Pharyngula

Posted by: 386sx | August 12, 2009 6:30 PM

God mocker/hater...

Posted by: Desert Son | August 12, 2009 6:33 PM

he claims 90% of all dating methods contradict the idea that the earth is millions of years old.

Great! Excellent. This is a good starting point. Now, all he has to do is show the evidence backing up his statement, or point to the scholarly, peer-reviewed documentation detailing such evidence, and . . .

. . . oh, right.

"Try new and improved Ham!(tm) brand Smugness, now with 20% more misinformation! Putting the Ham!(tm) in Sham!"

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 12, 2009 6:35 PM

You have to admire the old fraud for his persistence, don't you? He has such a wonderfully tenuous relationship with the truth.

Posted by: John | August 12, 2009 6:36 PM

These guys start and only use circular arguments?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 12, 2009 6:38 PM

Young Earth Creationists talking about logical fallacies and equivocation?!?!?!?!!!?!?!?

Ok, time to start drinking and go downstairs for some target practice with 16 oz. hammer and a blind fold.

Posted by: John | August 12, 2009 6:40 PM

The next f'er is making me ears bleed. Why cant our starting point be things we can see with our eyes.

Posted by: 386sx | August 12, 2009 6:43 PM

Didn't expect Ham to immediatly go for a low blow & attempt to ignore everything you said by insulting & demonizing you....

Yep he real quick with the ad hominems. He knew he could get away with it too because the time was running out.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2009 6:44 PM

*clutches imaginary pearls* Dear lawdy, a man of dog™ lying on the radio. *looks around for swooning couch for a dramatic fall into it. Looks again at frail couch, decides against it*

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 12, 2009 6:46 PM

he claims 90% of all dating methods contradict the idea that the earth is millions of years old.

And none of these give the same dates, let alone support the dates that he claims from the Bible.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Michael Dickens | August 12, 2009 6:49 PM

This is ridiculous. People like Ken Ham are either intentional liars or they are just hopelessly ignorant. Where could he possibly get the idea that dating methods point to the earth being 6000 years old? I could understand arguing that dating methods don't work, but this is just ridiculous.

Posted by: Ted H. | August 12, 2009 6:52 PM

Of course 90% of all dating methods contradict the idea that the Earth is millions of years old. It's BILLIONS of years old.

Posted by: Josh | August 12, 2009 6:54 PM

Ok, I know PZ already covered it, but in the interests of representing:

Radiometric dating works. Stop fucking lying about it. Superposition works. Stop fucking lying about it. Biostratigraphic dating works. We use it to FIND YOU OIL! Stop fucking lying about it.

The Earth is OLD. Stop fucking lying about it. This is not goddamn fringe science. Stop using science if you're going to decry it, you hypocritical assholes.

You know what Jesus wouldn't do? Be a lying asshole.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 12, 2009 6:57 PM

false equivalence runs strong with this one.

Posted by: 386sx | August 12, 2009 6:58 PM

Lisle is so full of hoo-haw with his faux psuedo poo poo.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 12, 2009 6:59 PM

Uh oh, the hosts just called people who say there is no god fools. I guess I'd better where my jester cap full time, now.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | August 12, 2009 7:02 PM

While I'm sure Ken Ham considers it an insult; "PZ Myers is an atheist" is hardly an ad hominem attack. It's kind of like responding to a rebuttal of an argument by stating "PZ Myers has a beard." If you think about it, it really makes no sense, but we don't expect sense from Ken Ham.

Posted by: Levi in NY | August 12, 2009 7:04 PM

Actually, 94% of numbers creationists cite are just invented out of thin air. The reason is obvious: studies show that people are 3.2 times more likely to believe a claim if it contains a number, and follow-up criticism of the claim is only 27% as likely compared to a claim that does not contain a number.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 12, 2009 7:06 PM

While I'm sure Ken Ham considers it an insult; "PZ Myers is an atheist" is hardly an ad hominem attack. It's kind of like responding to a rebuttal of an argument by stating "PZ Myers has a beard." If you think about it, it really makes no sense, but we don't expect sense from Ken Ham.

um, that's exactly what an ad hominem is.

Posted by: Stuart | August 12, 2009 7:07 PM

Strange really as I listened to a bit of this station a few before Ken Ham appeared and they were talking about how liars will go straight to hell when they die. Oh the irony

Posted by: Dr P | August 12, 2009 7:10 PM

Lisle is so full of hoo-haw with his faux psuedo poo poo.

End of discussion. :)

Posted by: Felix | August 12, 2009 7:14 PM

Presuppositionalism is for hucksters who aim to die rich, lying (!) on a pile of money given to them by simpletons. Lisle is getting comfortable, snuggling up to a well-oiled Ken.

Posted by: Louis | August 12, 2009 7:17 PM

@ Levi in NY # 33:

Wow! Is that true? For some reason I feel compelled to believe everything you say. Do you have any bridges for sale? It's at least 50% likely that I will buy one.

;-)

Louis

Posted by: Mark Johnson | August 12, 2009 7:22 PM

Amazing... I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel. I've read about Zealots before, but you sir take the cake. Your burning faith in evolution can put most nominal Christians to shame. If only they could look to you as an example of sincerity, albeit fallacious. Then again to whom should I compare thee? Mesmer? Rasputin? Quixote? You seem to have time and coviction to slay all windmills.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | August 12, 2009 7:22 PM

Thanks Rev, I stand corrected. I made the common error of confusing ad hominem with argumentum ad personam.

"Wikipedia is my friend" (lather, rinse, repeat).

For that, I'll give you a pass on your next two typos.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 12, 2009 7:25 PM

I heard god hater and atheist, but what was it that he accused PZ of doing outside the museum?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 7:26 PM

Presuppositionalism is for hucksters who aim to die rich, lying (!) on a pile of money given to them by simpletons.

Get Rich or Lie Trying: The Jason Lisle Story

Posted by: James F | August 12, 2009 7:30 PM

The Darwin Finches give Jason Lisle the MST3K treatment. (NSFW)

(This is what you guys saw at the "Museum," right?)

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 12, 2009 7:31 PM

Mark Johnson - A true example of christian humility.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 12, 2009 7:32 PM

"Wikipedia is my friend" (lather, rinse, repeat)."
If only Ken Ham could, at the very least, look at wikipedia. At least he'd have a weak source rather then no source at all (unless of course the bible counts as a credible source. Fortunately it's not, at least not to us.)

Posted by: Desert Son | August 12, 2009 7:34 PM

SC, OM

Get Rich or Lie Trying: The Jason Lisle Story

Pharyngula: come for the discussion, stay for the puns.

Mark Johnson,

Your burning faith in evolution can put most nominal Christians to shame.

Faith requires belief. The evidence demonstrates that evolution happens regardless of whether people believe in it or not, therefore belief is immaterial to evolution. Scientific principles are subject to modification as new evidence supports such changes, regardless of belief. I fear you have conflated evidence in support of a process with the argument from authority. That happens with the faithful now and then.

Thanks for stopping by. If you're in need of further posts to reach the 2,000 word requisite for your coursework, do come again.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 7:35 PM

You seem to have time and coviction to slay all windmills.

projecting fool is projecting.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 7:37 PM

The Darwin Finches give Jason Lisle the MST3K treatment.

Oh, thank you for that. I needed it right now.

Posted by: KevinC | August 12, 2009 7:38 PM

John wrote @11:

The next f'er is making me ears bleed. Why cant our starting point be things we can see with our eyes.

Because faith is the evidence of things not seen. Yes, Creationism is just like NASCAR except that they go in the other direction, so all the turns are to the right.

Presuppositionalist Christianity is just an open admission of defeat. They know that if we start with reality and the best method we have of discovering what is and is not consistent with reality (science), we would arrive at evolution in biology, a 4.5 billion year-old Earth in geology, and the Big Bang theory in cosmology. Natural entities behaving consistent with their nature in a natural Cosmos, with no evidence for any Invisible Magic Persons.

What's interesting about this sort of Christian is that all of the scary beliefs they attribute to atheists--things like post-modernism, nihilism, solipsism, "man decides truth (whatever)," etc.--are things they actually believe in and argue for, with the Bible and Christianity as a kind of escape clause. "See all these horrible ideas? They're inescapable truth, unless you choose unwavering faith in Biblical inerrancy by an act of will, and make that the starting point of your circular reasoning. Time to accept Jesus as your lord and savior!"

That's the whole basis for the "two views" setup in the Creation Museum. Facts are infinitely malleable. They can be looked at through Biblical beer goggles to yield a 6,000 year-old Cosmos in which Alley Oop may have been a historical figure...or they can be looked at through atheist beer goggles to yield a 14-billion year-old evolving cosmos. Presumably this trick ought to work equally well for Hindus, Wiccans, etc.. The key though, is that the Universe itself doesn't get a vote. It's whatever we say it is, by faith. All that's left is to pick a faith.

Posted by: Desert Son | August 12, 2009 7:42 PM

I was declared an official Kentucky Colonel.

You managed Elvis?!?

{/Emily Litella}

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Qwerty | August 12, 2009 7:44 PM

I think the title of Lisle's book should be "The Ultimate Poof of Creation."

Posted by: Andreas | August 12, 2009 7:46 PM

You can hear and/or download the Ken Ham-part here:

http://www8.zippyshare.com/v/3655868/file.html

Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 7:48 PM

I've read about Zealots before,

Really? The originals? I mean, they were rebels and all, but I'm not seeing the connection.

Posted by: Josh | August 12, 2009 7:49 PM

PZ, KY Colonel or not, I'm not saluting you unless you're wearing that tie.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 12, 2009 7:53 PM

wouldn't that make him an advocate of the Big Bang Theory?

I didn't hear anything he said in that half-hour that would lead me to believe that Lisle would be able to accurately phrase anything in the form of a question on a "Things and Astrophysicist Might Say" category on Jeopardy.

Posted by: locklin | August 12, 2009 7:54 PM

Thanks Andreas! Oh, FSM this is bad!

Posted by: MikeM | August 12, 2009 7:57 PM

One thing has been on my mind...

Ken Ham claims that his Confusion Museum uses "the same data to get different results."

At any point during your visit, did you notice any exhibit where the sciency-guys who put together this "Museum" did that? That is to say, that they used actual data from actual experiments to show their differing results?

And I have an O/T question, too: Did you ever get a new car? If so, what kind?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 7:59 PM

oh, thanks. Now I'm hungry for fried chicken.

Yeah, well, that's better than having great Prince songs in your head replaced by this lovely little flashback:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec7uYKKkZK8

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 12, 2009 8:02 PM

Ken Cope - Thank you for trying to tease that out of Hams words. He had gone into hate mode by then, and my ability to hear/understand True Christian seems to be waning.

Posted by: Ibid | August 12, 2009 8:03 PM

claimed that those Christians have all compromised their faith
This is the point at which all further discussion and debate with Ken Ham becomes completely futile. What you saw there and what he's saying here is that Good Christians™ don't use evidence. Good Christians™ deny the facts before their eyes. Good Christians™ gouge out their eyes to better deny their senses. It is pointless even to talk with the man. You can only talk to the people he's trying to sell his snake oil to and try to show them that he's making up everything. There wasn't even a snake involved in the snake oil.

You went to his "museum" expecting him at long last to provide his promised evidence and found none. What you got was an amusement park without rides - a freak show. Final proof that with the greatest minds of Christianity and $27 million they have absolutely nothing to show. Don't look at the man behind the curtain? What curtain?!

The conversation with Ken Ham is over. The debate is over, that is if you believe there ever was debate from his side. All anyone can do is take the conversation to those who have yet to gouge out their eyes, those who still may accept that reality may have something to tell us.

Posted by: Lynna | August 12, 2009 8:11 PM

He accused me of carrying out a debaptism ceremony outside. Not true: it was a fake communion, with a frackin' cracker and a shot of Kentucky bourbon, while I was declared an official Kentucky Colonel.

Looy also accused you of blowing a ram's horn in imitation of someone blowing down the walls of Jericho. You were pretty busy out there, apparently.

Posted by: Qwerty | August 12, 2009 8:15 PM

After all the recent posts, I've finally decided to visit the Spam Museum in Austin, Minnesota (yes, it exists!) instead of Ken' sHam Museum in Kentucky. At least the Spam museum will probably be more accurate and honest about its blatent commercialism.

Ohh, ohh, I've made one of the Rev's typos and put a space in the wrong place. Well, I think it makes more sense now; so, I'll leave it.

Posted by: dave | August 12, 2009 8:17 PM

Otherwise, this "illusion" called now would actually exist.

...and have you ever really looked at the back of your hand??

Tell that to physicists! "Now" is not a physical concept. Perhaps that's because it's hard to separate from "consciousness" (a rather naughty word, these days).

Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 12, 2009 8:18 PM

Barely tangentially on topic-- one of the dangers of being credulous and superstitious:

http://www.kirotv.com/news/20362085/detail.html

Posted by: Lynna | August 12, 2009 8:22 PM

In good news, some megachurch goers are feuding:

Evangelical FEUD Feud develops over control of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church: MIAMI (AP) Descendants of two of the country's most inFluential evangelical leaders Billy Graham and the late D. James Kennedy are feuding over control of a Florida megachurch. Under the leadership of Kennedy, the former pastor who died in 2007, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church was a strong conservative voice on social issues like homosexuality and abortion.
Graham's grandson, Tullian Tchividjian (TUH'-lee-uhn chuh-VID'-juhn), took over earlier this year as pastor. While he has shown no sign of theological differences with Kennedy, Tchividjian has rejected politics as the most important way to change the country.
Six Kennedy loyalists, including his daughter Jennifer Kennedy Cassidy, circulated a petition among members calling for Tchividjian's ouster and have been banned from church property.

http://www.kxmb.com/News/Nation/419521.asp

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 12, 2009 8:26 PM

"What was Ham's LPM (Lies Per Minute)?"

"It's too hard to tell from the stream, we're going to have to go to the tape and wait for the verdict of our Operational Scientists."

"You mean our engineers?"

"Please check your presuppositions at the door, Bob."

Posted by: Qwerty | August 12, 2009 8:27 PM

PZ linked to "the salt argument" which posits the earth could be no older than 62 million years. Even the maximum age of the salt argument is 1,000 times older than Ham's age of the earth as presented in his museum. It would have been great if someone had called him on that.

"Confusion Museum" comment. Nice.

Posted by: zaardvark | August 12, 2009 8:30 PM

I'd like to hear what Ham has to say about asteroid impacts on the Earth. When was the Vredefort crater formed, according to his timeline? Sudbury crater? Chicxulub? Manicouagan? Popigai? Acraman? Where are they in the historical record? Surely we'd all be dead a skizillion times over, but nobody noticed them...

(with thanks to Wikipedia's List of Impact Craters on Earth article).

Posted by: Nic Nicholson | August 12, 2009 8:31 PM

What you forgot to take into account PZ, is that Ken Ham put the salt in the ocean!

At least, according to himself, that it...

Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 8:34 PM

Sane science interlude:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090801.html

Aaahhhhhhh.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 12, 2009 8:35 PM

Ibid - While my heart tells me to agree with you in rowdy spirit, another part of me says no. We have to be seen to have the courage to confront their leaders.

They are slow and stupid, but even the worst can move. In his encyclical of 1950 Pope Pius XII finally stepped over the line for the church with this small little "The church does not forbid..." regarding evolution. And now the catholics teach evolution, through gawd, but still they teach it.

You're right the Hamster won't be swayed, but by bearding him, his followers at least hear us.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 8:40 PM

How can he not be lying with that kind of educational background?

...and Dembski has 2 PhD's from actual respected universities...

you'll keep scratching your head until you realize that compartmentalization affects any brain, no matter how inflated.

Just ask Francis Collins and Ken Miller.

Posted by: Felix | August 12, 2009 8:42 PM

#103 zaardvark,
interesting question. I looked it up:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/crater.asp

Their answer: craters formed either during Creation Week or during other large-scale events like Teh Flud.
You ask, what of the consequences such impacts would have?
Here is their answer: _

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2009 8:46 PM

Just ask Francis Collins and Ken Miller.

Or one who shall no be named, but was threatened with Plonking earlier today...

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 12, 2009 8:50 PM

CS Lewis' trilemma has an unexpected outcome

The lord of lunatics is also a lying asshole? You're right, I wouldn't have expected that to be called a trilemma either.

Posted by: MadScientist | August 12, 2009 8:51 PM

I'd just like to point out that ALL (that's 100% of) relevant dating techniques contradict the ridiculous notion that the earth is millions of years old - the evidence is that the earth is over 4 *billion* years old. At the very least we can say that some very large rocks were formed over 4B years ago and we also know that a planet has to be a certain size for those rocks to be able to form and in the relevant sizes (we need a planetary interior hot enough to melt a range of minerals and that requires a large amount of material).

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 12, 2009 8:57 PM

SC, OM #83

Thanks for that. To clear that from my brain I listened to Eric Clapton singing "St. James Infirmary."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJA21UmUquI

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 12, 2009 8:58 PM

SC, OM | August 12, 2009 8:34 PM #107

Not only sane...beautiful.

Posted by: pettyD | August 12, 2009 9:01 PM

question@46 The official lie in my old fundamentalist church was: Dinosaur fossils were the creations of Satan put there to fool christians into believeing in evolution and rejecting god. Pretty much anything inconvienant to biblical literalisim was the work of Satan, who once you look past the fire and brimstone must be a fun guy. I thought creationists had polished they'r act enough not to be that hokey but when you just make shit up its hard to be creative I guess.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 9:17 PM

To clear that from my brain I listened to Eric Clapton singing "St. James Infirmary."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJA21UmUquI

Nice. Thanks. I have to say, though, that I think I prefer this version from the related vids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kY4sqoUBeM

Posted by: Tom Farrell | August 12, 2009 9:18 PM

PZ, Ken Ham is annoying because you let yourself feel annoyed by him - something I'm sure he probably takes no end of glee about.

I suggest you try, instead, to think of him as a walking talking advertisement of how stupid the creationist argument really is. Everywhere he goes, everything he says, it's an opportunity to show up his stupidity. Come up with a standard set of questions he can't cope with (the one you mentioned about not using the bible was a good one) and spread the questions around, so people can demand answers from him at every opportunity.

Posted by: raven | August 12, 2009 9:20 PM

He claims it's a battle of worldviews, not just science — he's basically conceding that he can't do it.

That isn't true at all. One "worldview" has huge amounts of evidence and was derived by considering that evidence. That's science.

The other "worldview" has no evidence whatsover. It was derived by taking two pages of an ancient document written by bronze age sheepherders and warping the real world to fit in. That is creationism. It is also just plain wrong.

Posted by: raven | August 12, 2009 9:27 PM

The two worldviews and both are equally valid is pure, straight postmodernism.

It's also wrong at least in its application to science. Science is how we understand the real world in detail. The only way it can be fundamentally wrong is if there is no objective reality.

Essentially the fundies are saying that there is no objective reality or that reality is what we say it is. Makes god look a little unnecessary here. If you can create your own reality, who needs gods?

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 12, 2009 9:34 PM

Yay! Satchmo! Who very likely did get Nixon to carry his stash through customs, according to Snopes

Posted by: Bron | August 12, 2009 9:42 PM

It just gets better and better. How can Ham and Lisle sleep at night with their blatant hypocrisy?

Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | August 12, 2009 9:46 PM

This is just like when Bodie Hodge ducking the question when asked how come human and dinosaur remains are nowhere to be found together in the fossil record if what he said about dinosaurs and humans living together is true.

http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.com/2009/07/dinohuman-fail.html

Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | August 12, 2009 9:50 PM

Sorry. Bad grammar. I meant "This is just like Bodie Hodge another AiG member ducking the question when asked how come human and dinosaur remains are nowhere to be found together in the fossil record if what he said about dinosaurs and humans living together is true."

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 12, 2009 9:52 PM

I see an inconsistency (unsurprisingly) in Ham's weaseling ...

[Ham] claims 90% of all dating methods contradict the idea that the earth is millions of years old.

I tried to explain to him that the dating methods used are independent of religion, that both credible Christian geologists and physicists as well as Jewish, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever scientists have reached a consensus on this, but [Ham] just talked over me and claimed that those Christians have all compromised their faith. They are, apparently, not True Christians™.

If the scientists Christians who agree with the dating methods have all "compromised their faith" --- doesn't that mean that the dating methods do not contradict the idea that the earth is millions of years old?

They wouldn't have to "compromise their faith" if the dating methods were as he originally tried to claim.

PS: The earth is too millions of years old. A billion is a thousand million. /pedantry

Posted by: hje | August 12, 2009 9:54 PM

From Lisle bio on the AiG website:

"At the university level, Jason discovered that an important element in scientific study and the drawing of conclusions was this: that scientists usually are not aware of their presuppositions (i.e. they interpret scientific evidence in light of their existing worldview). It thus made it easier for him to see that intelligent scientists, many who were his professors, can disagree on what the evidence really means, for they have different starting points. So as he read creation materials, he could see that when the evidence was properly interpreted, it ***always*** supported the biblical account of creation (even with the thorny question of starlight and time)."

Always! Even with thorny questions! Just chalk it all up to his Trickster god (that Kokopelli is such an amateur), the same one who puts those fossils in the ground to trip up latter day paleontologists.

Of course the context of this claim follows:

"He grew up in a Christian home, and because his family believed in the authority and accuracy of the Bible, he had little difficulty in dealing with the evolutionary bombardment he received in school."

Which means he never seriously considered any other perspective than that he received through weekly brainwashing sessions at his church. And based on my experience, if he every did mention any such doubts at home, at the very minimum he would be given a severe browbeating by his parents and told to go to his room and pray and ask the forgiveness of Jesus for his lack of faith.

And his thesis project must have been fun, given that it takes a million years (oops!) for the photons produced through fusion to make their way from core to surface. I guess they must be tachyonic photons from the future!!!

I mean seriously, in his undergrad and grad classes, was he just sitting in the classroom in courses on stellar evolution or stellar atmospheres and thinking to himself, that's all garbage, but sigh, I'll just have to pretend I believe it's true so I can get my degree and work for the great man, Ken Ham. I wonder how much of physics he actually believes given his readiness to advance post hoc rationalizations of any observation that challenges his vaunted worldview (also known as Bronze Age mythology, re-edited by scribes in light of their exposure to other Mesopotamian mythologies).

It should seem odd to him that those scientists like Richard Feynman, with his silly presuppositions could manage to come up with rock solid theories like quantum electrodynamics--without any reference to the Bible. Apparently Lisle finds other "worldviews" much more convincing, like that of Jack Chick, who explains that it is not the strong nuclear force that holds protons together in the nucleus. but Jesus!

Nothing in his field must mystify Lisle. What is dark energy? It is Jesus! How can quantum mechanics and relativity be unified? Jesus again. Quantum entanglement a puzzle? Not with Jesus. If I was so unchallenged, I would get out of science and do something useful like raise llamas.

Once again I will make the argument that this is not completely about "worldview" or theology or any such high falutin' thing. This is primarily about the desire for money, power, and influence--the evidence for this is always on display at AiG: we're the biggest, we got the smartest, ... blah blah blah. There are several roads to riches in the domain of fundamentalists, and this is but one (and not even the most profitable--just ask Tim :LaHaye).

Posted by: Teflonmonkey | August 12, 2009 9:56 PM

Shit it's shaming hearing an Australian accent on American radio sounding like a retard creationist pimp.

Just to share a little, I just had an epiphany, I've been an atheist for years. But I honestly didn't get it before now. I didn't realize what all the fuss was about with with ken and his cronies. I'm a regular reader here in Australia who grow up in 90% secular communities. Religion of any kind just never got a toe hold where I grew up. But I get it now, I'd be pissed too if this kind of bullshit was mainstream in my neighborhood. I'd be ropeable if it was perverting my country the way I see it in yours now. I feel for you guys growing up and having to put up with this crap in your schools.

Posted by: Teflonmonkey | August 12, 2009 10:01 PM

Hahaha, just heard the bit where PZ calls in, you're a legend mate. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 12, 2009 10:03 PM

SC, OM @ 32:

From wikipedia:

Tao can be roughly stated to be the flow of the universe, or the force behind the natural order. It is believed to be the influence that keeps the universe balanced and ordered and is associated with nature, due to a belief that nature demonstrates the Tao.

From Wookiepedia:

"[The Force is] an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together." ---Obi-Wan Kenobe

The Force was a metaphysical, binding, and ubiquitous power [and] existed in all life, and when great amounts of life passed away a disturbance was created, running through the Force like a scream . . .

:)

Posted by: raven | August 12, 2009 10:06 PM

No where else in this Galaxy that we currently know of is complex Life possible, but Earth. Mars maybe had it once, but earth sustains it.

This is stupid. How much of the galaxy have we really looked at for life?

One planet, earth. Even Mars has only been superficially examined.

With a sample size of one, making sweeping conclusions is way too early.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 12, 2009 10:10 PM

There are some excellent renditions of "St. James Infirmary" on YouTube. Cab Calloway's and Louis Armstrong's are the best known, but other covers of this archtypical blues song are also good.

Posted by: No BS | August 12, 2009 10:13 PM

Mark McPherson,

What PZ did with the wafer is nothing compared to what the orthodox church has to say about catholicism.

I don't look at AiG as a religion as much as a voting block. To me they are nothing more than a manifestation of a Straussian "noble lie".

And I'm sorry but I do hold expectations higher than that of political expediency.

And by the way, though I do try and meter myself, you asked for it.

Fuck off.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 12, 2009 10:15 PM

Earth--the only world with life in the entire universe!

Now now, he only said galaxy, but charitably may have been referring to the Solar System. "that we currently know of" is at least a claim that his/our knowledge is provisional, subject to future revision, which [F]aith jolly FCCing well isn't. That, in fact, is a big honking clue about WHY science and faith are not compatible but are, in fact, in conflict--not resolvable except via willful ignorance, stupidity, delusion, deceit, narcissism, or, at best, compartmentalization.

Jettison the faith--it's an atavism, a Gouldian spandrel that only enslaves and cripples minds.

Posted by: Chris P | August 12, 2009 10:24 PM

With the news recently that women wearing pants are likely to be flogged in one country because of religious beliefs one wonders whether Christian women are being disrespectful when they wear pants.

Have the religious got together and compiled a complete disrespectful stuff list so that we can be sure we are not being disrespectful. Ham wants us to be respectful to the catholics - why not muslims too - and by logical extension - atheists. Some Christians think atheism is a religion.

It all gets rather silly just because the religions cannot agree.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 12, 2009 10:24 PM

Mark McPherson - Catholics don't fare too well here. We have long memories, hanged relatives, and in general hate genocide and torture.

The only thing I can say to you regarding the school yard bullying and language is, if you don't like it, fuck off.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 12, 2009 10:30 PM

Mark McPherson @ 140:

No where that I have seen does any scientist have definitive or absolute "proof" of our origins.

Nor do they claim to.

you followers of a fundamentalist scientism, thinkers and promoters of "sola ratia", reason alone, you are . . .

The straw men against whom you wish you were arguing?

I can get into the reasons why stealing the Eucharistic bread out of the Catholic Mass would be considered a hate crime,

A hate crime is a crime motivated by hate. Stealing some bread could be a hate crime if the criminal committed his act out of hate. Otherwise, it's not a hate crime. Pretty simple, actually. If you believe Dr. Meyers hates Catholics, you'll have to maintain that belief through faith as well.

just as it also a hate crime to kill another person; be they Christian, Atheist or whatever.

Again, if the motive for the killing is hatred of the group to which the victim belongs, it's a hate crime. If not, it's not.

I am not a Creationist. . . . I do believe that Life here on earth is the masterpiece of God's Creation.

:)

Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 10:35 PM

So the Hamster actually called you by your NAME? I wonder if his tongue caught fire after that.

Yeah, but I bet PZ wouldn't bother to piss down Ken's throat if it was.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 12, 2009 10:43 PM

Chris P -

The woman shall not wear which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord thy God.

Deut. 22:5

In other words the punishment for women wearing pants, or a man wearing a dress is the same as for the homersexurals, stoning.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 10:46 PM

Yah! I wasn't criticizing you. Just joining in the fun. :)

Ah! Just making sure. :)

***

Thanks, Ken. I was curious.

***

PS: The earth is too millions of years old. A billion is a thousand million. /pedantry

Then isn't it also dozens of years old? ;o

Posted by: Fundie | August 12, 2009 10:51 PM

Mark McPherson - Catholics don't fare too well here. We have long memories, hanged relatives, and in general hate genocide and torture.

The only thing I can say to you regarding the school yard bullying and language is, if you don't like it, fuck off.

And that's why I really don't bother to follow this blog anymore.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 12, 2009 10:53 PM

BTW, Lubna Hussein's trial for "sensational dressing up" has been postponed until September 7th. (I have links to informational sites at my blog.)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 12, 2009 10:58 PM

No where that I have seen does any scientist have definitive or absolute "proof" of our origins. Have we been created? Was this planet seeded? Was there a primordial ooze that all of life sprung from? Is the human race alien to this planet? These are the questions that face us today. These are rational questions.

Yes, rational questions that scientists at least attempt to answer rationally with this thing we call... science. Using supported and test theories that back up that they put forth. No where do the religious do this. NO. WHERE.

I am not a Creationist.

Well goody for you. Yet you belong to an organization that throws its weight around to discriminate against people because of who they love. And organization that used a fair amount of its energy defending and hiding the fact that their employees systematically sexually abused and raped a not insignificant portion of their believers. You believe that a cracker, A FUCKING CRACKER, can be transformed in to the body of a 2000 year old Jewish carpenter whose daddy sent down to earth to suffer for the sins of the human race. Sins that this same daddy created even though he is all powerful. Yeah, seems really cool to punish people for something you specifically are responsible for.

Yep, you're a really rational person.

I do believe that there is an Order to things.

Belief means shit without something to back it up. Order in what way?

No where else in this Galaxy that we currently know of is complex Life possible, but Earth.

Right, and following what your religion likes to do that settles it. However scientists and rational thinkers will continue to expand our horizons until we can answer these questions.

Mars maybe had it once, but earth sustains it.

Maybe....

And we can see rationally that Life adapts to the changes of the climate of the earth, Life evolves.

Yes we can. Your point? Just because you accept evolution but insert god like in your next sentence does that mean we should accept you as rational?

I do believe that Life here on earth is the masterpiece of God's Creation.

There's that word believe again. You can believe anything you want, and I support you in that. But you can't assert it without support.

We, as human beings are created "after His Image, His Likeness.

God gets hemorrhoids?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 12, 2009 11:00 PM

Fundie - Then why are you here? Just so you won't feel slighted, you can fuck off too. Forgive that.

Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | August 12, 2009 11:14 PM

Mark McPherson:

When I hear the word "scientism", I reach for my gun.

No, actually, when I hear the word "scientism", I know that what follows is pseudo-intellectual ignorant bullshit. Saves a LOT of time...

Posted by: me | August 12, 2009 11:16 PM

And that's why I really don't bother to follow this blog anymore.

Prudes who complain about corse language are some of the most insufferable pricks on the planet. Also, if you post some incredibly ignorant bullshit, expect to be bullied.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 11:17 PM

Isn't that a little bit more harmful of a lie than ID/Old Earth Creationism or deism?

I throw that question right back atya:

Is it?

Actually, given what's happened to school districts, and the legislation that's been introduced mucking with science standards in various states since the concept of ID was invoked...

I'd suggest it isn't.

creationism, inane as it is, is obviously wrong to anyone with any sense left. ID otoh is a much slicker lie, and obviously has drawn in more suckers.

*shrug*

which offends more: the bald lie, or the insidious one?

Posted by: Roger | August 12, 2009 11:24 PM

Oh, poor Fundie's pwecious Jeebusy feelings are hurt? Aw.

Fuck off.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 11:28 PM

Leave Ken Ham to grow. Eventually fundamentalism will die off.

at the risk of Godwining the thread, so says Neville Chamberlain.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 12, 2009 11:37 PM

Mark McPherson concern-trolled:

It is possible to have Faith and Reason co-exist within the thought process

Only if you water down faith to the point that it's basically nothing more than the postmodernist view that all ideas are equally valid. Anything beyond that, and no, it is not possible.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 12, 2009 11:43 PM

Aratina - Taking your question seriously, we find ourselves in another good christian dilemma. A cassock is worn by both sexes in some christian sects, and only worn by men in catholic sects.

Personally I'll take the catholic view and say stone them all. Ready when you are. :)

Posted by: aratina cage | August 12, 2009 11:49 PM

@Ichthyic

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I was thinking more along the lines of how Young Earth Creationism spreads misinformation across more fields of knowledge than just evolutionary biology as opposed to ID which yearns to discredit only evolution.

From the Creation "Museum" tour, we see them obfuscating logic, genetics, paleontology, geology, archeology, botany, cosmology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, etc.--you name it, they say "Goddidit." Basically, any person who is indoctrinated in Young Earth Creationism will be woefully misinformed, essentially incapable of critical thinking and unable to perform any scientific endeavor. Still, after seeing Dembski's course curriculum, ID isn't looking like a much better alternative.

As long as we shut the door hard when IDers get their foot in the door, we should be OK in the public sector. However, the slippery slope (that's what happens if we can't shut the door on ID) ends with Young Earth Creationism or some other kind of theocracy. So, yes, in that respect stopping ID is much more important.

Posted by: Mark Johnson | August 12, 2009 11:51 PM

Desert Son writes:

"Faith requires belief. The evidence demonstrates that evolution happens regardless of whether people believe in it or not, therefore belief is immaterial to evolution. Scientific principles are subject to modification as new evidence supports such changes, regardless of belief. I fear you have conflated evidence in support of a process with the argument from authority. That happens with the faithful now and then."

However:

Faith in evolution requires belief. The theories suggest that evolution happens depend on whether people believe in it or not, therefore belief is material to evolution. Scientific principles are subject to modification as new fads dictate what is fashionable in order to support such changes, depending on one’s original belief. I fear you have conflated what is currently in vogue in support of a process with the argument from the scientific Sanhedrin. That happens with followers now and then.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 12, 2009 11:58 PM

The theories suggest that evolution happens depend on whether people believe in it or not, therefore belief is material to evolution.

Amazing.

How stupid do you have to be to say that, since something occurs regardless of belief, belief is material to that something?

GRAVITY IS REAL WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT. Belief is IMMATERIAL to gravity.

EVOLUTION IS REAL WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT. Belief is IMMATERIAL to evolution.

If you're honestly advocating the idea that something MUST be accepted on belief, I suggest that you disbelieve gravity and walk off a tall building.

Scientific principles are subject to modification as new fads dictate what is fashionable in order to support such changes, depending on one’s original belief.

Science changes when we gain a better understanding of reality. Fads have nothing to do with it. Go troll someone less intelligent.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 12, 2009 11:58 PM

Why does anyone even bother to respond to someone who uses "scientism" as a term in an argument?
Tells you all you need to know, really.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 13, 2009 12:05 AM

Mark Johnson @ 197:

Faith in evolution requires belief.

None of us has "faith" in evolution.

The theories suggest that evolution happens depend on whether people believe in it or not, therefore belief is material to evolution.

Whether something is true is independent of what people believe. The only question is how one forms her beliefs of what is true or false. If I believe without evidence or in the face of contradictory evidence, I have faith. If I believe based on evidence, and I am open to the notion that I could be wrong, I do not have faith.

Scientific principles are subject to modification as new fads dictate what is fashionable

You're a comedian?

. . . a process with the argument from the scientific Sanhedrin.

Oh, no. Just crazy.

It's okay, though. I have faith that you do not really exist. And that belief comforts me. Don't retort by telling me that you do, for you cannot prove to me that you exist, and I have a right to my beliefs.

I can also give you an irrefutable, airtight argument to prove that you do not exist: It is impossible for a person to have an IQ under zero. You do. Ergo . . .

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 13, 2009 12:10 AM

No where that I have seen does any scientist have definitive or absolute "proof" of our origins. Have we been created? Was this planet seeded? Was there a primordial ooze that all of life sprung from? Is the human race alien to this planet? These are the questions that face us today. These are rational questions.

Indeed they are. But what answers do you offer? Science has shown where the gaps in the knowledge are, taken what human knowledge there is an expanded it with time and perseverence. It's important to remember just what has been accomplished since the birth of the enlightenment era. It's truly astounding just how far we have come.

There are unknowns, yes. But consider what placing a God in those unknowns does. It makes a God of the gaps, that God becomes an expression of human ignorance rather than of knowing. This way God doesn't tell us anything about the universe itself, and tells us absolutely nothing at all about God.

Now follow this logic on through a journey back in time. We had no idea how we originated 200 years ago. The rational questions would be "where did we come from?" "How did we get here?" We now have these answers and it wasn't god but the forces of the universe interacting blindly. Perhaps the biggest question of our existence was answered by Charles Darwin among others since.

Likewise almost everything in the universe now has a natural cause. There are still elements we don't know about, like the origin of life itself or the breaking of supersymmetry in the first 10^-35 of the universe beginning, but these are minor details. What we've seen is a universe that runs without the need for theistic intervention.

I put it to you that the big questions of today are an attempt to keep a bronze age answer still alive. But honestly, what room is there for a theist deity in this universe? At best you have what I call anthropic deism, that is that God is a breaker of supersymmetry and a crafter of a protocell.

But this is not what a belief in God should be formed on, it should never be an absence of explanation, lest it is no better than any attempt by any other religion doing the same. God would be build on a foundation of nothing. Instead there should be reasons to believe in a divine hand in nature that come from observation of the world as opposed to lack there of. i.e. what does one mean by God?

To approach these questions courageously and boldly, one must approach them with an open mind; without presuppositions or assumptions and ultimately follow the path where the evidence is leading. It's not about justifying pre-existing beliefs but finding the truth in whatever form it takes. Until such time as there is sufficient reason to believe, why try to put unfounded answers into questions when "I don't know" is the only honest response one can give?

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 13, 2009 12:22 AM

Faith in evolution requires belief. The theories suggest that evolution happens depend on whether people believe in it or not, therefore belief is material to evolution.

Let's try this again...

Faith in gravity requires belief. The theories suggest that gravity happens depend on whether people believe in it or not, therefore belief is material to gravity.

Because if people didn't believe in gravity, everything would just float in mid-air. It's why when Newton invented gravity in the 17th century, things started falling to the ground... Just as everything was created until 1859, then Darwin made things start to evolve by bringing about evolution...

Of course a better explanation would be that science modifies itself to fit the evidence and thus is a tool for explaining reality. It's the best tool we possibly have because it constantly corrects any errors and pushes us towards a deeper and deeper understanding of nature. Modern evolutionary synthesis is the best explanation we have right now for the facts we see in zoology, palaeontology, biochemistry, anthropology, ethology and genetics. It has 150 years of peer reviewed evidence on its side, millions of scientists of all religious beliefs around the world crafting a theory that can truly explain what we see in the organic world.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 13, 2009 12:24 AM

Aratina - For stones I suggest marsmallows, they are harmless, but sinners would get the point. And think, how much fun would it be just to stone your friends that are sinners?

Braided hair, leather shoes/cotton pants, gold jewelry, women with short hair...it goes on and on. Save your large marshmallows for those ungodly fiends that worship a false idol with a noodly appendage. :p

Posted by: Fundie | August 13, 2009 12:31 AM

Prudes who complain about corse language are some of the most insufferable pricks on the planet. Also, if you post some incredibly ignorant bullshit, expect to be bullied.

That's funny, I don't recall mentioning anything about coarse language. Actually the reason that I don't frequent this blog anymore is because it's no longer a science blog. There's no healthy debate going on here. It's a blog aimed at spewing forth hatred toward Christianity. Let me quote a few recent posts:

Fundie - Then why are you here? Just so you won't feel slighted, you can fuck off too. Forgive that.

Here's another great one:

Oh, poor Fundie's pwecious Jeebusy feelings are hurt? Aw.

Fuck off.

Yeah, good stuff. Hey PZ, are you listening? It's your blog, do with it as you will, but I have to wonder if this the direction you want your blog taking...

Posted by: Geoffrey of Ballard | August 13, 2009 12:32 AM

Off topic, Pharyngula is now the 6th result on Google when searching for Creation Museum!

http://www.google.com/search?q=creation+museum

Posted by: Daniel M | August 13, 2009 12:34 AM

he actually used the "no true Scottsman(tm)" argument, with a straight face?

Posted by: John B. Sandlin | August 13, 2009 12:36 AM

Posted by Ken Cope at #148 on August 12, 2009 9:56 PM:

It is possible to have Faith and Reason co-exist within the thought process.

Only if you define not-thinking as co-existing with thinking. You pray for us, we'll think for you.

This one wins teh Intertubes.

Seriously, this at least deserves a t-shirt.

JBS.

Posted by: Lynna | August 13, 2009 12:36 AM

Patricia, it's a great relief to me to learn that I'm still on track for an A in Christian Nonsense.

I understand that strong drink helps, per your example. It looks like I'll have to stock up so I can self-medicate every time I make a mistake. (God Himself must be a drunkard by now, come to think of it.)

Stoning with marshmallows as punishment for sins is inspired! (@209). Most excellent.

Braided hair? I had forgotten that one. What the hell are all those FLDS women thinking?

Posted by: Geds | August 13, 2009 12:39 AM

Fundie: Yeah, good stuff. Hey PZ, are you listening? It's your blog, do with it as you will, but I have to wonder if this the direction you want your blog taking...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You know, right now I'm finishing up a blog post that ends in a half-assed attempt to explain why Christians of a certain persuasion think the rest of us are actually shamed by these snide remarks about our use of coarse and/or vulgar language.

I've got news: we don't give a shit. It's the fucking internet. Get it through your goddamned head that we're not sitting in your god-damned, fucking pew on a boring ass Sunday fucking morning listening to some self-important jackass of a pastor tell us how horrible we are because we're a bunch of fucking sinners. Go. The. Fuck. Away. We're not fucking listening.

Whew. Got that off my chest...

(Was it too much? Or should I throw in some more gratuitous swearing next time?)

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 13, 2009 12:41 AM

This one wins teh Intertubes.

If only even most of it were original. "You pray, I'll think" is pretty much Old Atheist trad. To incorporate a turn of phrase from a sysadmin pal of mine, and make it something that would fit on a t-shirt or b-sticker:

Faith is Reason in the "Not" Mode

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 13, 2009 12:44 AM

Ken Cope, #126

Homeopathy has the advantage of providing water to ease your thirst.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 13, 2009 12:48 AM

Jennifer @210 - No, my mom & I were there last year. Dang, sorry to miss you!

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 13, 2009 12:51 AM

Homeopathy has the advantage of providing water to ease your thirst.

When you consider how many millions of times it has been diluted and realize that water is basically homeopathic sewage, how thirsty were you really?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 12:55 AM

Aaaaaaaaaaand Mark Johnson spins off, grinning crazily.

Thanks for playing, Mark. Enjoy your parting gift.

Posted by: GMacs | August 13, 2009 12:59 AM

There was really a creationist at NASA?

You know, my dating methods don't contradict Old Earth. In fact, they don't even have anything to do with that. I'm just trying to get l... oh, different kind of "dating".

Posted by: John B. Sandlin | August 13, 2009 1:04 AM

Posted by Mark Johnson at #197 on August 12, 2009 11:51 PM

Faith in evolution requires belief.

I don't have faith in evolution. I don't pray to it to solve my personal delimmas, I don't trust it to accomplish anything good or wonderful or useful for me. I don't take it at face value that it is true simply because an authority figure says so. I don't believe in evolution.

However, I do find that as a model of how species change over time and as an explanation for what the evidence, the facts, of the fossil record show and laboratory and field observations of several species that have changed in our time, the theory of evolution works quite well.

I don't need faith to find the model useful to explain the facts. I don't need faith to accept that because the model works so well that it likely is a close approximation to reality. Thus I accept for now, provisionally until something better comes along (that we will in all likelihood call evolution too), the current theory commonly called evolution.

The theories suggest that evolution happens depend on whether people believe in it or not, therefore belief is material to evolution. Scientific principles are subject to modification as new fads dictate what is fashionable in order to support such changes, depending on one’s original belief. I fear you have conflated what is currently in vogue in support of a process with the argument from the scientific Sanhedrin. That happens with followers now and then.

I fear you have horribly misunderstood our position. We will not any longer idly stand-by while someone knowingly tries to mislead us, our friends and children, and the world. We have for many decades (well, I'm enough decades old to say that at least, I'm not sure about the rest of us here) let slide the Creationist baloney in the assumption that it is just a passing fad and will fade into ignominy. Instead, it seems to be growing rapidly. It needs pruning - badly.

Thus you see our barbs, our sheers, the tools necessary to simultaneously call attention to their fouls and to redress their lies. Crude and plain language do more at this point than eloquent speeches - no one is listening to the quiet gentle voices.

Do not mistake our understanding of the science and reliance on the model for faith. Faith happens when you have no hard evidence to believe what someone tells you is true and yet you believe. Understanding is when you know something is right because all the evidence indicates it is, you don't have to take someone's word for it unless you're lazy.

Faith is a curse word, it is the crudest and foulest of language, and Christians use it freely not understanding this. Faith is what the con artist relies on to fool you. Faith is how you know and believe in something that isn't. And to borrow the quote already used in this thread. Reality is that which remains even after you no longer believing in it.

Evolution does not require us to believe in it to be so. It was there all along while none of us believed in it. If we all stopped accepting it's reality today, it would still be true. Evolution is that which remains when you cease to accept it. The evidence continues to point to the reality of evolution regardless what preconceptions you begin with. Only those lying about it can say otherwise.

JBS

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 13, 2009 1:09 AM

@#233
I'm sure Ken Ham fails at both types of dating methods. ;)

Posted by: ex-christadelphian | August 13, 2009 1:13 AM

It kind of all goes to show that there should be a law against making false assertions against established truth.

Oops, it depends on who decides what established truth is. At one time, the Christian Church was the decider of what established truth was - and the truth was that the earth was the center of the universe.

So, how to stop liars, that is the real question. Education, that is the answer. First though, the folks in charge of our governments need to be educated in things other than politics and how to kiss the religious majority's ass.

I kind of blame it on scientists who haven't been open to the public about anything they find until 40, or 75, or 100 years after they discover something. Who wants to spend $150 on a book that won't even show up in a library for 50 years?

I waited nearly my whole lifetime to hear the details about a scientific discovery that was announced when I was a child, 50 years ago. That ain't gonna get it folks, that is not going to get it. Scientists are going to have to put the information out there and worry about their book writing later.

Posted by: GMacs | August 13, 2009 1:18 AM

So, the dinosaur section of AiG website is hilarious. I love the picture of the dinosaurs, including a big fierce T-rex, eating leaves.

They also refer to Behemoth, which I remember learning here most likely referred to a hippo, which makes sense since they say Behemoth sits in a river. Even while the floods rage.

Fucking idiots and liars. Fuck, I just heard the "God-hater" line. My god the fucker is trying to censor you.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGH! *misses football and falls on ass*

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 13, 2009 1:22 AM

Faith in evolution requires belief. The theories suggest that evolution happens depend on whether people believe in it or not, therefore belief is material to evolution. Scientific principles are subject to modification as new fads dictate what is fashionable in order to support such changes, depending on one’s original belief. I fear you have conflated what is currently in vogue in support of a process with the argument from the scientific Sanhedrin. That happens with followers now and then.

Prove it.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 13, 2009 1:26 AM

Just above the list of recent posts, which has * Ken Ham, on the air, LYING again at the top of the list, Random Quote was by my hero Frank Zappa: "It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side."

Wow. Dumb all over, and a little ugly on the side. Zappa smites Ham from beyond the grave.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 13, 2009 1:30 AM

Dear Mr. Ham

Stop passing of lies. We wouldn't bash on you so much if you didn't pass off BS as truth with such zeal as you are doing now.

ME

I visited the AiG site. Was I ever completely pissed that they insist that the skull of Java man was really a gibon when evidence points to Homo Erectus. Plus it's not like it was only skull found in Java. But I was even more pissed that they manage to convince people to argue the incorrect view on Wikipedia so that they can pass of their incorrect views as truths to uninformed visitor. Deplorable.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 1:32 AM

There are parting gifts for trolls? Man, and here I decided to try for the respectable route.

Yes, well, the parting gifts are cheap steak knives. The reward for character is

Eh, fuck. I'm an existentialist. And I'm poor. :)

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 13, 2009 1:36 AM

"Fish fornicate in it"

After a good atmospheric sussication does that really matter?

(I have no idea if 'sussication' is a real homeopathic term, but if it aint it should be.)

Posted by: Michael Dickens | August 13, 2009 1:42 AM

More than ten posts in one day . . . wow. That's a lot even for you.

Posted by: St.B | August 13, 2009 1:52 AM

Can’t say I’m sorry to have missed it. But why waste time listening to an airbag repeat his same lame mantra of codswallop? I think I must be getting old and cranky. My ability to remain stoic in the face of idiots spewing their inanities grows weaker. The logic of devaluing Mr. Myers comments based on being an atheist, well I missed that part of science class that said “facts change due to beliefs.” Guess Ham was home sick the day they explained what facts were.

Posted by: Desert Son | August 13, 2009 2:03 AM

Ok, I love visiting here, but I've played too much on the Internet tonight, so it's off to bed.

Night, y'all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaDOnOWX7Yc

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: SC, OM | August 13, 2009 2:15 AM

Night, y'all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaDOnOWX7Yc

*claps* Night, Robert.

Posted by: MutantJedi | August 13, 2009 2:27 AM

Qwerty #36,
That's the point. The god of Ham is a liar that bends even space and time just to trick the arrogant wise of Earth, those who rely on their own reason and do not submit to him.

Nerd of Redhead #142,
Following you until you started trashing books. There's no reason to trash books.

What to think about Ham?... I understand his delusion. His standard of truth is a version of book cobbled together over thousands of years by many old men with their own political agendas... but it is his truth. Everything is measured by it. He can use science in application to build a bridge but it can only go half way. He can accept the science that puts together the Hubble telescope, launches it into orbit, and send back wonderful images of the universe. But he can't let that same science tell him how far the stars are or how old his planet is. The Bible trumps knowledge.

Is Ham a liar, meaning he knows what he is saying if false? He really doesn't care if the "science" he throws out is valid or not as long as it muddies the water. For example the salt in the oceans argument. He doesn't care if his information is bogus because he believes that it is bogus anyhow. To him, the oceans were created as they are now. When challenged about the details of something from the secular world, a world that is, by definition, corrupted and false, he has no problem whipping up a patch for it. It is like when a child asks about how can Santa Claus get to every house in one night and the parent makes up a story to preserve the myth. The parent doesn't care if the story has holes in it as long as the child isn't distressed.

Of course, the story is a lie. Ham's stories are lies too. And he knows it just as much as every parent who has told a Santa Claus lie to their child knows it. Hence, Ham is a liar. But compartmentalism helps him to not stain his mythology with the lies. The Bible also trumps truth.

Posted by: MutantJedi | August 13, 2009 2:50 AM

The next guy in the radio show... the ultimate proof guy... he's slick.

Posted by: John Vaughn | August 13, 2009 3:18 AM

Mark Johnson, #226

It just so happens that you don't know what you're talking about. But that's OK, I'll fill you in: evolution and gravity are both observable facts, and modern scientific theories describe them well. The theory of evolution and general relativity have similar explanatory power. In preparation for your next post, try studying more basic science, and spare us your idiotic ramblings about the Sanhedrin.

Posted by: Reynold | August 13, 2009 3:37 AM

Geds at 221:
I've got news: we don't give a shit. It's the fucking internet. Get it through your goddamned head that we're not sitting in your god-damned, fucking pew on a boring ass Sunday fucking morning listening to some self-important jackass of a pastor tell us how horrible we are because we're a bunch of fucking sinners. Go. The. Fuck. Away. We're not fucking listening.
 
You do realize that I, and probably many more, will now be using that as their sig line on various forums, right?

Posted by: chrisD | August 13, 2009 6:22 AM

Posted by: Bron | August 12, 2009 9:42 PM

It just gets better and better. How can Ham and Lisle sleep at night with their blatant hypocrisy?

By spooning each other.

Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 13, 2009 6:38 AM

Well I think I've just discovered one MORE of Ken Ham's lies.

This is a picture that was taken during the famous visit at the "Creation Museum":

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-dxg8gReUqE/SoDCkMgLPgI/AAAAAAAAAS8/4dF05X1WVEY/s1600-h/HPIM2661.JPG

Next to Voltaire's face, you can read:
"In the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, the infidel philosopher Voltaire forecast that within a century no Bibles will be left on earth. But fifty years after he died, the Geneva Bible Society took over his house and printing press to produce thousands of Bibles."

(Oh the irony!)

I had already herad something rather similar. One day, my wife came back from mass (she's a Polish Catholic) saying that the priest, in his sermon, had said that according to Voltaire, "the Nazarean would be forgotten within a hundred years" (but he still isn't).

Strange story. Voltaire fought personally against the Church, in a time where it was powerful enough to get you locked up in jail, or sentenced to death. He knew it was a close ally of the monarchic state, that is was very rich and tha millions of people listened blindly to the priests. So these purported quotes seemed very naive to me, and therefore very unlikely.

Then I looked on the Web, and I saw the quote with the Bible parroted on numerous religious Websites.

And then, a simple Google search led me to the following document :

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:DiM_UfWfInUJ:www.bibletoday.com/htstb/Geneva%2520Bible%2520Society%2520Voltaire%2520Email.pdf+voltaire+geneve+bible&hl=fr&gl=fr

In other words: the Geneva Bible Society recives requests about this story from time to time. Their answer is clear: the story is false. According to them, Voltaire's house, 47 rue de Clichy, was taken by the British and Foreign Bible Society (but they don't say when). Today it is the seat of the French Protestant Federation. Somewhat ironic, ok, knowing that Voltaire didn't like Protestants very much (but he still took the defence of the Protestant Calas family when they were unjustly accused). But it's not a lot.

I've e-mailed to Bible Society to know when they installed their Parisian office. Voltaire died in 1778, so 50 years after would be 1828.

Now, the important part are the quotes themselves. So I've e-mailed the people I suppose are the top Voltaire specialists: the Société Voltaire. I'm sure it's not the first time they have this kind of question. I suspect this will all end up as another "Lady Hope" story. I'll keep you informed when I have an answer.

Afterthought:
Voltaire died more than 2 centuries ago (and he's certainly not forgotten!). Isn't it nice to see that some religous group still hate him so much that they'd use any mean (including dishonest ones) to win a posthumous voctory against him... ?

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 13, 2009 7:21 AM

But one thing is true, I have read several accounts here today of the faithful... those who march lock step with the Sanhedrin. Come now people raise your hands... wiggle those fingers... repeat after me; "I believe... I BELEEEEVE."

That's right, Mark, you're such a REBEL. Fight the powers that be! You're not one to let yourself be swayed by silly things like evidence and observed fact. You KNOW better! You're the best scientist EVAR!

Posted by: Daniel M | August 13, 2009 7:39 AM

talking about writing nothing but insults, the esteemed (by some) Martin Luther (the original) nailed his "blog post" to the doors of the catholic church.

having read it, it's a brilliant piece of a formal rant.

I wonder if that pantywaister Mark would point a finger so strongly at a man of the cloth?

Posted by: Marty | August 13, 2009 7:57 AM

I think its pious fraud. I suspect he doesn't believe his own bullshit, but does believe that the supernatural, miracle infused world in which he believes is just a tad outside the comfort zone of most people. Since salvation is all that matters a little fraud for the greater good is his (particular brand inserted here) God inspired mission. Illusions of grandeur.

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | August 13, 2009 8:40 AM

Zzzt, crackle, crackle, bzzt.

And the thread news so far, bought to you by your teapot in the sky.

Earlier today, at comment 140, a small faithquake occurred that measured a 0.9 on the Teapot scale, causing little damage, merely rattling a few tea cups.

This was followed at comment 197 with a second, different faithquake, measuring a mere 0.5 on the Teapot scale. Although not as strong as the first, it was followed by several smaller aftershocks.

No conversions have been reported so far.

And now, over to Mrs Teapot, who will demonstrate how to make a Victoria sandwich.

Zzzt, crackle, crackle, bzzt.

Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 13, 2009 9:17 AM

Patricia, OM #202

"Kill them all, for God knows his own!"

Ah, c'était le bon vieux temps !

(Veni, vermui, vacui)

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 13, 2009 9:29 AM

While I'm sure Ken Ham considers it an insult; "PZ Myers is an atheist" is hardly an ad hominem attack. It's kind of like responding to a rebuttal of an argument by stating "PZ Myers has a beard." If you think about it, it really makes no sense

Ad-hominem arguments never make sense. That's why they are logical fallacies.

"Insult" and "ad-hominem argument" are orthogonal to each other.

PZ linked to "the salt argument" which posits the earth could be no older than 62 million years. Even the maximum age of the salt argument is 1,000 times older than Ham's age of the earth as presented in his museum.

Over ten thousand times. (Just in case anyone overlooks your typo.)

BUT, you followers of a fundamentalist scientism, thinkers and promoters of "sola rati[o]", reason alone,

We are not philosophers, we are scientists. We have noticed, by experience, that there are no problems that can be solved by thinking alone: if an idea that doesn't contradict itself is wrong, the only way to find out that it is wrong is to compare it to reality. Reality – the thing outside my head.

Mente et malleo say the geologists: by mind and hammer.

Nice way to start: by completely misinterpreting who you're talking to in the first place.

you are bullying. Poking fun and call names such as "stupid" and "liar" is unbecoming of a supposedly "educated" man or woman.

"Unbecoming"?

We are scientists. We have trained long and hard to call a spade a spade – not a stick, not a shovel, but a spade. There is such a thing as a stupid person, and there is such a thing as a liar; so this is what we call them.

"Unbecoming" doesn't even enter the question. It's a completely irrelevant concept. :-)

And I can get into the reasons why stealing the Eucharistic bread out of the Catholic Mass would be considered a hate crime

You should have informed yourself. The guy who took the eucharistic bread with himself instead of eating it was himself a Catholic who wanted to show it to a friend who was curious about it. He wanted to convert that friend to Catholicism.

Someone noticed he was taking the host away, and all hell broke loose, almost literally. I haven't read of another such counterproductive action for a long time.

No where that I have seen does any scientist have definitive or absolute "proof" of our origins.

Science cannot prove, only disprove.

Suppose we discover the truth. How can we find out that what we have discovered is indeed the truth? By comparing it to the truth, which we don't have?

Sure, proof could work by elimination, but there are always more possibilities than anyone could think of. That's also why thinking alone cannot solve any problem.

Raise the level of this discussion.

You first, dipshit.

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

(please tell me you guys get this)

Just for the record: it's an obvious reference to "liar, liar, pants on fire". Happy now?

Posted by: Edwin Kagin | August 13, 2009 9:47 AM

Brother Looy says, of feeding PZ a frackin' cracker, "Mocking the death and resurrection of our Lord like this is an extremely serious thing indeed. But they have to answer to the Lord for that."

If so, we will just have to get in line. Brother Looy and company will need to explain why they put forth, in their "Creation Museum," the notion that "two" of each "kind" were billeted on the Ark. The bible actually says:

"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. [3] Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female." Genesis 7: 2-3.

Oh, and in case you did not know this, Ham was cursed by god. The Answer is in Genesis:

" GE 9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. [19] These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. [20] And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: [21] And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. [22] And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. [23] And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. [24] And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. [25] And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. [26] And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. [27] God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." (Genesis, by god)

Thus endeth the reading of the Word.

Edwin.

Posted by: Capt.Rhodes | August 13, 2009 10:13 AM

i usually don't comment because people usually beat me to the punch on what i have to say, but the level of deflection that mark mcpherson and fundie are exhibiting is just plain maddening. i really don't see how any of you can put up with it without permanently damaging your computers and/or brain cells. when someone starts complaining of "manners" and such you immediately know they have no other way of backing up their "arguments". why do they think they can get away with spewing their nonsense without reprisal?
fundie wrote, "That's funny, I don't recall mentioning anything about coarse language. Actually the reason that I don't frequent this blog anymore is because it's no longer a science blog. There's no healthy debate going on here. It's a blog aimed at spewing forth hatred toward Christianity."
are you kidding me?!?!? that is absolutely unbelievable. they wouldn't know a healthy debate if it came and took a healthy dump on their foreheads.
oh and fundie, just for the record, at no time was hate being directed at your precious religion, it was being directed at the lies and blatant projecting that you and your ilk seem so ready to use.

Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 13, 2009 10:20 AM

Vermini, Ratted not wormed !

Veni, vermini, vacui

Posted by: MartyM | August 13, 2009 12:03 PM

I'm listening to it now and what a bunch of hooey. The stuff Lisle is saying about time slowing down as we approach the speed of light is true, but relatively true. That is, time for the light seems to slow, but not time for observers of that light. And that does not mean light can arrive instantaneously. What would he say if we asked how long does light from the sun take to reach earth. 8 minutes or 0 seconds? It takes what it takes for light to reach the earth. I'm glad he didn't get off on the topic of light bending as it passes large celestial bodies.

Posted by: John M | August 13, 2009 12:36 PM

"He is making a number of assertions about the age of the earth that are patently ridiculous: he claims 90% of all dating methods contradict the idea that the earth is millions of years old."

His claim is CORRECT! Here are ten methods of dating the earth, of which only one purports to show a 4 billion-yr-old planet Earth:

1. Dates from the Bible.
2. Sell-by-dates on food wraps found in landfill.
3. Ouija board interrogation of the spirit world.
4. Dreamtime revelations by the rainbow serpent.
5. Isotopic ratios in igneous rocks and various sediments.
6. Wild guessing by innumerate fuckwits.
7. Testimony from the Koran.
8. Seance with Sylvia Smegma (perhaps that's not her correct name - I think you know who I mean) on 'Larry King Live'.
9. References from the Torah.
10. You can make #10. up by yourself - you don't need me to tell you, surely.

Posted by: pwnd | August 13, 2009 1:32 PM

Quit being a sissy, PZ.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/08/at-least-hes-good-for-laugh.html

Posted by: Qwerty | August 13, 2009 2:09 PM

DM OM @ 283

You're right. I did my math incorrectly. Ham's salt argument, if true, could permit an earth 10,000 times older than his museum claims it to be. I did the math on paper and divided 6,000 into 6 million instead of 60 million. It would seem that this would be a poor argument to use, but creationists are not known for originiality.

Ham also used the comet argument which has been disproven. He even mentioned the other side of this argument which shows he isn't ignorant of the actual science.

The creation museum seems to be build on that old American maxim of PT Barnum's: There is a sucker born every minute.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 13, 2009 2:32 PM

Mark McPherson whined @ #138:

Poking fun and call names such as "stupid" and "liar" is unbecoming of a supposedly "educated" man or woman.

This blog post concerns a radio show on which Ken Ham appeared, publicly making claims that were not true, that he damn well should have known were not true, and that callers explained to him were not true. Ken Ham IS a liar, by definition, as clearly documented in this post. How is it "unbecoming" to call a liar a liar? Or do you just consider honesty "unbecoming"?

More of Mark's whining:

I am of the Catholic Faith myself. And I see your Catholic bashing on these threads as well.

Oh, so you worship an elderly Nazi virgin in a funny-looking hat who lies for a living, thinks he's infallible, lives in a palace built by stealing from the poor, and runs the largest haven for child rapists the world has ever known. And you don't like it when this is pointed out. Well boo fucking hoo.

Mark demonstrates that he is batshit insane:

And I can get into the reasons why stealing the Eucharistic bread out of the Catholic Mass would be considered a hate crime, just as it also a hate crime to kill another person; be they Christian, Atheist or whatever.

Okay, by this it's obvious you're out of your fucking mind. The fact that you consider mistreating a piece of bread equivalent to MURDER is as clear a proof as anyone could ask for that you do not live in the real world. To say such a thing requires that you have no sense of proportion at all and quite a collection of interlocking delusions.

In order for an act to be considered a hate crime, it first has to actually be a crime. Murder is a crime. Incitement to violence is a crime. Making death threats is a crime. Mistreating baked goods is not a crime. Taking something freely given to you and doing whatever you damn well please with it is not a crime. Throwing away a stale cracker and a nail is not a crime. If you can't get this through your thick skull, there's no hope for you at all.

Mark demonstrates that the concept of irony is alien to him:

Raise the level of this discussion.

This from the guy who accused someone of MURDER for not showing sufficient reverence for your magic cracker? While defending a man telling outright lies? What the hell could you possibly know about raising the level of discussion? You can't even bear to call a liar a liar! You whine and scream at the most basic honesty!

Mark declares his total disdain for science:

No where that I have seen does any scientist have definitive or absolute "proof" of our origins.

Creationists don't have "definitive or absolute "proof" of our origins" either. But they falsely claim to. Scientists, at least, have ideas that work in the real world, and evidence to back up their claims. All your cult and Ken Ham's cult have are moldy old myths that have been shown to be false. But then, you don't like that being pointed out, do you Mark? Because you find telling the truth so "unbecoming".

Mark, the reason you don't like Ken Ham being called a stupid liar is because YOU are a stupid liar and you can't stand having it pointed out. Well boo fucking hoo.

Posted by: codyclementspie | August 13, 2009 3:14 PM

i agree. those creationists are getting ridiculous.ugh! by the way pie ROCKS! ;)

Posted by: Josh | August 13, 2009 3:37 PM

It's not that important, but in case you're interested, C14 dating is really only good back to maybe 50-60,000 years in most cases. We use other radioactive isotopes for geological materials older than that.

Posted by: pierocketofdoooooom99 | August 13, 2009 4:22 PM

iyou know what i mean. no matter how you can tell it still says that earth is more that 10000 years old.

Posted by: Lucifer Dei | August 13, 2009 4:43 PM

Of course, Vox Day isn't a YEC... he just shills for them:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/08/p1-defense-of-yec.html

Posted by: bilbo | August 13, 2009 6:15 PM

Mark Johnson,

Everyone here despises me and I still think you're crazy. Faith in evolution? Puh-leeeaaase.

Posted by: bilbo | August 13, 2009 6:27 PM

Everyone here despises me

Get a different handle, and learn to think a bit before you post, and think about the responses you get, and everyone here might not despise you.

Oh, and when you post the petulant "I'm outta here, see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya" rants, it's generally advisable to stay gone, at least for a few minutes.

Wow. Intelligent AND warranted! I see we're moving feuds between posts now.

You really do have a bilbo-sized stick up your ass, don't you Ken? Glad I could be of service.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 13, 2009 6:40 PM

Feud?

Wack-A-Troll

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 6:55 PM

Backs away from a debate with Vox will you?

Nope, PZ and others are ready to debate Pox in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Why is Pox so scared of that? Have him submit his paper. Or maybe he is an unscientific fraud...

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 13, 2009 7:08 PM

Backs away from a debate with Vox will you?

It isn't backing away from a debate for PZ to take the time to explain that VD is, "insane and not very bright". I see nothing debatable about that.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 8:02 PM

I'm waiting for PZ's bloviating to appear in some peer-reviewed journal somewhere. He's there just like I am. Where is the Pox? Scared shitless as usual?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 13, 2009 8:05 PM

So, I gather that if Vox had a radio show, PZ would never call in? So why did PZ call in to Ham, if ham is regarded as being in the RED ZONE?

red herring much?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 8:07 PM

Don't youz guyz ever get tired of being bloodied?

No Pox Dey is bloodied. From whack the door on his way out of the room every time peer reviewed science is mentioned...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 8:11 PM

Salt the submission information for " rel="nofollow">Science and Nature. Pox needs to put up or shut up, just like his butt boys.

Posted by: AJ Milne | August 13, 2009 8:17 PM

We're bloodied?

Well sure...

It's just not our blood.

(/And no, I don't think anyone's getting tired of that.)

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 13, 2009 8:19 PM

if Vox had a radio show, PZ would never call in? So why did PZ call in to Ham, if ham is regarded as being in the RED ZONE?

Slacker. Where are the multiple exclamation marks?

The guy who got hit with the ugly mallet has achieved a degree of success running the big theo-con, no two-bit grifter he--Canned Ham is raking in the bucks and reaching a wide audience. In contrast, VD shakes down high school dropouts and former choir boys for their lunch money. Plus he has a flaming sword.

Now, would you also like me to explain to you the answer to the musical question, Why Does it Hurt When I Pee? (Zappa's phrase, "pseudo English pomposity with a fake drama thrown in on the side," fits somehow, dunnitt?)

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 13, 2009 8:20 PM

Do you idiots ever get tired of being made fools of?

Evidently not. They're obviously drinking some energy-enhancing Jesus Juice™.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 13, 2009 8:26 PM

I agree, he possesses more knowledge in the nailing of a cracker than anyone I know.

While that's mildly funny I can't help but notice you've completely dodged, ignored or were incapable of understanding my point.

Not to much of a shock, but figured I'd point that out.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 8:45 PM

No matter, just what is PZ's expertise in? Abiogenesis?

No, but yours is in stupidity. Still want to play? Or maybe have Pox actually submit a paper for peer review?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 8:55 PM

Ah, Salt the bullshitter, what is Pox's expertise? Bullshitting? Yep.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 9:06 PM

No, bullshitting. Otherwise, why would you believe him. You are a real bullshitter, and recognize talent.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 9:11 PM

Ah, except I am a scientist, and we are professionally honest. You on the other hand...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 13, 2009 10:06 PM

No Salt, you are nothing but a troll. I will go do real science tomorrow, and Monday, etc., for a few more years. Pox Dey, still has to prove himself. I have given you the contact information. The only reason for Pox not to publish is he knows he is a fraud. Think about that.

Posted by: Geds | August 13, 2009 10:54 PM

Don't feed the trolls.

But they're so weak and helpless and cute...

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 13, 2009 11:27 PM

Why not go challenge Chris Mooney to a debate instead? After all, he's all about reaching out to the Unscientific America. He's also an atheist and done work on the evolution-creation controversy. If nothing else, John Kwok will give you a fair hearing and he went to some famous high school with Ken Miller ;)

Again, why PZ? Why not others? Because it seems like calling out PZ is because of his internet fame.

Posted by: Bisch | August 14, 2009 1:04 AM

Because it seems like calling out PZ is because of his internet fame.

Is Chris Mooney making comments about how there are no good arguments for the existence of gods? How about comments about how there are no worthy opponents to debate about evolution?

Speaking only for how I see it, Professor Myers has a delightful mix of arrogance, bluster, and ineptitude that is hopelessly attractive to guys like Vox. No doubt it's simply enchanting.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2009 1:23 AM

Then again, The Irrational Atheist also shows a propensity for dissecting the bullshit you refer to.

Is that the one where, like everything else he writes, he argues with himself?

yeah, armies of strawmen were slaughtered, I hear tell.

Posted by: Rey Fox | August 14, 2009 1:38 AM

"Naw, we have nothing but the best in our hearts for dear ol' Professor Myers. We're trying to get him to come outside his comfort zone, outside his preferred emotional location. It's only to make him better, to improve his game, don't you know. He'll thank us in the long run for helping sharpen him up."

Why can't you guys ever wank in private?

Posted by: Gomer Pyle | August 14, 2009 8:04 AM

Naw, we have nothing but the best in our hearts for dear ol' Professor Myers. We're trying to get him to come outside his comfort zone, outside his preferred emotional location. It's only to make him better, to improve his game, don't you know. He'll thank us in the long run for helping sharpen him up.

Well GOOOOOOLLLY

How on earth do you big smart fellers walk around with such large heads on those shoulders of yoursn'. I sure do think they would be gettin in the way all of the time. Always bumping into things and leaning over to the side and such. Do you smart fellers have to have some people help you carry them around all the time? I sure recken' some of us simpler country folk could be of a help to you big city folk.
Shazam

Posted by: E.V. | August 14, 2009 1:06 PM

Did I hear a pipsqeak? Hmmm, sounds like an arrogant New England Freeper. Aww, what's the matter mjb, got tired of looking at the WingNutDaily pictures?

Posted by: Mark McPherson | August 14, 2009 5:45 PM

Here is a response to "Martin" whos seems to be a logical thinker. I will not respond to vulgarities. Until the level of debate is raised...

That's "sola ratio". And it is evident that the "fides" part of "fides et ratio" adds nothing to man's knowledge of his universe. And I know the arguments against philosophical materialism, but from a pragmatic PoV it works. Adding "fides" does nothing except add unneccesary confusion.

Thanks for pointing out the spelling error. I am new to this blog so this may have beem argued before. Faith is necessary with Reason. It does not necessarily have to be a Faith in God, but you yourself have "faith" in the scientific process, as do I. There are some that have faith in our legal system. Faith is an integral pillar to human relationships. There are some that have faith that everyone will obey all traffic signals. So we can see that even the most rudimentary concept of "faith" is necessary along with reason.

"Two parts of that may be accurate observations, however we're not bullying, we're worm turning. Ham is not stupid...but he is a liar and should be called out his lies. And he should be poked long and hard."

Calling Ham a liar is at best, a cop out. He is not a liar and many of his followers believe what he proposes. He is severely misinformed and his whole belief system is skewed to FAITH ALONE. He is of the opposite persuasion than you. Relying on FAITH ALONE (sola fide), which is a fundamentalist dogma, is just as flawed as relying on "sola rati(a)." FAITH ALONE has led us to this great divide in our nation today and has given rise to an emboldened humanism, a new atheism that is using the same old, dry arguements but persuading the uninformed masses.

Bad luck.

You should shuck that nonsense. Start with the CoE (twice the fun, half the guilt and a lot less nonsense...and there's very little difference between high church and catholic church [robes, incense, collared priests, buggered choirboys] so you should feel right at home) and end up in UU.

I will remain Catholic thank you.

First point: Walking out of a church with an uneaten cracker is not a crime. And to compare that act to murder takes a really warped personality.

"No...the hate crime was physcially accosting someone walking out of a church with a piece of unconsumed bread in his pocket. A hate crime is threatening that person with death because he walked out a church with an uneaten baked goods product in his pocket. A hate crime is threatening that person's education and future because he walked out a church with uneaten cracker in his pocket."

You are right, a hate crime IS threatening that person with death. But it is also a "hate crime" to go into a Church, whether you believe it or not, and disrupt the service, steal the Eucharist, hold up a banner, shout out anti-Catholic slogans, albeit it is a lesser crime, still careless and spiteful. It would also be a crime for me to bust into a class room and disrupt a lesson of a teacher and shout out anti-evolution jargon, holding up banners and trying to shout down the teachers presentation.

"A hate crime is NOT the receipt of a purported eucharist through the mail and demonstrating that its resemblance to flesh is non-existent by driving a nail through it (flesh bleeds/baked products do not. [Don't bother with the transubstantiation arguments...they're abject nonsense to dupe the punters])."

It is most certainly a hate crime. Not even getting into an arguement on transubstantion, there are over a billion Catholic believers in the world that would take offense to what was done and would undoubtedly see it as an attack against the faith and unfortunately, some would react in hate and violently.

"*sigh* Mathemeticians, logicians and distillers offer proof. Scientists offers evidence from which theories may be induced and from which new tests may be deduced. That's it."

So if a scientist offers theories at best, why is it so shunned and seen as "primitive" to propose the theory, the possibility that we may have been created? Scientific theory should be open to all possibilities, even to the possibilities that we don't necessarily agree with. Scientists must have the freedom of inquiry....even if that freedom points in a direction we don't like....like the possibility of a Creator God.

"Explaining abiogenesis by creation or seeding just adds an unevidenced phenomenom. It also removes the problem one step: How did the creator/source of seed arise? Until there is need for such a hypothesis it might as well be ignored."

What other theories as to our origins have a better explanation?

"It's a good bet that abiogenesis occured with just the primordial products of this solar system...although it is unlikely that there be enough data to support this."

Where did those "primordial products" come from?? I would of course bet the other way. That it is reasonable to support that God was the source of our beginnings.

As to "man is alien lifeform"....only if every living thing on this planet comes from the same source.

I do not support this theory. Evolution does show us that every living organism on this planet is related.

Yes, you are. Oh, not a YECer or OECer but a creationist nonetheless(note: not capitalised).

If it means I am a "creationist" by "believing" in a Creator, than so be it. It is also REASONABLE to believe that God is the source of all life.

"You can believe what you like but it doesn't make it so. As to life elsewhere in this universe...who knows? Under the ice-covered oceans of Europa? In the sulphur mists of Titan? Floating in the methane clouds of Jupiter? In a solar system 10pc away? Man cannot observe these locations, so the answer is "We don't know, but we'll look into it".

And you can theorize all you like but it does make it right, or definitive or ABSOLUTE. Hence that liberal bent on a fundamentalist scientism. If you are a true proponent of science, you know that its not about being right, but searching for an explanation, a theory and then building upon that foundation. We can never stop learning or figure everything out.

"Rather than a masterpiece, maybe life on Earth is a unimportant contamination in a deity's grand experiment and that deity's chosen ones float between galaxies like solar- system-sized gaseous whales."

Life on Earth is a masterpiece. It is a delicately woven system set up just right for a myriad of life forms to flourish, thrive and even evolve. Even in a universe that is vast and maybe even chaotic in some regions, Earth is that one spot, seemingly set up on purpose, far from a random accident, where we can sit here and debate the things we as human beings know very little about.

"You should consider that terrestrial life occupies a 10-95 part of the volume of the universe...not a great use of resources."

Such a dismissal of life and of the gift that our planet is to us is a rather dismal outlook don't you think??? This number, 10 to the negative 95th power, doesn't it point out to us our theories, our way of life, our debates are really miniscule to the vastness of space and what we have yet to learn??

"Hahaha. Ken is making too much money and controls too many people to give it up...even if he does "grow" and fundamentalism is not going away any time soon. You can pray (or not) all you want...nothing works as well as prayer."

Unfortunately, you and other naturalists, atheists and secular humanists are fueling the fires of Christians and other religious fundamentalists like Ken Ham and both sides will be spewing falsities and hate for years to come if we cannot sit down civily and reason TOGETHER, listen to each other and hash out our brighter future.

And, no "fides et ratio" cannot coexist without compartmentalisation. At some point you have to compromise one or the other.

Thank you for rationally answering my post. Faith and Reason can coexist and even naturally co-exist together as I have tried to explain. You are just like Ken Ham if you do come to the conclusion that it is necessary to "compromise one or the other." You just made the other choice than he did.

Mark

Posted by: Rorschach | August 14, 2009 8:40 PM

Mark @ 359,

Thanks for pointing out the spelling error

Yeah right.

Faith is necessary with Reason

In your world, maybe, not in the real world.

Faith is an integral pillar to human relationships.

Even if that were true and not BS, what would that prove in regards to your faith and reason theory?

There are some that have faith that everyone will obey all traffic signals

There are some that have faith that England will beat Australia in the Ashes, so what?

And that's only the first paragraph.You fail miserably in your attempt to hook up faith and reason matey.

It's all so silly.You switch on your computer in the morning to type bullshit on the Internet, and you dont need faith for that PC to work.
It's science.

Posted by: E.V. | August 14, 2009 8:53 PM

There are some that have faith that everyone will obey all traffic signals. Boy, you've never driven in Italy.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 14, 2009 9:13 PM

There are some that have faith in our legal system.

We can change the legal system when we realise it requires changing to reflect society's wishes. Can you change your god?

You are right, a hate crime IS threatening that person with death. But it is also a "hate crime" to go into a Church, whether you believe it or not, and disrupt the service, steal the Eucharist, hold up a banner, shout out anti-Catholic slogans, albeit it is a lesser crime, still careless and spiteful.

Can you show us evidence of someone doing that? Because if you actually read the threads posted around the time of the cracker incident you'd realise no-one did that. And even if they had it still wouldn't be a hate crime. You need to realise that something that offends you does not necessarily constitute a crime, hate or otherwise.

It is most certainly a hate crime. Not even getting into an arguement on transubstantion, there are over a billion Catholic believers in the world that would take offense to what was done and would undoubtedly see it as an attack against the faith and unfortunately, some would react in hate and violently.

Once again, that's not what constitutes a hate crime. Do some research. Every time you eat beef you cause offence to over a billion Hindus. Do you intend to become a vegetarian?

Scientific theory should be open to all possibilities, even to the possibilities that we don't necessarily agree with. Scientists must have the freedom of inquiry....even if that freedom points in a direction we don't like....like the possibility of a Creator God.

Science is completely open to the possibility of a creator god. All you have to do is provide evidence that can be examined and verified. No evidence = no science.

Life on Earth is a masterpiece. It is a delicately woven system set up just right for a myriad of life forms to flourish, thrive and even evolve.

Then how do you explain extinction?

Unfortunately, you and other naturalists, atheists and secular humanists are fueling the fires of Christians and other religious fundamentalists like Ken Ham and both sides will be spewing falsities and hate for years to come if we cannot sit down civily and reason TOGETHER, listen to each other and hash out our brighter future.

Nope. Liars are to be identified and called out for their lies. It's not a question of 'meeting halfway'; they are liars who lie about science and there isn't a midpoint between truth and lies.

Faith and Reason can coexist and even naturally co-exist together as I have tried to explain

Wrong again. Martin Luther summed it up perfectly: 'Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.'

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 14, 2009 9:27 PM

I guess I missed the long winded loon. His god doesn't exist, so he is a delusional fool, which those of you above pointed out quite nicely. Evidence does not require faith. I don't need to have faith in the scientific method, since the evidence says it works. Can't say the same about your imaginary deity though. No evidence for that deity exists, so you must have faith. But the faith is not advancing mankind compared to science. In fact, it is holding mankind back. Nothing there but delusions.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 14, 2009 9:37 PM

The gift that keeps on giving @ 359,

Calling Ham a liar is at best, a cop out. He is not a liar and many of his followers believe what he proposes

You seem to have missed the few 1000 posts about the recent Creation "Museum" trip, and the evidence regarding the lies this place tells to children (and adults).

Severely misinformed, huh? Just read the wrong books the poor guy ?
You are even more stupid than I thought.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 14, 2009 10:04 PM

Unfortunately, you and other naturalists, atheists and secular humanists are fueling the fires of Christians and other religious fundamentalists like Ken Ham and both sides will be spewing falsities and hate for years to come if we cannot sit down civily and reason TOGETHER, listen to each other and hash out our brighter future.

Please explain to me why we should reason with liars? These are people who lie, i.e., tell things that are untrue. While some of Ken Ham's followers may be misguided, Ham himself knows that he's telling lies. And we're supposed to reason with him? Why?

Posted by: Bisch | August 14, 2009 10:27 PM

Ham himself knows that he's telling lies.

Two examples please. I am not being snarky, just want to know what we're talking about here...

Posted by: Bisch | August 14, 2009 10:44 PM

As if you deserve an answer. You don't. Go away lying sycophant. You have no need to post here.

Hey, 'Tis Himself, Nerd doesn't know the examples, either. She'd like to know, too.

And, by the way, where did I lie, Nerd? I don't remember an example of that, either.

If you call me a name again, I'll presume it's your usual bluster, and that neither I nor Ken Ham lied to your knowledge.

Posted by: Bisch | August 14, 2009 10:46 PM

You have no need to post here.

Au contraire, mon ami. I admit it's an unhealty need, but it's a need nonetheless.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 14, 2009 10:52 PM

Bisch, if you weren't a butt boy for the Pox man, you might be tolerated. Too much unnecessary invective in your posts. You need to go and stay away, until the words "I am sorry PZ" are on your lips, and keyboard. Maybe then.

Posted by: Bisch | August 14, 2009 11:10 PM

He's not your mon ami, buddy.

Who's "he?" The comment was directed to Nerd of Redhead.

Posted by: Bisch | August 14, 2009 11:22 PM

Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?

I'm not the one who uses masculine pronouns to refer to females.

Posted by: Zetetic | August 14, 2009 11:34 PM

Bisch said...

Two examples please. I am not being snarky, just want to know what we're talking about here...

How about I do better than just two?

1) Lying that radiometric dating doesn't show that the Earth is more that 6000 years old since it's "unreliable".

2) Lying about how humans spread across the Earth, and implying a racist message in doing so (see the sign from his own "museum" for his own display). A claim that is directly contradicted by all of the available evidence (archeological and genetic).

3) Lying about how fossils are formed and deposited.

4) Lying that the Nazis and Stalin based their policies on Darwin's works.

5) Lying about how the Grand Canyon was formed.

6) Lying that there is credible evidence that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that scientists are "suppressing" this so-called evidence.

7) Lying that dinosaurs were on the Ark. Even the bible doesn't make that claim.

8) Lying about linguistics to claim that it proves the tower of Babble.

9) At the top of this thread PZ mentions one of his lies about salt levels in the ocean.

10) Lying that evolution and atheism promote social anarchy and injustice, while claiming that religion promotes peace and tolerance. He's not just stating and opinion there, he (and his organization) and stating it as an assertion of fact, even though it's a claim that is contradicted by the evidence.

11) Lying about evolution being a theory in crisis, when the vast overwhelming majority of scientists (in fields even indirectly related to evolution) support evolution.

12) Lying that there are no transitional fossils.

13) Lying that there are no vestigial features.

14) Lying that AiG is objectively evaluating the scientific evidence to arrive at their conclusions, when their own web site states that an objective evaluation isn't their purpose.

Shall I go on? There are so many more to list, and and just listing the general lies. If I was being specific the list would be much, much longer.

Posted by: Stanton | August 14, 2009 11:44 PM

Please explain to me why we should reason with liars? These are people who lie, i.e., tell things that are untrue. While some of Ken Ham's followers may be misguided, Ham himself knows that he's telling lies. And we're supposed to reason with him? Why?

I can not fathom any reason why we should give even an iota of respect, let alone make an attempt to reason with a man who eulogized Steve Irwin by stating that he was burning in Hell for the twin unforgivable sins of accepting evolution and not thinking exactly like Ken Ham, a fate that Ken Ham stated awaits all who accept evolution, and do not think exactly like Ken Ham.

It's my personal opinion that anyone who argues we should attempt to reason with, or even respect a person like Ken Ham, is either a deluded fool, or an idiot.

Posted by: Bisch | August 15, 2009 12:04 AM

How about I do better than just two?

Can we agree that someone declaring their presumed misguided opinion is not the same as lying?

An example is your #9 above. I think it's a really good example. I scanned the referenced web pages and see that the fellow that promotes the idea of the oceans' salt content to be steady-state appears to be thorough in his correcting the other article and its authors' incomplete analysis. I didn't, however, delve any further, but would bet a bit of money that there are papers and opinions that disagree with the "steady-state" fellow.

So say, for example, there was a paper that showed that the "steady-state" fellow was incorrect, that all but one of his corrections had a reasonable explanation in favor of the "young ocean" fellows. There would no doubt be readers that would draw conclusions in contradiction with each other.

I would posit that neither group of readers could be accused of lying, only of being incorrect.

Accusing someone of lying based on an incorrect or misinformed analysis of a set of data, to me, is kind of like saying a fan of your team's rival is a bad person. He definitely may be a bad person, but it isn't because of his pulling for the Cowboys. He's incorrect and misguided because he is a fan of the Cowboys, but not immoral.

Posted by: Zetetic | August 15, 2009 12:14 AM

@ Bisch:

There are a few problems with your line of reasoning.

First, is that he has been corrected over and over by real scientists, but he still keeps repeating what he knows to be lies.

Second, he deliberately misrepresents what others have said about the subject. See "quote mining".

Third, he deliberately ignores evidence that his claims are wrong.

Fourth, he deliberately ignores that fact that all of his claims have zero credible evidence supporting them, and yet holds them as better than scientific positions that have substantial evidence supporting them.

Finally, as I earlier pointed out, he even lies about his own intentions. See #14 on my list.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 15, 2009 12:59 AM

Can we agree that someone declaring their presumed misguided opinion is not the same as lying?

Ray comfort became infamous for his "banana" example.

when shown that the banana he used was actually a commercially produced hybrid that never existed in the wild, he actually posted (and people saved it), that he was wrong about the banana.

now then...

go to his website, and see if you can find any disclaimers to the banana example.

you won't.

In fact, he actually still uses it, just as incorrectly as before.

I call that lying.

If you don't, you're a moron.

Posted by: MartinDH | August 15, 2009 1:21 AM

Before I start, I'm pleased to see you've almost stopped the random capitalisation of nouns. Thanks.

Faith is necessary with Reason. It does not necessarily have to be a Faith in God, but you yourself have "faith" in the scientific process, as do I.

Unfortunately you're using the fallacy of equivocation. You've taken two of the meanings of "faith" and are insisting they are one and the same. "Faith in the existence of something unevidenced" (deities, unicorns) is completely different from "Faith in the existence of something repeatedly evidenced" (sunrises, car starting, legal system &c. &c.). The former is private (as there is no evidence to share) and can have no contradictory evidence, hence is fixed. The latter is public (i.e. the evidence is shareable), and can be falsified by contradictory evidence, hence is pragmatic (my car didn't start so I'll drop that faith).

Calling Ham a liar is at best, a cop out. He is not a liar and many of his followers believe what he proposes.

Ham knows much of what he spouts is half-truths at best. As to lying and obfuscation, you might want to look at his behaviour during the recent internicene slugfest between AiG (US) and its Australian founding organisation, CMI.

Why does the belief of his followers shed any light on Ham's veracity?

He is severely misinformed and his whole belief system is skewed to FAITH ALONE. He is of the opposite persuasion than you. Relying on FAITH ALONE (sola fide), which is a fundamentalist dogma, is just as flawed as relying on "sola rati(a)." FAITH ALONE has led us to this great divide in our nation today and has given rise to an emboldened humanism, a new atheism that is using the same old, dry arguements but persuading the uninformed masses.

The short reply: I can see little difference in sola fide and fide & ratio...just in the timing of when faith takes over! Faith is their starting position while it is your fallback position. And therein lies the difficulty...when does faith take over from reason and how do you know it?

An aside: Although, with all my being, I disagrees with the "faith alone" approach, those that use it have a basic honesty that is lacking in fide et ratio approaches.

Humanism's arguments may be "old and dry" but at least they're not ancient, mouldy and fallacious (see how easy it is easy make unsupported snarky assertions).

I will remain Catholic thank you.

I guess you have no qualms about associating with an organisation that has: until the rise of Protestantism, murderously prevented the publication of contradictory knowledge; made concordats with despotic monarchies and every right wing dictator; lies about the effectiveness of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV; condones and protects paedophiles, suppresses women and gays &c. &c.

But it is also a "hate crime" to go into a Church, whether you believe it or not, and disrupt the service, steal the Eucharist, hold up a banner, shout out anti-Catholic slogans, albeit it is a lesser crime, still careless and spiteful.

Phew, it's lucky Webster Cook did none of that (in law it is not theft to steal something given to you). The only people who disrupted the service were those that assaulted Cook as he returned to his pew.
You can't have a hate crime with no crime.

It is most certainly a hate crime. ..., there are over a billion Catholic believers in the world that would take offense to what was done and would undoubtedly see it as an attack against the faith and unfortunately, some would react in hate and violently.

What law was broken? No broken law means no crime, hence no hate crime.

I'm sure the Hindus take offense when you eat beef, and the Jews when you consume pork, and the Muslims when you draw a picture of Mohammed. It's their problem when an unbeliever breaks a taboo.

It's still a cracker no matter what you believe. You could demonstrate otherwise by participating in a experiement that lets members of clergy attempt to identify a Eucharist within several hundred unblessed wafers.

BTW Those that react in hate and violently WOULD be committing a crimes.

So if a scientist offers theories at best, why is it so shunned and seen as "primitive" to propose the theory, the possibility that we may have been created? Scientific theory should be open to all possibilities, even to the possibilities that we don't necessarily agree with. Scientists must have the freedom of inquiry....even if that freedom points in a direction we don't like....like the possibility of a Creator God.

*sigh* If the evidence does not call for that hypothesis and that hypothesis does not add any explanatory detail to the answers to "What, when, where and how" then the hypothesis is discarded. In addition old, discarded theories and hypotheses are hardly ever reconsidered. No one is proposing a rexamination of caloric, phlogostin, or a historic global flood.

So lets step back to 1858...
Observation: There's lots of species on this planet that seem to form patterns of morphology, and distribution. How did this occur?
Answer 1: God did it.
Helpfulness = 1, opening of pathways of query = 0
Answer 2: Descent by overly fecund modified reproduction and natural selection of the subsequent generations.
Helpfulness = 10, opening pathways of query = 10

After Popper, hypotheses that, by definition, cannot be tested are also discarded (which is why string theory is still around...even though we need a tame black hole or two for the tests).

How would YOU propose testing the hypotheses: "The god in which Mark believes created life on earth" and "The god in which Rajet Singh believes created life on earth", first against each other and then against the planet?

What other theories as to our origins have a better explanation?

I presume by "our origins" you mean the time when the earth went from a lifeless planet to one with reproducing entities that could evolve...OK? So, again, the best bet is within the various "laboratories" (deep sea vents, tide pools, mudflats, drying stream beds, deep sea, shallow sea, atmosphere &c.) present on the Earth 4bya. The polymers necessary for life could be formed from simple elements and compounds (Miller-Urey showed this was possible, Fox showed with his "pseudo-life" the formation of contained chemical sacks).

Where did those "primordial products" come from??

What? Hydrogen, Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous, potasium, sodium, calcium, sulphur and a few others? From the building blocks of the solar system...hydrogen from the nucleogenesis stage of the first three minutes of this universe, and the heavy elements are products of a previous super nova or two (whose hydrogen came from the first three minutes of the life of this universe).

And if you want to know about the antecedents of the space/time/energy that comprise this universe, I'm afraid no one knows, but several lines of query are bing investigated (God did it is a crappy answer...see above).

I would of course bet the other way. That it is reasonable to support that God was the source of our beginnings.

Good grief, why? Is it that you cannot imagine that chemical reactions can give rise to a replicator given a primeval, abiotic Earth? Or does it give you the skeeves to imagine that life is an accident or that humans aren't special (and I do not mean "short bus" special).

I think "God did it" is both intellectually lazy and cowardly.

I do not support this theory. Evolution does show us that every living organism on this planet is related.

That was my point...if humans are alien introductions then every other lifeform on this planet is also an introduction from the same source.

It is also REASONABLE to believe that God is the source of all life.

As reasonable as it is to believe Brahma is the source of all matter and life. Or as reasonable as Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto is the source of all matter and life. i.e. not at all reasonable as you seem to have omitted the "reason" part and just made the assertion.

And you can theorize all you like but it does make it right, or definitive or ABSOLUTE. Hence that liberal bent on a fundamentalist scientism. If you are a true proponent of science, you know that its not about being right, but searching for an explanation, a theory and then building upon that foundation. We can never stop learning or figure everything out.

Again, asking for the "absolute troof". Doesn't exist. And I wasn't theorising but listing places which a number of "astrobiologists" (like theology, astrobiology is a study with no subject) have indicated an interest.

Life on Earth is a masterpiece. It is a delicately woven system set up just right for a myriad of life forms to flourish, thrive and even evolve. Even in a universe that is vast and maybe even chaotic in some regions, Earth is that one spot, seemingly set up on purpose, far from a random accident, where we can sit here and debate the things we as human beings know very little about.

Oh come on now. You sound like the puddle in the pothole (look it up...Douglas Adams quote).

For a system set up deliberately for mankind, it really seems like a shoddy job...a tar paper shack on a fault line in a flood valley surrounded by a lifeless desert with a few of what might be oases within reach. For a place that just came together, it looks pretty good. I would expect a lot better from a purported omniscient being.

Such a dismissal of life and of the gift that our planet is to us is a rather dismal outlook don't you think??? This number, 10 to the negative 95th power, doesn't it point out to us our theories, our way of life, our debates are really miniscule to the vastness of space and what we have yet to learn??

No...it's a dismissal of the hubris that believers in a god creating this universe for mankind seem to possess in vast amounts.

As to what we know...observations seem to indicate mankind is on the right track with much of his physics. What we do know seems to apply across the observable universe. Quantum gravity, Dark matter, fifth force, and Higgs boson seem to be the next things to be included. Evidence for branes might open up the multiverse (which will handily get rid of the anthropic problem). Biology is kind of stymied because of the sample size of one planet .

Unfortunately, you and other naturalists, atheists and secular humanists are fueling the fires of Christians and other religious fundamentalists like Ken Ham and both sides will be spewing falsities and hate for years to come if we cannot sit down civily and reason TOGETHER, listen to each other and hash out our brighter future.

Over eighty years of "coming together and civilly discussing" with fundamentalists HAS NOT WORKED. What works is in your face confrontation...women, gays and african-americans did not improve their lot (with a long way to go) by "civilly discussing" with sexists, homophobes and racists. The radicals at both ends of a political spectrum (and this is a political fight) should be going at it hammer and tongs so that those in the middle can come together with no loss of face. For the last eighty years the evangelical radicals have been dragging science education, funding and display their way. The radicals on the science side (call them "New Atheists" if you want) are attempting to drag it back.

Thank you for rationally answering my post. Faith and Reason can coexist and even naturally co-exist together as I have tried to explain. You are just like Ken Ham if you do come to the conclusion that it is necessary to "compromise one or the other." You just made the other choice than he did.

You're welcome.

Evidentially not...you appear to throw away reason when you have no answer, or the answer is that mankind (hence you) is no longer special, and then you revert to your god. What do you do when a question that you once answered with "God did it" is satisfactorily answered with a naturalistic mechanism? In 1830 would you have almost certainly said "God (progressively) created all the species on earth"? And now you say you support modified common descent. A materialist either says "I don't know" or supports a material causation which may later be shown to be wrong.

Maybe so...my choice seems to provide externally and internally consistent provisional answers...Ham's does not.

Posted by: Zetetic | August 15, 2009 4:38 AM

My apologies to everyone else this is going to be a little long, but since Bish seems to be trying to avoid several points at once and being more polite hasn't helped the point get through....

Bish said:

That 62MM years is the maximum based on the analysis. It's not what's calculated, as I believe all agree that there's a bunch of variation in the measured data

There inlies the rub, and where we could use some understanding. I would offer that naturalists such as yourselves have this opinion, that science completely and utterly backs up the atheistic old-earth perspective, and that any data that is produced that contradicts that perspective really doesn't contradict that perspective, but rather that data just needs further clarification, as the atheistic old-earth perspective has been completely and utterly proven to be true.

That is a faith-based position.

BZZZZZZZZTTT! Wrong!

That "whooshing" sound you probably heard when typing your reply was my point going over your head. Before I get started on that though, I noticed how you're ignoring the other points about Ham's lack of honesty.... that's rather interesting.

As I had earlier pointed out... The salt argument first of all fails to backup Ham's position that the Earth is 6000 years old. Rather he only tries to attack evolution using arguments that are either completely false, as in this case, or are highly questionable. He does not support his own position (presumably because he knows that he can't). This is deliberately dishonest of him.

Now back to what's wrong with what you just typed, and further as to why Ham was being dishonest to use that argument.

First of all, as the TalkOrigins site points out the argument isn't actually accepted by the scientific community. The argument is relying on flawed math and therefore can't be considered a valid argument, unless it can be backed up by current research and thereby validated by the scientific community.

Secondly, even if the current rates of salinization did in fact give a date of 62 million years, which the TO article refutes. You're still making the unsubstantiated assumption that the rate has remained unchanged over time. Given how geology and climate changes overtime (climate can effect the rate of salt loss), that is a substantial assumption to make without backing it up with evidence.

Next, on top of those errors you then have to ignore the fact that our understanding of the other available evidences for the age of the Earth and the processes involved is greater than our understanding of the geology involved in oceanic salinization. (Any geologists out there that think I'm wrong about that point please feel free to direct me to any credible info about the subject.) Also, you are having to ignore that these other lines of evidence are independent, but all point to the same conclusion of an Old Earth (within their respective limits for the type evidence of course).

You are therefore committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance. You are in effect arguing... "If we don't (currently) know how the ocean's could have had salt for more than 62 million years, then the Earth can't be more than 62 million years old, so GodDidIt!^TM".

Uh.... No.
That doesn't logically follow. The most you could say if that was true, is that you don't know how the ocean would have had salt for longer then 62 million years. But you can't honestly even say that, since the argument was refuted due to the evidence. You know "evidence", that stuff that real science deals with, but your side avoids like the plague since you find presuppositionalism is better at giving you the answers that you want to hear.

Ultimately, your position is like trying to solve a murder case and throwing out the DNA evidence, fingerprints, hair samples, blood on the suspect's clothes, and a video of the suspect buying the murder weapon. Just because one person thinks that maybe they saw someone else "acting suspicious" in the area! Does that sound honest of either Ham or yourself?

The one part where you were correct is where you stated...

naturalists such as yourselves have this opinion, that science completely and utterly backs up the atheistic old-earth perspective, and that any data that is produced that contradicts that perspective really doesn't contradict that perspective, but rather that data just needs further clarification

This is because science has clearly demonstrated that the Earth is in fact much older than YECs claim, in fact it's been providing evidence to that effect since before Darwin even made his trip. Up to now all of the credible evidence has been confirming that the Earth is old, and pushing back the date to it's current 4.5 billion year old estimation. The few times when there was evidence that seemed to show the Earth was younger it was investigated. Invariably it has been show to be in error, or fraudulent (YECs have a long history of making up fraudulent "evidence").

This is consistent with an old Earth regardless of one's religious beliefs. If the Earth was anywhere near as young as you YECs want to believe, all of the evidence should reflect that (unless your god is deliberately trying to fool everyone by tampering with the evidence). Your side has yet to provide any good evidence at all for anything that actually supports either YEC or the flood. Instead your side just desperately clings to anything that even remotely questions the Old Earth or evolution, even when it was long since refuted. Look at the dates for the articles, this salt argument was refuted a long time ago, yet your side still clings to it, deliberately ignoring that it's not relevant anymore.

One last comment for tonight... I found it rather interesting that you keep using the phrase "atheistic old-earth perspective". This is rather telling about how closed-minded you apparently are. The scientific consensus that the Earth is old has absolutely nothing to do with atheism. It based solely on the evidence. This happens to work out well for atheists since it makes their position easier to defend, but that's all.

The world had atheists long before we had evidence the world was more than 6000 years old. Also, many of the scientists that found the evidence of the age of the Earth were religious (many contemporary Old Earth scientists still are). The difference between them and Ken Ham (and apparently you as well) is that they don't tie their belief in god to a belief in a young Earth, so they see no reason why the Earth can't be much older even with a god behind the scenes. Therefore, they don't feel a need to compromise their intellectual and professional integrity in order to maintain their commitment to a dogma and a particular interpretation of scripture (which is all that Ham is really doing). This is also a position apparently shared by most Christians around the world that aren't living in countries heavily influenced by literalistic fundies.

It's always curious how prone to projection YECs are. Because you seem to think that a belief in god must be tied to belief in a young Earth, you seem to think that belief in an old Earth must therefore be tied to a lack of belief in god rather than an objective evaluation of the evidence and independently of one's belief in god. That's a pity for both you and many others.

Posted by: echidna | August 15, 2009 8:48 AM

Ken Ham was educated in Australia, with an applied science degree (including environmental biology) from Queensland Institute of Technology. While that doesn't make him a biologist, he doesn't have the background that would allow ignorance by default.

Having said that, I think Ken Ham is willfully ignorant, and probably now believes his own lies.

Posted by: MartinDH | August 15, 2009 9:43 AM

*TEST*
This should be in blockquotes and red:

Yada Yada Yada

This should be in blockquotes and red Comic Sans:

Yada Yada Yada

This should be in blockquotes and bigger red Comic Sans:

Yada Yada Yada

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 15, 2009 9:51 AM

*test2*
Blockquote and red

Yada Yada Yada

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 15, 2009 10:01 AM

MartinDH, did you put the color/font tags inside of the blockquote tag?

Posted by: Walton | August 15, 2009 10:09 AM

"Hate crime" is a stupid term, IMO. As far as I'm concerned, an act is either a crime or it isn't; whether it was motivated by "hate" ought to be entirely irrelevant. Murder, and rape, and assault, and theft ought to be crimes because they involve illegitimate interference with another's person or property; nothing more and nothing less.

The fact that Catholics are offended by desecrating a cracker does not make it a "hate crime". If the cracker was stolen, then it is a crime - the crime of theft. If the cracker was not stolen, then it was a perfectly legitimate act of protest. I don't give a damn whether Catholics are offended. The most important principle of a free society is freedom of expression.

This isn't an anti-religious statement on my part. I'd say the same about racist or homophobic signs and slogans. Fred Phelps may be repulsive, but he's not committing a crime. He's exercising his right to free speech, and I would strongly oppose any attempt to silence him through state coercion.

People do not have a right, ever, to be protected against offence. No form of speech, however offensive, should ever be criminalised.* The only acts which should be criminalised are those involving illegitimate interference with another's person or property. If Professor Myers wants to drive a rusty nail through a thousand Eucharists, then - as long as neither the nail nor the Eucharists are stolen - we ought to defend his right to do it. (And I said the same even when I was a practising Christian myself.)

*(Someone might raise the issue of defamatory speech: but slander and libel are, rightly, civil wrongs rather than criminal offences. Although there is such a thing as "criminal libel" at common law, it's rarely invoked today.)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 15, 2009 10:17 AM

an act is either a crime or it isn't; whether it was motivated by "hate" ought to be entirely irrelevant.

Intent is always part of determination of the severity of a crime. Murder and manslaughter both involve the death of another person, but the difference between the two is the intent of the killer.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 10:22 AM

"Hate crime" is a stupid term, IMO. As far as I'm concerned, an act is either a crime or it isn't; whether it was motivated by "hate" ought to be entirely irrelevant.

...I'd say the same about racist or homophobic signs and slogans.

You don't understand what a hate crime is, or how it differs from hate speech. Is it too much to ask that people do a few minutes of fucking research prior to pontificating?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 10:30 AM

In your morality a lynching would be no worse than a simple fatal mugging.

BTW,

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2009/08/without-sanctuary-online-exhibit-and.html

Posted by: Walton | August 15, 2009 10:40 AM

In your morality a lynching would be no worse than a simple fatal mugging.

How (from the point of view of the state) are they different? Both are murders; the victim is just as dead, and the murderer just as culpable, in both cases. The law should treat both cases in exactly the same way. There should be no special laws which penalise killings motivated by racism, homophobia or religious hatred; such killings should be treated as ordinary murders like any other, and the penalty should be the same. The state's business is to protect persons and their property from violence and fraud. People's thoughts and motivations are their own business.

This is not to assert that all homicides are morally equivalent; hence why the criminal law includes defences such as provocation (which in English law reduces a homicide from murder to manslaughter) and self-defence. (And I would argue that voluntary euthanasia should also be recognised as a special circumstance, though it currently isn't in English law.) But that's irrelevant here.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 10:50 AM

[quote]How (from the point of view of the state) are they different? [/quote]

Walton, I cannot believe you are this dense.

Lynchings are done not only to "punish" an individual, but to send a message to a whole section of society. That is not the intention behind muggings.

I cannot believe someone who supposed to be as intelligent as you are does not know what a lynching is.

You morality is seriously fucked Walton. It is clear you do not care for people at all if they get in they way of your ideology, which is really you just making excuses to be selfish.

You whole contention that intention is not relevant is pathetic. It is also a lie. I believe you are studying law. Well I suggest you learn the difference in English law between murder and manslaughter. There is one, despite you saying otherwise.

Posted by: MartinDH | August 15, 2009 11:03 AM

OK...Sciblogs does not like the font tag at all. Trying
span/style

Mauve in BQ

Comic Sans Mauve in BQ

Larger Comic Sans Mauve in BQ

And back to normal

Posted by: Walton | August 15, 2009 11:05 AM

You whole contention that intention is not relevant is pathetic. It is also a lie. I believe you are studying law. Well I suggest you learn the difference in English law between murder and manslaughter. There is one, despite you saying otherwise.

Evidently you don't know much about criminal law, a subject which I have studied. I did not say that intention was not relevant. Intention and motivation are not the same thing.

Intention is, of course, relevant to criminal law, through the concept of mens rea. Murder in English law is the killing of another human being with the intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm. Manslaughter comes in two types: voluntary manslaughter (where the intent was to kill, but the seriousness of the crime was diminished by reason of provocation or diminished capacity) and involuntary manslaughter (which in turn divides into two types, unlawful act and gross negligence).

However, intention is not the same as motive. If I intend to kill someone, and I do so deliberately by shooting him in the head, then I have committed murder. But it doesn't matter why I wanted to kill him. It doesn't matter whether I wanted his money, or whether I didn't like his race/nationality/religion/orientation, or whether I just didn't like him. I've still committed murder. Thus the difference between "intention" and "motivation" ought to be self-evident to anyone thinking clearly. And motivation, unlike intention, is not usually relevant to a criminal charge. (The only time it would be relevant is when a defence, such as self-defence, insanity or provocation, is raised.)

Posted by: Bobber | August 15, 2009 11:08 AM

Because I have to correct myself:

victim, not "vitim"

subscribe, not "ascribe"

Age. I swear, it robs me of my sharpness.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 11:16 AM

Oh, And Walton, you are a lying bit of shit as well.

Intent does come into it. It can make the difference between being charged with either murder or manslaughter, and not facing any charges at all. I see you have resorted to lying to support you contemptible ideology now.

Posted by: Walton | August 15, 2009 11:25 AM

Intent does come into it. It can make the difference between being charged with either murder or manslaughter, and not facing any charges at all.

Did you actually read what I wrote at #421? Or are you incompetent at reading comprehension? As I clearly said, intention is indeed relevant - but intention is not the same as motive. Intention is "I'm going to kill X"; motivation is "I'm going to kill X because I want his money / he's a foreigner / I don't like him." They are two distinct concepts. How difficult is that to understand?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 15, 2009 11:28 AM

If I intend to kill someone, and I do so deliberately by shooting him in the head, then I have committed murder. But it doesn't matter why I wanted to kill him. It doesn't matter whether I wanted his money, or whether I didn't like his race/nationality/religion/orientation, or whether I just didn't like him. I've still committed murder.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in Wisconsin v. Mitchell 508 U.S. 476 (1993): "[T]his conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm ... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

When the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. The Legislative Findings to the New York Hate Crimes Act of 2000 reads in part:

Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 15, 2009 11:36 AM

SC,

The thing I found most chilling about Without Sanctuary is how the perpetrators were so proud of their actions that they recorded them for posterity.

There are those of us Westerners who look at things like the Rwandan genocide or Balkan ethnic cleansing and say: "It can't happen here." The lynchings show that it can happen here.

Posted by: Walton | August 15, 2009 11:43 AM

However you are wrong about English law not taking intent into account.

Let's try this again, for the fifth time: I did not make such a claim. Try actually reading what I write.

I have said, very clearly, multiple times, on this thread, that English criminal law does take intent into account. I have also said, equally clearly, that intent is not the same thing as motivation.

If I intend to kill someone, and I kill them, I am guilty of murder. The first part - the intention - is the mens rea, and the second part, the actual killing, is the actus reus. A killing committed by accident is not murder, for this reason; it has the actus reus, but not the mens rea.

The mens rea, however, is about intention, not motive. Hence why euthanasia committed on compassionate grounds is, under English law, classed as murder; as long as you kill someone, and your action is intended to kill them, then your act is considered murder. (This is a description of the current law; I'm not saying it's necessarily right.)

Posted by: Walton | August 15, 2009 11:49 AM

My apologies to everyone else for my rant, but I have had enough of Walton the sociopath.

I couldn't give less of a fuck whether you think I'm a sociopath, but I take exception to your dishonest attempt to claim that I am either lying, or ignorant in my own field of study. I have made absolutely clear that intention is a component of many offences in English criminal law, but that intention is not the same thing as motivation.

My apologies to Bobber and others who have raised interesting and well-researched points in reply to my earlier arguments. But I'm no longer able to continue this discussion, since I'm incredibly pissed off that Mr Penfold is trying to damage my reputation in a vindictive and mendacious manner.

Call me evil and sociopathic as much as you like. You're entitled to your opinion. But if you want to claim that I am either incompetent or dishonest in my own academic field, you need to substantiate that, rather than dishonestly misrepresenting what I have written.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 15, 2009 11:51 AM

'Tis (...and anyone else interested),

If you have access, David Garland's article "Penal Excess and Surplus Meaning: Public Torture Lynchings in Twentieth-Century America" [Law & Society Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Dec., 2005), pp. 793-833] is well worth a read.

Posted by: Walton | August 15, 2009 11:53 AM

It quite clearly shows intent has a role in English law, despite Walton's claims the contrary.

Now you are simply lying. I did not claim that intent was not a part of English law. On the contrary, intent, in the form of mens rea, is a very important component of English criminal law, and I have made this clear in multiple posts on this thread. I have said this now about ten times, but you are dishonestly ignoring my statements in order to carry on attacking a claim which I have not made.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 11:59 AM

I couldn't give less of a fuck whether you think I'm a sociopath, but I take exception to your dishonest attempt to claim that I am either lying, or ignorant in my own field of study.

I could not give a fuck what you take exception to Walton.

I have no respect for you. You want to destroy the education system in UK, and are on record as saying you would deprive people of a good education because you do not want to have to pay for it. You want to destroy the NHS, no matter what harm it does to people who cannot then afford healthcare. And why ? All because you are too tight fisted a bastard to want to pay your share. You now think that a crime intended to put a whole section of society in fear is no different that a crime carried out for simple gain.

What is worse you currently insist the taxpayer subsidises your education and healthcare, and cannot see that in doing so you are being hypocritical.

You do not care how much people suffer just so long as you can have you ideology where only the rich matter and everyone else can die. And that makes you a sociopath.

Posted by: Walton | August 15, 2009 12:02 PM

Actually, yes, you are correct. I mistook you saying it should not take intent into account for you saying it does not take intent into account. I apologise for that confusion.

You are still a fucking amoral sociopath though, since you clearly do not think intent should matter. You have said as much. "How (from the point of view of the state) are they different? Both are murders; the victim is just as dead, and the murderer just as culpable, in both cases. The law should treat both cases in exactly the same way."

Thank you for that, but you are still misrepresenting me (though, I will assume, not intentionally).

I did not say that intent should not matter. Intent, or mens rea, is an intrinsic part of the definition of murder (and of many other offences). That is why an accidental killing is not murder: because the killer had no intent to kill.

Rather, I said that motive should not, in general, matter. If X killed Y, and he did so with the intention of killing Y, then he is a murderer. It does not matter, for the most part, why he intended to kill Y. (There are obvious exceptions to this; for example, if he killed Y in order to protect himself or another person from immediate violence, then in English law he can raise the defence of self-defence.)

What I am saying is that if a person intentionally kills another person, it should not matter why he intended to kill that person. Notice the distinction here: intent ("I intend to kill X") is an intrinsic part of the definition of murder, whereas motive ("I intend to kill X because...") is not.

Posted by: Walton | August 15, 2009 12:07 PM

You want to destroy the education system in UK, and are on record as saying you would deprive people of a good education because you do not want to have to pay for it.

Another misrepresentation of my ideas. I am, as I have said elsewhere, in favour of a "school voucher" or "school choice" system, in which parents will receive state funding to send their children to independent schools, should they so choose. This will open up private education to children from all backgrounds, ensuring that the best educational opportunities are not just for the children of the wealthy.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 12:12 PM

Another misrepresentation of my ideas. I am, as I have said elsewhere, in favour of a "school voucher" or "school choice" system, in which parents will receive state funding to send their children to independent schools, should they so choose. This will open up private education to children from all backgrounds, ensuring that the best educational opportunities are not just for the children of the wealthy.

No it would not. So quit lying, you fucking sociopath.

However please practice what you preach. Leave Oxford until you can afford to pay your own way. Also refuse NHS treatment. If you did both of those I might have more respect for you. Until you do, you are a hypocrite.

Posted by: Walton | August 15, 2009 12:14 PM

Yes you did: "How (from the point of view of the state) are they different? Both are murders; the victim is just as dead, and the murderer just as culpable, in both cases. The law should treat both cases in exactly the same way."

It is not my fault that you evidently can't understand subtle distinctions.

In all types of murders - by definition - the murderer intended to kill the victim (or to inflict grievous bodily harm). Thus, for a crime to be classed as a murder, intention must have been established. My statement quoted above, therefore, does not say or imply that intention should not matter. I am talking about two types of murders, meaning that mens rea was, by definition, present in both cases.

I was arguing that if it is established that X killed Y, and that he intended to kill Y, and that X cannot raise any defence (such as provocation or self-defence) in his favour, the law should not inquire into why X wanted to kill Y. This is an issue of motivation, not intention, and is a completely separate matter.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 12:20 PM

On the school voucher system:

Any scheme that provides vouchers to allow parents to purchase private education would have to cover at least the average cost of private education in the UK. In 2008 Halifax stated the average cost of private education in the UK was £10,239 per year. So any voucher will have to be for at least that amount. The average cost for state funded schools is around £4000.

Walton seems to think the scheme will save money, but in order to do so it will have to drastically cut the value of the vouchers.

He chooses to ignore what state schools could do with an extra £6000 per year per pupil. Quite a bit would be my guess.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 15, 2009 12:26 PM

It is not my fault that you evidently can't understand subtle distinctions.

There is NO distinction in your comments. let me remind you what you actually said: "The law should treat both cases in exactly the same way"

In other words you do not think the law should consider the intentions of the person committing the crime. IF the intention was not only to murder an individual, but to terrorise a whole section of society you have said you said law should not consider that.

I am going on what you have said Walton. So stop lying and saying you did not say it.

Posted by: Walton | August 15, 2009 2:15 PM

I know I said I wouldn't post on this thread again, but since a direct request has been addressed to me:

Stop it. Just stop it, Walton. Stop making assertions about what will or would happen in your sick propertarian "paradise" and start basing your arguments on actual, concrete history - "In Country X, this was tried at this time, and these were the results." Then address the substantive responses.

OK, how's this formulation? In Sweden and other parts of the world where school voucher systems have been put in place, the reforms have allowed able children from poor backgrounds to obtain a better education than they could otherwise have afforded. Despite some criticism, these schemes remain popular with parents in most places where they have been instituted. I therefore suggest that a similar scheme should be tried in the UK. You may disagree with this - and plenty do - but it is not unsubstantiated assertion nor is it purely hypothetical.

References:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3717744.stm

http://www.examiner.com/x-1393-Education-Improvement-Examiner~y2009m3d20-Should-Obama-look-to-Swedens-successful-school-voucher-program

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 15, 2009 2:29 PM

I'm rather surprised to see you citing an article written from a socially-conservative viewpoint, and published in a loony magazine which, IIRC, was founded by Pat Buchanan

I did it because (a) Robert Locke does a critique of looneytarianism from a viewpoint not normally seen around here, (2) most of his points about looneytarianism are valid, and (iii) the title meshed well with SC's comment in #452.

Posted by: Zetetic | August 15, 2009 3:23 PM

@ MartinDH:

Sorry, I was asleep when you asked me about the tags.

I used...
[blockquote style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color: brown;"] yada yada [/blockquote]

just replace the brackects with the usual ">"

I hope that helps! :)

Posted by: Walton | August 15, 2009 5:04 PM

Well, SC, I direct you to an academic study conducted by Dr James Tooley, which made some interesting findings about the role of low-cost private schools in improving education standards in Africa and Asia.

http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/economics.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/educating_amaretch_gold_essay.pdf/$FILE/educating_amaretch_gold_essay.pdf

I explained the gist of it in a blog post I wrote some time ago. (Apologies for the poor footnoting, I hadn't quite got the hang of using Blogger at that stage.)

http://nevercallretreat.blogspot.com/2009/01/time-to-privatise-education.html

Posted by: MartinDH | August 15, 2009 5:29 PM

Yay!

Thanks Zetetic & Nerd.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 15, 2009 5:47 PM

You're welcome Martin. Glad to be of help.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 15, 2009 6:04 PM

I wonder, does Walton support or reject laws designed to curb terrorism?

because that's what a lynching is, Walton, terrorism.

so, in prosecuting a lynching as a simple murder, you ignore the actual purpose of the murder, which is terrorism.

IOW, you reward those who would use terrorism as a tactic by deliberately turning a blind eye to it.

I really do hope you never amount to anything, as your narcissism is truly scary to me.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 15, 2009 6:16 PM

It was poorly thought-out

you've been here too long for me to think this just another bumble on your part.

One has to conclude either:

-you've been this way all along, and the "poorly thought-out" part is the ruse to try and recover to continue trolling.

or

-you really are that bad, and rarely if ever think things through.

either way, it's not conducive to productive conversation on a blog.

It's killfile time for you.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 15, 2009 6:39 PM

For poor people, the privatization of public services has been a disaster. At the social level, it has worked to increase inequality and unequal access to services, not reduce them.

But that's the looneytarian way. Looneytarians like Walton don't give a damn about the poor. If they'd been smart, they would have picked their parents better like Walton did.

Posted by: Bobber | August 15, 2009 6:58 PM

Ichthyic, Bobber et al: Forget what I said about hate crimes. It was poorly thought-out, and I never got around to arguing it properly since I got bogged down in my little dispute with Matt Penfold. I retract it; I was wrong (not for the first time, nor, I'm sure, the last); and I don't intend to discuss it further.

Walton, I want to offer an explanation, of sorts, as to why libertarianism in general, and you in particular, may receive an often angry response.

I'm not apologizing for it; I merely want to help you understand where I, for one, am coming from as regards social issues.

I have stated previously that I have spent more than half of my life working with people, either through volunteering at the Special Olympics (I loved being "Spotty the clown") or working with deaf kids or assisting the mentally ill. My last professional gig was as a teacher. When you spend your time working with people who are often overlooked by the wider society, that is, people who simply could not survive without the assistance of others, you can be understandably thin-skinned when someone like yourself - young, relatively privileged and inexperienced - makes certain claims about how the ills of the world can be cured simply by resorting to what I see as winner-take-all, competition-over-cooperation, profits-over-people economic libertarianism. I have seen firsthand the evils that capitalistic society can produce, and while I agree that modern capitalism has helped provide the circumstances by which material progress in the west has been made, I understand that such "progress" comes at a cost - and that I believe it is the responsibility of the state, as the representative of all the people, to alleviate the damage done by the unfettered quest for profit.

What you propose is more capitalism, but I and others have seen what private, powerful interests can do to the greater, powerless public. Hence, as SC wrote,

For poor people, the privatization of public services has been a disaster. At the social level, it has worked to increase inequality and unequal access to services, not reduce them.

This is something that is seen time and again. Where privatization predominates, inequality increases. You may not see this as a bad thing. But from my experience - working with society's "losers" - I am outraged that such inequality is allowed to exist, and even more angry when it is defended as a necessary for the "greater good."

Posted by: Walton | August 15, 2009 7:13 PM

When you spend your time working with people who are often overlooked by the wider society, that is, people who simply could not survive without the assistance of others, you can be understandably thin-skinned when someone like yourself - young, relatively privileged and inexperienced - makes certain claims about how the ills of the world can be cured simply by resorting to what I see as winner-take-all, competition-over-cooperation, profits-over-people economic libertarianism.

If I appeared to be making such a bold claim, I apologise. I will be the first to admit that free markets, on their own, will not make the world perfect. In particular, as you correctly point out, the free market cannot in itself provide for those who - by reason of mental or physical incapacity or other misfortune - cannot be economically productive. For this reason, I do not advocate an unrestricted free market or the total abolition of all welfare provision. Neither did Friedman and Hayek, who both advocated a minimal, "safety net" level of welfare provision. Like them, I think we have a humanitarian responsibility to care in some way for the poorest and most disadvantaged; and if it cannot be done adequately by private charity, then it must be done by the state. So I don't disagree with you in principle.

Posted by: Zetetic | August 16, 2009 3:59 AM

@ MartinDH #463:

No problem, glad it worked for you. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Bisch:

Well Bisch...
Are you going to continue trying to justify an intellectually bankrupt argument from ignorance, and Ken Ham's blatant dishonesty?

Or, are you going to show some intellectual integrity and admit that it's a bad argument (even if it was true, which it's not), and that Ken Ham isn't displaying as much integrity as he should?

Posted by: Walton | August 16, 2009 4:48 AM

Bobber

I have seen firsthand the evils that capitalistic society can produce, and while I agree that modern capitalism has helped provide the circumstances by which material progress in the west has been made, I understand that such "progress" comes at a cost - and that I believe it is the responsibility of the state, as the representative of all the people, to alleviate the damage done by the unfettered quest for profit.

Yes, but the danger is that, if the state goes too far in doing so, it will endanger the profit motive which drives forward the engine of global trade and produces wealth and prosperity. I agree that there should be some taxes, some regulation, and some public services. But for purely pragmatic reasons, these must be kept to a level where they do not substantially disincentivise economic productivity. It's a balance; and I would contend that left-leaning governments tend to draw the balance in the wrong place.

I don't think we're that far apart in our principles. Ultimately, we all want the same thing: a world in which the greatest possible prosperity is enjoyed by the greatest possible number of people. I would merely contend that, in order to achieve that goal, we need to accept capitalism (albeit regulated capitalism, and tempered by humanitarian aid for the poorest) as the principal driver of economic progress.

Posted by: Mark McPherson | August 17, 2009 5:05 PM

Me: "There are some that have faith in our legal system."

Wowbagger: "We can change the legal system when we realise it requires changing to reflect society's wishes. Can you change your god?"

God does not change with the fads and whims of man. Scripture tells us that "God is the same yesterday, today and forever." There are those though that do indeed make God in their image, just as the field of science has been made to fit your very narrow worldview. I say, it is not us who changes God, but rather, God that changes us! So in that way, God gives us that "change that we can believe in." Not some governmental policy that benefits those who buy into an agenda, but a real and positive change that we can emulate and live by. The problem is though, we as Christians never live up to what God requires of us and cause scandal in the world and give rise to people like yourself.

Me: You are right, a hate crime IS threatening that person with death. But it is also a "hate crime" to go into a Church, whether you believe it or not, and disrupt the service, steal the Eucharist, hold up a banner, shout out anti-Catholic slogans, albeit it is a lesser crime, still careless and spiteful.
Wowbagger: "Can you show us evidence of someone doing that? Because if you actually read the threads posted around the time of the cracker incident you'd realise no-one did that. And even if they had it still wouldn't be a hate crime. You need to realise that something that offends you does not necessarily constitute a crime, hate or otherwise."
Me: I have not read the threads of the incident, so I will go back and do so...

Me: It is most certainly a hate crime. Not even getting into an arguement on transubstantion, there are over a billion Catholic believers in the world that would take offense to what was done and would undoubtedly see it as an attack against the faith and unfortunately, some would react in hate and violently.
Wowbagger: Once again, that's not what constitutes a hate crime. Do some research. Every time you eat beef you cause offence to over a billion Hindus. Do you intend to become a vegetarian?
Me: Here's some research: According to "US Legal Definitions" website: "A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability." Coming in and taking a "cracker" out of a Catholic Mass can lead to provocation. The Eucharist is a Sacrament that is solemnly revered and seen as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. So this person took Jesus, as seen by Catholics, out of the Mass and descrated our Most Blessed Sacrament. Though the person who took the Eucharist may not have threatened anyone, nor caused any physical harm, it can be seen as harassment, or in that it was a provoked act to purposely upset the congregation.

Me: Scientific theory should be open to all possibilities, even to the possibilities that we don't necessarily agree with. Scientists must have the freedom of inquiry....even if that freedom points in a direction we don't like....like the possibility of a Creator God.

Wowbagger: Science is completely open to the possibility of a creator god. All you have to do is provide evidence that can be examined and verified. No evidence = no science.

Me: Life on Earth is a masterpiece. It is a delicately woven system set up just right for a myriad of life forms to flourish, thrive and even evolve.

Wowbagger: Then how do you explain extinction?

Me: Extinction is part of life. Nothing lasts forever that was created. Life changes, evolves, improves and even at times devolves. There are even ways of thinking that lead to devolution...such as Christian fundamentalism, a moral relativism and an atheistic scientism.

Me: "Unfortunately, you and other naturalists, atheists and secular humanists are fueling the fires of Christians and other religious fundamentalists like Ken Ham and both sides will be spewing falsities and hate for years to come if we cannot sit down civily and reason TOGETHER, listen to each other and hash out our brighter future."

Wowbagger: "Nope. Liars are to be identified and called out for their lies. It's not a question of 'meeting halfway'; they are liars who lie about science and there isn't a midpoint between truth and lies."

Me: Sounding like some school yard teacher with a whistle, I have a hunch that the "fundies" would call adherents to your scientism "liars" as well. Sitting back and calling each other "liars" is not productive and not even good debating skills.

Me: "Faith and Reason can coexist and even naturally co-exist together as I have tried to explain."

Wowbagger: "Wrong again. Martin Luther summed it up perfectly: 'Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."

Me: "Funny you should quote Martin Luther, one of the fathers of Protestantism, and the man who formulated from a twisting of the texts of Scripture, the doctrine of FAITH ALONE. No one in history before Martin Luther ever taught such. And today we have the descendants of Martin Luther that even most modern Lutherans would disagree with....in KEN HAM. Martin Luther also called Reason "the Devil's whore." Yes, many Lutherans today would probably disagree with their founder. Before Martin Luther and after him, the Catholic Church has always taught that Faith and Reason are compatible and even complimentary. Though in the history of the Church, we have not practiced what we preached."

Posted by: Zetetic | August 18, 2009 4:14 AM

@ Mark McPherson:

You're still just making unsupported assertions without giving any reason to take your beliefs seriously. You have made many rationalizations, but have done nothing to provide any evidence for any god at all. Not to mention that you haven't yet given us any reason to believe that your god is the correct one.

As for science being narrow minded, actually it's you that seem to be narrow minded. As Wowbager pointed out science has no trouble with accepting "god did it" as an explanation, providing you can offer some credible evidence to support it. Can you honestly say the same about your belief in God? What would it take for you to not believe in your current interpretation of religion and God, honestly?

I doubt that anything at all could change your mind on that issue. Yet you hypocritically refer to science and those are open to changing their mind, when presented with compelling evidence, as "close minded" since we don't just accept your beliefs on your say so.

If science stuck to your asinine definition of being "open minded" we would still be practically in the dark ages. Astrology would be considered reliable. We'd still be looking for the Philosopher's Stone. We'd still believe that disease was caused by evil spirits (since the "infallible" bible says so), or due to an "imbalance of the humors".

It's not the goal of science to discredit your beliefs, it's just what happens when you can't back up your own dogma with evidence. Science is about separating fact from fiction, not pandering to whatever dogma you (or anyone else) want everybody to uncritically accept. If you can't provide evidence to support your presuppositionalism, then blame yourself for accepting a position that has no credible supporting evidence, it's not the fault of science.

Also, if science fails to provide the answers that you want, it has nothing to do with atheism. Atheists have been around long before the scientific method was developed. Additionally, many scientists are also religious (yes, some of the religious ones also accept evolution too). Rather it's your problem that you insist on clinging to your own particular religious interpretation that happens to be at odds with what we have discovered about reality. You could adopt a religious interpretation that isn't at odds with the evidence, yet you chose not to. It's really just that simple.

BTW have you found an answer yet to Josh's question at post #412? You haven't answered it yet...

Tell me how I falsify this statement:

Odin is the creator of the universe.

If you think that this statement is ridiculous, then ask yourself why. Unless you're open to the possibility that Odin could be that creator god, then all you're doing is tipping your hand to the truth that science is the last thing you're interested in here.

I look forward to reading how you'll falsify the many creator gods that you don't believe in. (hint: it's why science insists on positively supporting evidence).
It should be amusing.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 18, 2009 12:39 PM

There was an article about the accuracy of radiometric dating that was just technical enough to show the data, and just simple enough to not talk over my head, and it was compelling.

Was it this?

  http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

As for Ken Ham, I don't think I'm prepared to say he's dishonest.

Given that Ham has had plenty of opportunity and motivation to learn about that which he condemns, dishonesty on his part is a reasonable conclusion.

After all, he can't say that "90% of all dating methods contradict the idea that the earth is millions of years old" without knowing something about those dating methods. So he is either lying directly about the dating methods -- or he's implicitly lying about him knowing what those dating methods are.

Either way, he's a lying liar.

Posted by: Josh | August 18, 2009 1:18 PM

There was an article about the accuracy of radiometric dating that was just technical enough to show the data, and just simple enough to not talk over my head, and it was compelling.

Let me just jump in here and affirm that we're not lying. The principles of physics that we use to radiometrically date rocks are essentially the same ones that people use to build nuclear weapons. They work.

Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 1:41 PM

RevBDC:

(baby steps, baby steps)

Posted by: Zetetic | August 18, 2009 4:04 PM

@ Bisch:

Thanks for responding, I'm glad that you returned to the conversation and seem to be open to the evidence for an old Earth. I'm especially glad that you are learning about radiometric dating. It really is a very compelling piece of evidence. That it's so important is why the YEC "leaders" consistently need to not accurately inform people as to how and why it works. As you transition (no pun intended) more from YEC to OEC, I think you'll find that there is a whole lot of science that the YEC community has (sadly) been misinformed on, or not told about.

The others before me have already touched upon why we believe Ken Ham to be dishonest. I can understand your desire to give him the benefit of the doubt, though in my opinion he is at the very least being intellectually dishonest by constantly using logical fallacies and ignoring any contrary evidence.

Please understand that one of the important points I was trying to make (assuming that I wasn't clear enough about it earlier)..... That even if we couldn't explain how the Earth has it's current salt levels, it doesn't actually "prove" that the Earth must by young. It only shows that we have something (the salt levels in the ocean) that we don't fully understand. You don't even need to be a scientist to see why the argument doesn't "prove" what Ham (and many other YECs) claim, it's just a matter of critical thinking and objective analysis to see that the argument isn't valid.

I don't want to sound like a broken record on that point, but it's important. Once someone learns to recognize how and why Ken Ham's salt argument is an argument from ignorance, and therefore is based on a fallacy, they'll find that it (argument from ignorance) is a crucial "cornerstone" for most unscientific beliefs (including Ken Ham's assertions). It's very handy to be able to automatically spot one when someone brings one up to support their position.

Thanks again for responding.

Posted by: Mark McPherson | August 23, 2009 3:39 PM

To Martin DH

"Unfortunately you're using the fallacy of equivocation. You've taken two of the meanings of "faith" and are insisting they are one and the same. "Faith in the existence of something unevidenced" (deities, unicorns) is completely different from "Faith in the existence of something repeatedly evidenced" (sunrises, car starting, legal system &c. &c.). The former is private (as there is no evidence to share) and can have no contradictory evidence, hence is fixed. The latter is public (i.e. the evidence is shareable), and can be falsified by contradictory evidence, hence is pragmatic (my car didn't start so I'll drop that faith)."

This arguement of the "fallacy of equivocation" you propose is shoddy in that you are already assuming that God does not exist.Checking out Merriam Websters Dictionary definition of the word "faith" does not make the same distinction as you do, hence your definition of the word "faith" is conveniently distorted.My point in the previous post was to display the trust or faith one has in the "legal system, the traffic laws, etc...Webster may disagree with your assertion that the word usuage is as you said "completely different." Nice wordsmithing though, just like a good and "faithful" liberal. Here is Websters definition:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonyms see belief
— on faith : without question

"Ham knows much of what he spouts is half-truths at best. As to lying and obfuscation, you might want to look at his behaviour during the recent internicene slugfest between AiG (US) and its Australian founding organisation, CMI.
Why does the belief of his followers shed any light on Ham's veracity?"

I am not a follower of Ken Ham nor an apologist of his theories in regards to science. Although Mr. Ham and I share a faith in Jesus Christ, that is similiar, I do not discount science as he does and I can see the correlation between faith and reason that neither you or Mr. Ham can see.

"The short reply: I can see little difference in sola fide and fide & ratio...just in the timing of when faith takes over! Faith is their starting position while it is your fallback position. And therein lies the difficulty...when does faith take over from reason and how do you know it?
An aside: Although, with all my being, I disagrees (Jar Jar??) with the "faith alone" approach, those that use it have a basic honesty that is lacking in fide et ratio approaches. Humanism's arguments may be "old and dry" but at least they're not ancient, mouldy and fallacious (see how easy it is easy make unsupported snarky assertions)."

Really??? Do you honestly think a Christian is that irrational?? Is belief in a Creator Being, be it the Judeo- Christian-Muslim God, the Hindu gods, the Buddhist gods, or any other god, do you really think God is our fall back guy? If we don't have an answer, say "God did it"? Rational thinking and Christianity and any religion for that matter are not alien to each other. We are not all thoughtless drones just taking on FAITH ALONE what our respective religions teach us, although unfortunately there are some. (Ham). I am a lover of the sciences, as are many others in many other Christian faiths, and other religious faiths. My faith and reason in my own life COMPLIMENT each other. I do not come upon a challenger such as yourself, and think, well, I have God to "fall back on" or even "lean on as a crutch" in whatever exchange takes place. My faith shapes my reasoning and my reasoning shapes my faith. If you have faith alone, as does Mr. Ham, your reasoning will be skewed, and if you accept solely reason, you have a distorted view of faith, which you have displayed.

"I guess you have no qualms about associating with an organisation that has: until the rise of Protestantism, murderously prevented the publication of contradictory knowledge; made concordats with despotic monarchies and every right wing dictator; lies about the effectiveness of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV; condones and protects paedophiles, suppresses women and gays &c. &c."

As for the Church's dealings with "despotic monarchies" in the past, this is true. And as for the "burnings at the stake", the slaughter of heretics, Jews, and "non-believers", this is a time period that has fortunately past. One cannot deny the sins of the "religious" before us. But one also has to see that after the fall of the Roman Empire, it was the Roman Catholic Church that sucked up alot of the governmental power over the people and they were unfortunately the Church AND the State at that time. Hence they were the dispensers of medieval justice, regrettably. Hence today we have the great development in our country today in the SEPERATION of Church and State. Stemming from the abuses of the Church of England, which was the State in that society. Note it is not the SEPERATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE, because the Church as a body in society still has a voice. That was a sinful and backwards and evil time period in human development and history. But there was also even then MUCH GOOD that the Church performed and aided in. I also do not condone the recent events of the shuffling of pedophiles in the local Churches. There is MUCH WORK that needs to be done in the Church today in regards to human sexuality. The Church by the way, reflects the society it lives in. So it is society at large that also needs to work on a healthy and human sexuality. There is a great movement in the Church in response to those recent and diabolical abuses. You say the Church "lies" about the effectiveness of condoms. Again, you cannot call out "liar" every time you disagree or misunderstand a position. Condoms and contraception are a destructive and animalistic mentality. Do they prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS and other such diseases amongst people? Possibly, but at what cost? The sexual act is devolved into a pleasure fest, pornography increases, women in society are devalued, family's are broken up and even the economy suffers. Am I reaching here?? Are condoms truly the answer or are they compounding an already prolific problem?

"Phew, it's lucky Webster Cook did none of that (in law it is not theft to steal something given to you). The only people who disrupted the service were those that assaulted Cook as he returned to his pew.
You can't have a hate crime with no crime."

WOW...you got me on that one!! It is almost pointless to argue this point with you since you have no regard for religious belief and see it as fanciful, mythical. It is a crime. It may not have been motivated by "hate" but if this guy was himself a practicing Catholic as some posters have said he was, then he should have known that stealing a Eucharist from a Mass is inciteful and more than likely spawned hate towards him. Maybe better worded, it was a crime that purposely induced hate.

What law was broken? No broken law means no crime, hence no hate crime. I'm sure the Hindus take offense when you eat beef, and the Jews when you consume pork, and the Muslims when you draw a picture of Mohammed. It's their problem when an unbeliever breaks a taboo. It's still a cracker no matter what you believe. You could demonstrate otherwise by participating in a experiement that lets members of clergy attempt to identify a Eucharist within several hundred unblessed wafers.

If you actually looked up the definition of "transubstantion" which is the changing of the bread and the wine into the Body and the Blood of Christ, it does teach that it is still bread and still wine. It is not symbolic as some may think, but Christ Himself gives us Himself in bread and wine. To so cavalierly mock the beliefs of religious people is infantile and insidious. And you call us hate filled when you yourselves spark the hate by your actions and or words? In the words of Rodney King "can't we all just get along?"

"BTW Those that react in hate and violently WOULD be committing a crimes."

And so would those who set them up.

more later....to Martin DH

Posted by: Zetetic | August 25, 2009 4:36 AM

OK back from work now...

Let's look at what else Mark McPherson said:

You say the Church "lies" about the effectiveness of condoms. Again, you cannot call out "liar" every time you disagree or misunderstand a position.

Agreed (about calling others "liar"), but in this case the Church is demonstrably lying. Just like Ken Ham they have been given the truth and the evidence supporting it, but chose to ignore it for political/ideological reasons.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, McPherson, whatever sympathy I had for your desire to rationalize faith (in a god) was blown completely out of the water by these following remarks. Here the typical Catholic repressive attitudes towards normal human sexuality raises it's ugly head, and people wonder why pedophilia is so wide spread in Catholic institutions...

Condoms and contraception are a destructive and animalistic mentality.

So preventing disease, suffering, and children that that families can't afford to raise properly is "destructive and animalistic" huh? Interesting definitions you have for those terms.

Do they prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS and other such diseases amongst people?

Demonstrably, YES. Granted they aren't the only part of the solution, but they are still an important part.

Possibly, but at what cost? The sexual act is devolved into a pleasure fest, pornography increases, women in society are devalued, family's are broken up and even the economy suffers.

Yeah right... Never mind that historically the more sexually repressed a society is, the more it exhibits the exact same problems you criticize. Just because a repressed society hides such activities more, doesn't mean that they aren't occurring behind closed doors. If anything hiding them tends to make things worse since there is no social moderating effect and fewer places for the victims to turn to. As far as women being devalued, families broken, and economic harm, all of those things are much worse the more widespread a disease like AIDS is. Africa provides plenty of examples of such effects on society.

Am I reaching here??

Yes, in fact "reaching" doesn't even being to describe it. What you are doing is like trying to blame automotive safety features (seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes, etc.) for reckless driving. Please spare us from claiming that condoms only protect the "guilty". The only thing that most of them are guilty of is offending your personal feelings. Such an argument also ignores that people that have done nothing wrong, even by your repressive standards, such as their wives and the children that they conceive are either harmed by AIDS or can be protected by condom use. Do you really think that a spouse that cheats (or is raped) can't give AIDS to a faithful spouse? A virus doesn't care about what you and your dogma consider "guilty" or "innocent".

Are condoms truly the answer or are they compounding an already prolific problem?

There is zero evidence of them compounding anything that would be considered a problem outside of your own sexually repressed mind. There is though evidence of them helping to lower the spread of disease.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving on...

It is not symbolic as some may think, but Christ Himself gives us Himself in bread and wine.

How exactly and in what sense does he give us "Himself"? Do you have any credible evidence of this?

To so cavalierly mock the beliefs of religious people is infantile and insidious. And you call us hate filled when you yourselves spark the hate by your actions and or words? In the words of Rodney King "can't we all just get along?"

"BTW Those that react in hate and violently WOULD be committing a crimes."

And so would those who set them up.

So are you saying that those that say anything "defamatory" of Islam or Mohamed are committing a "Hate Crime"? What about if they are being accurate and factual in the "defamatory" statements, is that still a hate crime? That is the implication of your position. Say "goodbye" to freedom of speech!

It's very simple, the only reason that the "Cracker Theft" incident escalated into violence was because the rest of the attendees got offended and then resorted to violence to act out on their offense. If they had just "turned the other cheek" it never would have blown up like it had, and it wouldn't have inspired other similar acts of provocation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I find interesting about your attempts to justify "faith in god" is that it seems to be an underlying reason for your attempt to justify Ken Ham's lack of integrity.
This is a common theme in religion, and a major factor in why religious extremists keep having such undue influence in culture, distorting (and even tearing apart) societies in the process. The religious moderates, rarely criticize the extremists (at least not openly) and often rush to their defense, why? Simple really, because if the extremist's faith is allowed to be called into question, then by default your own less extreme version gets questioned as well.

On the other side of the aisle we "rationalists" have little trouble criticizing and correcting each other. In fact science absolutely depends on exactly that as part of it's attempt to eliminate error/falsehoods and to continue progressing.

So... are you trying to defend Ham because you think that it's unfair to call a liar, a liar? Doubtful, more likely it's about your attempt to prevent cognitive dissonance about your own beliefs that motivates you to defend the more extreme religious dogmas and actions.

You keep invoking faith (in a god) as a necessary balance to reason, but you never specify why or how it's "necessary" in the first place. It provides no real world answers or progress. The only thing that it really accomplishes is helping people that feel they need to believe in a "higher power" (for whatever reason) feel better. That's all well and good, but it's very subjective. In that respect faith in a god(s) is rather like using recreational drugs (I'm including alcohol in that), it helps you to feel better. It may even help you get through the day, but not everyone needs it (faith or drugs) to get through their days. Just like with drugs, faith in a god(s) can distort one's perception to varying degrees so moderation is important or you can lose touch with reality.

You don't want to get "hooked" do you? Never mind, I suspect that you already are.