Communism is an incredibly optimistic idea — human beings are perfectable, societies are working towards an inevitable workers’ utopia, etc. It’s highly non-Darwinian, unlike capitalism, which is very Darwinian. It’s like they don’t even think their own arguments through.

They certainly don’t read their critics’ arguments through. Dawkins was just quoted as rejecting Darwinian ruthlessness as a just principle for society, yet here they go off ranting and raving about his pessimism, and the ultimate failure of evolution. It’s insane.

yup. succumbing to the mentality of a cult tends to make one insane alrighty.
#731 MAJeff, OM
March 2, 2008

Heh.
essentially, if you substitute peer pressure and conditioning for programming, that about sums it up in a lot of cases, I think.

Heh, I was gonna say peeyar pressure.

But it’s almost gotten to the point on this one of, who gets comment 1000? Is there a prize?

IOW, interesting from a sociological perspective, but that’s about it, really.

As a sociologist studying public discourse, I can dig into the strategies, but lord, it’s so repetitive and wrong that it just becomes tedious. This is one of those areas that I would hate to have to develop a coding scheme. It would be easy, because the deflection strategies are so blatant (people really are talking past each other), but then you just get the batshit crazy people like our neoconfederate friend above. I’ve done some study of those folks in my MA work (I was focusing more on the Right as an MA student), and, well, wow. One of my teachers from a long time ago studies the Klan. They know her. They know she despises everything they stand for. They still got her back at rallies. It’s bizarre, and it takes a special kind of researcher to be able to dig into those types of movements with any real depth. I’ve pretty much given up on specifically studying the Right, although since sexual politics have always been and tend to remain my central focus, they’re always going to enter into the issues I’m researching.

But, even as a sociologist these folks bore the shit out of me.
#732 Ichthyic
March 2, 2008

Heh, I was gonna say peeyar pressure.

LOL

it’s so repetitive and wrong that it just becomes tedious

you don’t do enough research!

repetitive, boring, and tedious describes a perfect data set!

ever try to actually analyze an “interesting” data set?

ugh.

:p
#733 MAJeff, OM
March 2, 2008

you don’t do enough research!
repetitive, boring, and tedious describes a perfect data set!

I have spent far too much time in front of a screen analyzing hplc results–picking the starting and ending points of the assay–and in trying to get exactly the right concentration of acetic acid out of a stream using membrane separations, recording pressure and pump rates–and having a funded professor who just didn’t want to deal with the problem of the fucking natural azeotrope–the shit just wasn’t gonna work no matter how many things we tried!!!

I have managed to avoid using very much GSS data, though, and I’m grateful for that.

Yeah, I been in the lab watching that shit all night. And I’ve coded all kinds of boring shit. But I would pity the research assistant I gave threads such as these to, though. Not just tedious, but they’ll be dumber by the end of it.
#734 MAJeff, OM
March 2, 2008

And before you yell at me, yes I was writing shit for my dissertation earlier tonight–doing that meso-macro theory connection shit….I’m working, i’m working.
#735 Ichthyic
March 2, 2008

…I’ve done some study of those folks in my MA work

well, there ya go, then. You know that when you see a dataset that is so consistent you don’t even NEED to run statistics on it, that’s an interesting and valuable dataset. It’s the only way I can look at these folks without pulling my hair out (not that even that always works) – they’re of little more interest than another point in a dataset.

I’d like to say I intend to publish a paper on the phenomenon (I actually was compiling a real dataset over the last few years), but there are several that have beat me to it already, in at least two different disciplines.

my favorite being the Science paper that came out last year, which I’m so fond of citing, I’m going to do it again right now, just for the hell of it…

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996

now, back to Carlin, who has a new special on HBO as we speak.

“Where would we be without our bullshit?” he said as I write this…
#736 spurge
March 2, 2008

Ichthyic,

I do not have access to that paper at home.

How do they define “transmitted by trustworthy sources”.

I assume they mean sources perceived as trustworthy?
#737 TheSavant80
March 3, 2008

I’m thrilled this movie is being made. Within my first 3 months of studies, several years back, it became apparent to me that very little in science actually added up to anything credible, especially the theory of evolution. I’m proud to see the brave non-conformist’s (non-sheep?) in the scientific community are willing to stand up for what’s right and contribute to the making of Expelled even at the risk of their own careers.

It’s really quite simple folks; if there’s nothing to hide, then there’s nothing to be afraid of. If the subject Expelled is dealing with is as preposterous as you claim, then you have nothing to worry about. That makes perfectly good sense. Yet one can’t help but notice
the peculiarity of Mr. Myers multiple, lengthy responses. This is clearly a major issue to him. What could he have said that’s apparently consumed the majority of his thoughts and has him so on edge? I can’t wait to find out. Of course I don’t wish harm on anyone, so I do hope he’s not blackballed from his profession and from the scientific communities because of his comments.

As for the notion that the interviews included in Expelled are obsolete because the interviewees were being misled about the subject matter (something the producer denies) – why is that? Should one not expect the same honest answers regardless of who’s asking the questions? The fact that Mr. Myers (and others) is using this as a cop-out clearly indicates he’s made a major boo-boo and is desperately grasping at anything to try and relinquish responsibility for his own actions. In other words – he looks an awful lot like the child caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

I’m also quite amused by the majority of the responses here. The level of anger, frustration, blind arrogance and embarrassing immaturity being projected tells me that Expelled has struck quite the nerve with most of you. Either that, or the majority of responders here are between the ages of 6 and 12. Maybe a little of each. *laugh*

As for those of you saying I.D. is ludicrous – you do realize that there are proponents of I.D. that are far more accomplished and educated than Mr. Myers, and certainly more accomplished and educated than any of you, right? You’d have to be deluded by your own ego to disagree with that statement.

Anyways, I’ve rambled on a bit so I’ll sum it all up: If someone accomplished and knowledgeable has an opinion, regardless of whether or not it differs from your own, it should still be respected. To do otherwise, that’s the definition of being close-minded. You can argue I.D. until you’re blue in the face, but you can’t argue whether or not you’re close-minded, because that’s painfully, and sadly obvious by each and every reply in this blog.

Just once I’d like to see someone with the maturity and the decency to argue without feeling the need to use insults to mask their own frustrations and self-doubt.
#738 Steve_C
March 3, 2008

Fuck off Savant.
#739 Janine
March 3, 2008

So simple, any child can understand; so complex, no atheist can solve.

So, Savant, I see you avoid using insults. Ah, but I see that you saw through all the BS in science after less then one term in college. I stand in awe of you. No. Really.

As for respecting ideas, if the ideas is based and bad information or flat out lies, it deserves none.

Hello, IDiot Savant.
#740 Brownian, OM (AKA SuperGeniusSmartGuyAndDefinitelySmarterThanYou)
March 3, 2008

IdiotSavant, you’re wrong. I can say so because I’m much smarter than you. How can we tell? Simple. My signature proclaims my intelligence to a far greater degree than yours does.
#741 Brownian, OM
March 3, 2008

I wanna go to IdiotSavant’s Church. Being interesting in the truth and thus having nothing to be afraid of, I’m sure they must offer an unparalleled comparative religion education.
#742 MAJeff, OM
March 3, 2008

Posted by: TheSavant80 | March 3, 2008 11:57 AM

BINGO!

What do I win?
#743 Brownian, OM
March 3, 2008

Should one not expect the same honest answers regardless of who’s asking the questions? The fact that Mr. Myers (and others) is using this as a cop-out clearly indicates he’s made a major boo-boo and is desperately grasping at anything to try and relinquish responsibility for his own actions. In other words – he looks an awful lot like the child caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

I’m going to cut the IdiotSavant some latitude here, since I’ve got more than twice the education than s/he does and thus s/he should treat my experience and opinion with respect.

We’re used to the quote-mining by creationists. We know they bluster and speak in sound-bites, since, like the snake-oil salesmen they’re descended from, they have absolutely no respect for those they’re trying to mislead. The only antidote to their poison is information, hence our frustration at the likes of people like, well, you, for instance (I tuk some scool bud i dind’;t like the lernen’ sos i went back to pappyus farm where tehy dont tell us werre frum monkesy).

Now, so far, I’ve avoided using insults in order not to obfuscate my answer. But now that I’ve dispensed with that, and sice I care not a whit what a disingenuous faithbot like yourself thinks, kindly go fuck yourself with a pointy crucifix.
#744 Physicalist
March 3, 2008

Hmmm. Brownian going all TM on the (so-called) savant’s ass. Which reminds me, almost a thousand posts and no TruthMachine in sight? I told you guys that paying it respect would break it!
#745 Kseniya
March 3, 2008

Astonishing hypocrisy from Savant. Well done, Savant! You have exceeded expectations! Collect your prize at the door on your way out.
#746 PZ Myers
March 3, 2008

Yet one can’t help but notice the peculiarity of Mr. Myers multiple, lengthy responses.

If we’re going to make the magnitude of the response an indicator of an absence of substance, I’ll note that the opposition is spending millions of dollars making and distributing a movie. I’m afraid the effort I’ve spent in rattling off a bunch of refutations on a blog is nothing compared to what the Expelled liars have done.
#747 Stanton
March 3, 2008

As for those of you saying I.D. is ludicrous – you do realize that there are proponents of I.D. that are far more accomplished and educated than Mr. Myers, and certainly more accomplished and educated than any of you, right? You’d have to be deluded by your own ego to disagree with that statement.

Two questions, Savant:

1) Please describe all of the contributions Intelligent Design “Theory” has made, and please explain in detail why they are superior to all of the contributions made by the Theory of Evolution.

2) Why didn’t you bother to name any of these Intelligent Design proponents who are more accomplished and more intelligent than Professor Myers? One would get the impression that you are lying.
#748 TheSavant80
March 3, 2008

Very often the truth hurts, and it’s as clear as day that my previous reply struck a nerve with many of you for some strange reason. *laugh*

You are all blinded by your own prejudice and ignorance. I don’t think a comparison to the Ku Klux Klan is entirely out of order. Different beliefs, obviously, but ultimately very similar attitudes. Of course, if you told the KKK they were close-minded, they’d deny it. Sounds vaguely familiar….*laugh*

“The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order which may or may not be divinely inspired.” – Stephen Hawking

P.S. – Janine, that wasn’t my website sweet heart, but thanks for checking it out. *laugh*
#749 Glen Davidson
March 3, 2008

You are all blinded by your own prejudice and ignorance. I don’t think a comparison to the Ku Klux Klan is entirely out of order. Different beliefs, obviously, but ultimately very similar attitudes. Of course, if you told the KKK they were close-minded, they’d deny it. Sounds vaguely familiar….*laugh*

Yes, it sounds like Expelled, without a evidence, and with the venom of hateful losers.

Keep forcing your laughs, loser.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
#750 Stanton
March 3, 2008

Very often the truth hurts, and it’s as clear as day that my previous reply struck a nerve with many of you for some strange reason. *laugh*

Or, it could be that people here have no patience for new Intelligent Design proponent shills who repeat the same lies and taunts over and over again.

You are all blinded by your own prejudice and ignorance. I don’t think a comparison to the Ku Klux Klan is entirely out of order. Different beliefs, obviously, but ultimately very similar attitudes. Of course, if you told the KKK they were close-minded, they’d deny it. Sounds vaguely familiar….*laugh*

Among other things, you have not answered either of my two questions, and secondly, all Klansmen are Christians who have rooted their hatred in both their faith, and a sense of warped patriotism.
#751 Glen Davidson
March 3, 2008

You are all blinded by your own prejudice and ignorance. I don’t think a comparison to the Ku Klux Klan is entirely out of order. Different beliefs, obviously, but ultimately very similar attitudes. Of course, if you told the KKK they were close-minded, they’d deny it. Sounds vaguely familiar….*laugh*

Yes, it sounds like Expelled, without evidence, and with the venom of hateful losers.

Keep forcing your laughs, loser.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
#752 RamblinDude
March 3, 2008

Within my first 3 months of studies, several years back, it became apparent to me that very little in science actually added up to anything credible, especially the theory of evolution.

Wow, I don’t even have to say anything. The statement stands as a monument to stupidity all on its own. It’s like Gish Gallop in reverse. Wow.
#753 Kseniya
March 3, 2008

Savant is impervious to reason. Don’t waste your time. Starve the troll.
#754 Savant80
March 3, 2008

Have you fine people read the story of Guillermo Gonzalez? One of the most sickening things I’ve read in quite a while.

From the article…..

Gonzalez is a more-than-capable research astronomer. According to a Smithsonian/NASA astrophysics database, Gonzalez’s scientific articles from 2001 to 2007 rank the highest among astronomers in his department according to a standard measure of how frequently they have been cited by other scientists. He has published 68 peer-reviewed articles, which beat the ISU department’s standard for tenure by 350 percent. He has also co-authored a standard astronomy textbook, published by Cambridge University Press, which his faculty colleagues use in their own classes.

Yet in turning down Gonzalez’s appeal, ISU president Gregory Geoffroy claimed that the astronomer “did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect.”

Repulsive.
#755 MAJeff, OM
March 3, 2008

Very often the truth hurts, and it’s as clear as day that my previous reply struck a nerve with many of you for some strange reason. *laugh*

Not even wrong.
#756 Steve_C
March 3, 2008

You are repulsive.
#757 Stanton
March 3, 2008

Within my first 3 months of studies, several years back, it became apparent to me that very little in science actually added up to anything credible, especially the theory of evolution. I’m proud to see the brave non-conformist’s (non-sheep?) in the scientific community are willing to stand up for what’s right and contribute to the making of Expelled even at the risk of their own careers.

Either Savant had grossly incompetent teachers as a student, or he, himself, is a grossly incompetent student to begin with.

National Geographic SocietyIn partnership with

Advertisement

Science Blogs

Search National Geographic

Pharyngula

Ahistorical garbage from the producers of Expelled

Comments