Pharyngula

Ken Ham, baffled

Crazy Ken Ham has learned about the Atheist Convention in Melbourne, and he has written his confused, garbled version of what it’s all about. He’s also done his typical cowardly routine of complaining about the convention and also, by the way, about me, but refusing to mention any of us by name, let alone linking to us. He can’t have his readers actually seeing what the other side has to say, after all; the world must be filtered through the benevolent and opaque lens of the Maximum Leader, you know.

At least it’s fascinating to watch a weak mind struggle to grasp something he doesn’t understand…mainly because what he accomplishes is to reveal his own ignorance and bias.

Imagine–listening to a meaningless talk at a meaningless conference held on a meaningless planet in a meaningless universe! Now, that would be an uplifting conference!

From their worldview, wouldn’t atheists see this meeting as a meaningless waste of time? Of course, they would claim they have some purpose and meaning–but it would be all constructed subjectively according to their own determinations! All because they shake their fist at God–but why?

Yes, it is a meaningless universe; the universe doesn’t care about us, doesn’t love us, and is mindless and indifferent. That’s simple reality. What we human beings do is wrest meaning for ourselves from a pitiless, uncaring background, and I think that’s wonderful, grand and glorious — it’s the process of finding purpose that is our accomplishment, not the imposition of an inhuman goal by a cosmic tyrant. This meeting will be a small part of everyone’s ongoing struggle to learn and grow — so yes, it will be uplifting. It will also be fun and constructive.

Shouldn’t it be obvious to Ham that his caricature of atheists is false? After all, we aren’t all just gloomily digging our graves, lying down in them, and waiting for death, so it should be clear that we aren’t a bunch of despondent nihilists. We’re living and active. What could possibly be driving us?

The Scripture tells us they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1). Basically it comes down to the fact that they don’t want to have to answer to anyone–they want to set their own rules. They generally want to abort babies if they want or make marriage whatever they want to make it to be (or reject it altogether). They want to do what is “right” in their own eyes! Thus, a Creator who owns them, to whom they owe their existence, and against whom they have rebelled, is anathema to them!

Ah, that must be it. Atheists are just out to murder babies and mate with anything that moves. Or stops moving. Or something.

Again, since most atheists are productive and cooperative citizens of their communities, it should be obvious that we aren’t self-indulgent anarchists, either. We do think there have to be rules, a social contract, that helps tie together the diverse people of our culture and permits civilized interactions between us. The difference is that we believe those rules should be developed by humane principles that recognize the equality and interdependence of all people, rather than being rules contrived by priests to perpetuate their power by inventing arbitrary ultimatums from imaginary superbeings.

We don’t believe in a creator god, so we reject the notion that we are ‘owned’ by one, but you can’t say that we find such a creator anathema — we don’t believe it exists! What’s repellent are self-styled prophets and priests (who are real) demanding that we follow their antiquated dogma.

It baffles the mind as to why these atheists even bother to try to aggressively convert people to their meaningless religion–after all, what’s the point? The only reason they would even bother is if they are engaged in a spiritual battle. Otherwise they wouldn’t care. They know in their hearts there is a God, and they are deliberately suppressing that, as the Scripture so clearly tells us.

Man, we can’t win an argument with a person that stupid. We don’t believe in gods, plain and simple. Ham says we do. How does he know? Because he has an old book that says we do. That’s the problem right there: that rather than actually paying attention to the evidence, talking to people and recognizing what they actually say, the devoted relidjit would rather trust a book written a few thousand years ago that claims to be able to read the minds of 21st century people.

Don’t worry. We’ll have a fabulous time in Australia. I know that some small part of the conference will be spent laughing at Ken Ham.

Oh, yeah, that part where he talks about me. Of course he doesn’t refer to me by name, or mention the blog, or include a link to the article he found objectionable, he just talks about that atheist professor in Minnesota who hates Christians and mocked Kent Hovind. Here’s what I wrote about Hovind’s recent online writings:

By the way, Kent Hovind is still putting up bizarre dialogs on his CSE blogs. He’s been having conversations with God, dead Egyptian priests, and Christian saints, who all reassure him about how clever and smart and good he is, despite being in prison for tax evasion. It’s pathetic and sad. There has to be a word for this: it’s a kind of mega-sockpuppetry, in which it isn’t just random strangers on the internet mysteriously popping up to back him up — it’s God and the saints and heroes of history who are all appearing as voices in his head to validate him.

Now brace yourselves and aim a fire extinguisher at your irony meters, because what Ham wants to argue is that I didn’t realize Hovind’s conversations with saints and deities was metaphorical.

Basically, Hovind created an imaginary dialogue with Potipherah (Genesis 41:45, 50) to point out that modern America has the same problem the Egyptians had when Joseph oversaw the years of plenty and famine. It’s pretty obvious this post is designed to be understood as metaphor. The same is so for the posting with the dialogue between God, Stephen (Christian saint), and Hovind. Any Christian reading Kent Hovind’s post would understand what he’s doing with these writings. The atheist blogger would also have to say that C.S. Lewis talked with the devil and his fellow demons in order for Lewis to write the Screwtape Letters, if he follows the same logic! Is this atheist that ignorant of literary techniques or just deliberating suppressing the truth?

Uh, what? So Ham is accusing me of believing that these phantasms of Hovind’s mind literally appeared to him in his jail cell? This is weird. I’m an atheist — I don’t believe in gods or long-dead people manifesting in living conversations. Of course I see Hovind as playing a game — he’s revealing nothing but his own sad perception of himself as a hero in these imaginary conversations, and that’s precisely what is so pathetic about it.

The funniest part of it all, though, is Ken Ham lecturing me on how I ought to recognize that a religious man writing down what he claims are the words of God is so clearly just a metaphor and a literary exercise…when he refuses to recognize the same status of the books of the Bible that he insists are literally and absolutely true and of divine origin.

It’s pretty obvious the book of Genesis is designed to be understood as metaphor. It’s Ken Ham who demands that it be regarded as the product of a conversation between ancient scribes and his god.

Comments

  1. #1 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 13, 2010

    Cue Twilight Zone theme music…

  2. #2 The Science Pundit
    January 13, 2010

    Well Hovind might actually believe that he was talking to demons–or maybe he believes that you’re a demon.

  3. #3 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 13, 2010

    The stupid that Ham infuses into his writings would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. Does he honestly think that we don’t recognize Hovind’s rants and whines as metaphoric?

  4. #4 mrsquiddy
    January 13, 2010

    So PZ… I know of the best cocktail bar in Melbourne, the bartender there, Moses, can part the Red Sea of our sobriety if you so wish!

    I know this post may sound off topic but it isn’t, getting drunk is about the only way I can handle living in a world of christians.

  5. #5 Hypatia's Daughter
    January 13, 2010

    I think Hammy sounds sulky – like you atheists are gonna planning a fun party that he hasn’t been invited to.

  6. #6 SC OM
    January 13, 2010

    –they want to set their own rules…They want to do what is “right” in their own eyes!

    Um, yes. So?

    …it should be obvious that we aren’t self-indulgent anarchists, either

    W?
    T?
    F?

    I give up.

  7. #7 Legion
    January 13, 2010

    By the way, Kent Hovind is still putting up bizarre dialogs on his CSE blogs… it’s God and the saints and heroes of history who are all appearing as voices in his head to validate him.

    Seems pretty clear from PZ’s post that he doesn’t think Hovind is actually talking to god and dead Egyptians. Although, to be fair, considering Hovind believes in supernatural beings, it’s not entirely clear whether Hovind realizes these conversations are generated entirely from inside his empty little head.

    ———————————————
    Legion: Demons You Can Depend On

  8. #8 Glen Davidson
    January 13, 2010

    Sure, you were accusing Kent of being a polytheist, out in the open and all.

    Ham probably realizes he could be that stupid, so he projects.

    I love how horrible he makes it sound being owned by some arbitrary bastard like Yahweh, then condemns anyone who might object to such an idea.\

    The slaves don’t want to be slaves. That’s the ultimate in evil.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  9. #9 SC OM
    January 13, 2010

    The difference is that we believe those rules should be developed by humane principles that recognize the equality and interdependence of all people, rather than being rules contrived by priests to perpetuate their power by inventing arbitrary ultimatums from imaginary superbeings.

    You could almost be quoting Bakunin, Kropotkin, or Goldman here, you know.

  10. #10 Iris
    January 13, 2010

    They want to do what is “right” in their own eyes!

    Unlike, say, Ken Ham. Is it just an amazing coincidence that his god hates everyone and everything that Ham does? Or do believers really think that without their misogynist, deranged dogma dictating what is “right” they’d personally have no moral compass whatsoever?

  11. #11 Sven DiMilo
    January 13, 2010

    Stephen (Christian saint)

    with a rose?

    (Personal Warning to Janine: Do Not Click It!)

  12. #12 Kel, OM
    January 13, 2010

    This has gotten to the level of pathetic. I would really like to see theists taking atheism for what it is instead of constructing a nihilistic strawman to attack. You’d think that they would be more than willing to engage the argument as the argument is put forth, after all it is us who they believe are misled so surely they could spend the effort trying to understand how it is that atheists (not as a collective but individually) could not believe.

    At least in my experience, this does not happen. They (generally speaking) don’t even seek to understand why it is I’m an atheist and will fall back on what they’ve been told about atheists by senior religious folk who don’t understand it either.

  13. #13 Danish
    January 13, 2010

    All because they shake their fist at God…

    No, Ken. We don’t shake our fists at something we don’t think exists. But we might shake our fist at you. Although it’s more likely we will just laugh at you.

  14. #14 Pastor Farm
    January 13, 2010

    It’s a common misconception among the faithful–I having been one of them with the same ideas–that atheism is no different than nihilism.

    After all, if there is no Heaven to look forward to, what’s the point of being good?

    Then I realized, why would I be anything else? How would I be anything else? I wouldn’t want to hurt anyone (unless she was into that kind of thing, but then again, I’m paranoid).

    There again, even after leaving Christianity for Atheism, I’m still an utter failure with women. The endless, heathenish orgies that I was so hoping for when dropping God have yet to materialize.

    The only time I’ve ever been more disappointed was when I became a nurse and my co-workers were all women in their 60s*.

    If there’s one thing Christianity and Porn have in common is that they’re both full of horrible, shameful lies.

    *No offense meant to women in their 60′s, it’s just that I was 20 at the time and even now at 32, I generally like to keep age differences within 5 years.

  15. #15 SC OM
    January 13, 2010

    Even in the most puzzling of all manifestations of life,-the domain of feeling and thought, in which human intelligence has to catch the very processes by means of which it succeeds in retaining and coordinating the impressions received from without-even in this domain, the darkest of all, man has already succeeded in catching a glimpse of tile mechanism of thought by following the lines of research indicated by physiology. And finally, in the vast field of human institutions, habits and laws superstitions, beliefs, and ideals, such a flood of light has been throw’, by the anthropological schools of history law and economics that we cat’ already maintain positively that “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” is no longer a dream a mere Utopia. It is possible , and it is also clear, that the prosperity and happiness of no nation or class could ever he based even temporarily upon the degradation of either classes, nations, or races.

    Modern science has thus achieved a double aim. On the one side it has given to man a very valuable lesson of modesty. It has taught him to consider himself as but an infinitesimally small particle of the universe. It has driven him out of his narrow, egotistical seclusion, and has dissipated the self-conceit under which he considered himself the center of the universe and the object of the special attention of the Creator. It has taught him that without the whole the “ego” is nothing; that our “I” cannot even come to a self-definition without the “thou.” But at the same time science has taught man how powerful mankind is in its progressive march, if it skillfully utilizes the unlimited energies of Nature.

    Thus science and philosophy have given us both the material strength and the freedom of thought which are required for calling into life the constructive forces that may lead mankind to a new of progress. There is, however, one branch of knowledge which behind. It is ethics, the teaching of the fundamental principle morality. A system of ethics worthy of the present scientific revival, which would take advantage of all the recent acquisition reconstituting the very foundations of morality on a wider philosophical basis, and which would give to the civilized nations the inspiration required for the great task that lies before them-such a system has not yet been produced. But the need of it is felt every where. A new, realistic moral science is the need of the day a science as free from superstition, religious dogmatism, and metaphysical mythology as modern cosmogony and philosophy already and permeated at the same time with these higher feelings brighter hopes which are inspired by the modern knowledge of and his history this is what humanity is persistently demanding.

    That such a science is possible lies beyond any reasonable doubt. If the study of Nature has yielded the elements of a philosophy which embraces the life of the Cosmos the evolution of living beings the laws of physical activity and the development of society it must also be able to give us the rational origin and tile sources of moral feelings. And it must be able to show us where lie the forces that are able to elevate the moral feeling to an always greater height and purity….

    The need of realistic ethics was felt from the very dawn of the scientific revival, when Bacon, at the same time that he laid the foundations of the present advancement of sciences, indicated also the main outlines of empirical ethics, perhaps with less thoroughness than this was done by his followers, but with a width of conception which few have been able to attain since, and beyond which we have not advanced much further in our day.

    The best thinkers of the seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries continued on the same lines, Endeavoring to worth out systems of ethics independent of the imperatives of religion….

    http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/ethics/ch1.html

  16. #16 https://me.yahoo.com/a/ZmiZc_Z2iYdD4s9Dn4zTDmwIxV1IUQ--#4ab6e
    January 13, 2010

    Wait. Did I seriously just read that a Biblical literalist is criticizing someone of not understanding metaphors? And why can’t I leave any comments for Ken Ham’s article on his site? What a disgrace to existence.

  17. #17 Rocky
    January 13, 2010

    Dear World, I feel as an Australian the need to apologise. So sorry everyone. Not everyone down here is as crazy as crazy Ken Ham or at least they are crazy about more rational things like Australian Rules Football.

  18. #18 sbwright
    January 13, 2010

    America, the only country big enough to hide Ken Ham’s idiocy. Say who did we exchange for Ken Ham? Was it Meryl Dorey?

  19. #19 hsbio
    January 13, 2010

    I never have been to Ken’s wonderful blog, but went there after reading this post….I wanted to leave a comment – “why do you, Ken, even care what ‘they’ do at ‘their’ convention?” – but wouldn’t you know it…no chance or way to leave a comment…..seems as though he is a bit scared of what he might get….but I notice he and those of his “ilk” have no problem coming to this blog and leaving their WONDERFUL thoughts.

    What a freaking JOKE….but, what should I expect from him and those like him (Pat Robertson) who spew HATE not LOVE.

  20. #20 Noel
    January 13, 2010

    They generally want to abort babies if they want or make marriage whatever they want to make it to be…

    Eloquence.

  21. #21 Sgt. Obvious
    January 13, 2010

    @ sbwright: Hell if I know. You exported Ken Ham AND Comfort, and not only did you not take any nutjobs off our hands, you didn’t even give us anyone good for our trouble! As I see it, you owe us at LEAST one of the Chasers. Or a camera.

  22. #22 KOPD42
    January 13, 2010

    It’s all so obvious! If somebody writes that God or some dead person spoke to them, it’s a metaphor. Except when it’s not a metaphor. And we know when it’s not a metaphor because that’s when it’s real. But when it’s not real, it’s a metaphor. Well, I’m glad we have that cleared up.

  23. #23 Kel, OM
    January 13, 2010

    Dear World, I feel as an Australian the need to apologise.

    Why bother? It’s like dumping a baby on another’s doorstep. Ken Ham is America’s problem now ;)

  24. #24 DaveL
    January 13, 2010

    Of course, they would claim they have some purpose and meaning–but it would be all constructed subjectively according to their own determinations!

    The mind boggles at the idea of objective meaning – meaning independent of any mind.

  25. #25 hsbio
    January 13, 2010

    #22
    Some of the best logic I have heard in a really long time. Thanks for the clarification…didn’t really understand what he was trying to say, but I do now. metaphor vs. reality…the next great religous battle ground for the souls of sinners.

  26. #26 cpsmith
    January 13, 2010

    “Is this atheist that ignorant of literary techniques or just deliberating suppressing the truth?”

    It’s like goldy and bronzy only it’s made of iron.

  27. #27 truthspeaker
    January 13, 2010

    Of course, they would claim they have some purpose and meaning–but it would be all constructed subjectively according to their own determinations!

    Damn straight.

    They generally want to abort babies if they want or make marriage whatever they want to make it to be

    Wow, humans making a human-invented institution what they want it to be.

  28. #28 history punk
    January 13, 2010

    “They generally want to abort babies if they want or make marriage whatever they want to make it to be…”

    [[citation needed]]

  29. #29 386sx for a hundred, Alex!!
    January 13, 2010

    Any Christian reading Kent Hovind’s post would understand what he’s doing with these writings.

    It doesn’t look to me like Hovind thinks they’re metaphorical.

    And no, “Any Christian reading Kent Hovind’s post” wouldn’t necessarily “understand what he’s doing with these writings”. They aren’t freakin mind readers. (What an idiot.)

  30. #30 delphi-ote
    January 13, 2010

    The real WTF in all that is that he’s quoting the New King James translation. What the hell kind of fundamentalist is this guy?

  31. #31 386sx for a hundred, Alex!!
    January 13, 2010

    It doesn’t look to me like Hovind thinks they’re metaphorical.

    I should probably rephrase that. It doesn’t look to me like Hovind would mind one bit if people thought he was actually talking to all those made up pretend people. (Hovind may or may not actually be that far out there in cuckoo land.)

  32. #32 Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
    January 13, 2010

    Pastor Farm – Don’t worry you’ll get there. The endless heathen orgies are held during the OM initiations. Until then you’ll just have to take it on faith that bacon wrapped nipples, and men in fishnet stockings abusing the spanking couch exist.

    D’oh! I wasn’t supposed to tell you that.

  33. #33 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 13, 2010

    Mr. Ham just wants us to be closer to what is right in the Bible. God loves you, and that is why he wants you to stone every bad-mouthing child, adulterers, gay, dwarves, fortune tellers, all those girls who love their denims, mixed-fabric wearers, women who wear pearls and golds, pig and shrimp eaters, men who shave their beards, then burn those promiscuous priest daughters, then sacrifice your child to appease him, then slaughter a lamb to cure leprosy, then have rape-victims wed their rapists, then have all men merry as many women as possible but don’t let those women ever say anything without your permission, force people to wear hijabs, and then burn Ken Ham himself for being a false prophet! Can’t you people see the divine truth in that? He wants you to do as the Bible says so that you can enjoy an eternity with the One True God(s)* in heaven.

    *If he knew the origins of Genesis, he should be worshiping multiple Gods.

  34. #34 386sx for a hundred, Alex!!
    January 13, 2010

    Is this atheist that ignorant of literary techniques or just deliberating suppressing the truth?

    It would be kinda blasphemous if Kent Hovind were writing down pretend conversations with God wouldn’t it? Writing down conversations with God and saying God says this and God says that? But they were all made up pretend God quotes? (Ken Ham = primo idiot.)

  35. #35 Crewvy
    January 13, 2010

    Imagine–listening to a meaningless talk at a meaningless conference held on a meaningless planet in a meaningless universe!

    Sounds like what goes on every sunday all over this planet,and he gets his panties in a twist when atheists what to do it once a year.

    BTW,anyone know a good abortion club to join?As an atheist I just love killing babies,perhaps we can lobby for it to be an olympic sport./sarcasm/ for those driveby creotards too thick to figure it out.

    Hambo , the baby jeebus weeps at your fucking stupidity.

  36. #36 WowbaggerOM
    January 13, 2010

    From their worldview, wouldn’t atheists see this meeting as a meaningless waste of time?

    Well, as someone who is going, I know I’ll be spending at least some of the time with my fellow godless as we enjoy a drink and laugh our asses off about what an ignorant, dimwitted, fucking clown shoe Ken Ham* is.

    That’s as much meaning as I need.

    *Avoiding blaming any of it on the fact he’s from Queensland – since both Bride of Shrek and myself (and perhaps some others) also hail from the ‘Sunshine State’ (as it’s known here).

  37. #37 Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
    January 13, 2010

    then have all men merry as many women as possible…

    Please alert me the minute that program goes into effect.

  38. #38 speedweasel
    January 13, 2010

    I know of the best cocktail bar in Melbourne

    Sorry, *the* best cocktail bar in Melbourne closed a couple of months ago. :~(

    RIP Ginger.

  39. #39 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 13, 2010

    Methinks that PZ should have wallpaper with the image of a college professor sitting on a saddled fiberglass dinosaur for when he writes about Ken Ham.

    Patricia, bad slut! The only time we talk about the orgy is when there is a new member to induct into the club. I guess I better get you on the spanking couch.

    ‘wicked grin’

    You must be punished!

  40. #40 386sx for a hundred, Alex!!
    January 13, 2010

    How convenient it is that Hovind’s writing down of fictional conversations with God in order to elevate Hovind’s status doesn’t constitute blasphemy in Ken Ham’s eyes. How conveeeeennnieeennnnt. (What a dope.)

  41. #41 KOPD42
    January 13, 2010

    @Rocky
    I’ll make you a deal. You don’t need to apologize for Ken Ham as long as I don’t have to apologize for Fred Phelps (aside from the fact that I’ve only lived in Kansas for less than three years). We all have our wackos.

  42. #42 John Morales
    January 13, 2010

    Gyeong,

    [...] and then burn Ken Ham himself for being a false prophet!

    No. False prophets are in (Canto XX) Bolgia 4 — their punishment is to have their heads turned backwards on their bodies and to be compelled to walk backwards through all eternity, their eyes blinded with tears.

    For mine, Ken Ham really belongs in Bolgia 6, The Hypocrites, weighted down by great leaden robes, walk eternally round and round a narrow track. The robes are brilliantly gilded on the outside and are shaped like a monk’s habit, for the hypocrite’s outward appearance shines brightly and passes for holiness, but under that show lies the terrible weight of his deceit which the souls must bear through all eternity.

    Of course, it’s arguable which Bolgia the Ham belongs to; there’s a number of choices.

    (ref: http://jade.ccccd.edu/Andrade/WorldLitI2332/Dante/dante/DanteCiardi.html)

  43. #43 Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
    January 13, 2010

    My bad.

    Well hell, for you Mistress of Abuse I’d better dig something exceptional out of the naughty trunk. *smirk*

  44. #44 Mena
    January 13, 2010

    Religious people really don’t see contradictions, do they? The same brains that believe that a country could literally (?!?!?!!!) make a pact with the devil *could*, in theory, believe that they are talking to all sort of people that only they can see. What I find interesting is that they act like they are so kind and caring that you really should join their community and you will be at peace with yourself and the world. If you refuse to join or if you join and don’t obey, however, the conditional love comes out and all of a sudden you are a mortal enemy. Their god is all about conditional love as well. What a coincidence. No projection there.
    To paraphrase, Ken-MYOB.

  45. #45 Pastor Farm
    January 13, 2010

    Patricia, your encouragement is appreciated. And I want you to know that I do have faith. In fact, I’ll live every day by a strict but arbitrary moral code (that I’ll pick and choose from what’s easiest) which I will use to judge the rest of the planet. Because I know that when I die (that’s when all the best things happen!), I will have an eternity of all the bacon, nipples, and nude dog-piles a corpse can handle.

    The rest, I guess they’ll just have to suffer through an eternity of God’s love. And that just sounds dirty and painful to me.

  46. #46 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 13, 2010

    John, in Revelations aren’t false prophets tossed into brimstone?

    We need to find a bigger sulfur pit.

  47. #47 Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
    January 13, 2010

    Pastor Farm – Then choose the sluts code.

    “All things in excess, moderation is for monks.”

    Somebody here can convert that to latin, and you can have it emblazoned on your shining armour.

  48. #48 John Morales
    January 13, 2010

    Gyeong, that’s the False Prophet (singular) in Rev 19:20. Not sure the Ham qualifies; he’s not exactly someone who’s “wrought miracles before him”.

    Like I said, I think he’s just a hypocrite.

  49. #49 raven
    January 14, 2010

    Ham the serial killer:

    It baffles the mind as to why these atheists even bother to try to aggressively convert people to their meaningless religion–after all, what’s the point? The only reason they would even bother is if they are engaged in a spiritual battle. Otherwise they wouldn’t care.

    Ken Ham is a mass murderer. I wouldn’t waste the time counting the number of poor innocent strawpeople he murdered in PZ’s post. Won’t anyone think of the strawpeople?

    He accidently got one thing right, that infinite number of monkeys typing thing.

    We don’t care about wacko religious kooks. We do care when they try to force their sickness on us and destroy our society. Fundies like Ham are blatant about seeking to destroy the US, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages.

    We and many tens of millions oppose his toxic cults. Many of those are other xians. It is a matter of personal and national survival.

    Ham is aware that 70% of the kids in the cults leave after age 18. He just isn’t bright or sane enough to figure out that the fundies have nothing to offer anyone but a rerun of the Dark Ages.

  50. #50 Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
    January 14, 2010

    John Morales is correct. Also see Matt 7:15 and Matt 24:11.

  51. #51 John Morales
    January 14, 2010

    Patricia,

    “All things in excess, moderation is for monks.”
    Somebody here can convert that to latin, and you can have it emblazoned on your shining armour.

    I don’t know latin, but can use the internet.
    First approximation:
    Omnis nimis, temperantia ob coenobitae.

  52. #52 Pastor Farm
    January 14, 2010

    Thank you, Patricia. My new motto is now Totus redundo. Temperantia pro monachus.

    Amen.

    Also, for whatever reason, “suck it, Ham,” translates to: Combibo is Ham.

  53. #53 Cowcakes
    January 14, 2010

    sbwright #18
    Don’t get me started on Meryl Dorey and her death dealing and horrendously misnamed Australian Vaccination Network. If there was ever a reason to have post dated abortions she is it.

    As for Ken Ham, I’ve always been amazed how those who profess to be moral and righteous because they have an omnipotent lawmaker are those groups which have the most trouble restraining themselves. Look at the paedophilia rampant in the Roman Catholic Church and the high number of pack rapes in Australia committed by faithful Muslims, and the Muslim clerics who blame the victims for acting like discarded “cat meat” rather pointing the finger at the pious who can’t keep their penises in their pants.

  54. #54 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 14, 2010

    Ham is aware that 70% of the kids in the cults leave after age 18. He just isn’t bright or sane enough to figure out that the fundies have nothing to offer anyone but a rerun of the Dark Ages.

    That brings up a point. I remember from photos of his “museum” that a large amount of young Christians become irreligious or non-practicing. It was in the “modern world is without the bible” exhibit. At the same time, there was another exhibit claiming that Christianity is raising in the number of followers (next to a picture of a Hindu god that is actually older than his 6000-year old universe.) So either he’s lying about one thing or another or both, or he honestly believe that you can be the moral majority and the oppressed minority at the same time.

    Like I said, I think he’s just a hypocrite.

    I think the book of Job had something to say about that.

  55. #55 raven
    January 14, 2010

    HAM the elf and gods hater:

    All because they shake their fist at God–but why?

    This is one of the stupidest of the fundie mantras.

    Why does Ken Ham hate and shake his fist at Mickey Mouse, Tinkerbell, fairies, Thor, Bob the Rain god, and Zeus?

    Using his logic, if you don’t believe in undetectable supernatural beings, you must hate and defy them.

  56. #56 John Morales
    January 14, 2010

    Pastor Farm, I bow to your evident erudition.

  57. #57 Pastor Farm
    January 14, 2010

    Please don’t John, I’m pretty sure I just happened to Google a different English to Latin website.

    I have to say your Latin looked much more Latin-y than mine.

    Hopefully someone can clear this matter up.

  58. #58 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 14, 2010

    Thank you Patricia for directing me to the proper quotes.

    Also to clarify one of my comments, Hindu gods can be traced back to animist traditions which predates the supposed creation of the world. (Yahweh, also, has it’s roots in pre-Judaic traditions which predates the creation of the universe).

  59. #59 Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
    January 14, 2010

    Ha, ha! Thanks John. I should have asked you for my new motto to the Veterans Administration Chaplains Dept. – “Go fuck yourself.” Which isn’t in my copy of the Complete Idiot’s Guide to Learning Latin. (I confess I haven’t looked at it for months)

  60. #60 Jadehawk, OM
    January 14, 2010

    “All things in excess, moderation is for monks.”

    Somebody here can convert that to latin, and you can have it emblazoned on your shining armour.

    omnes in effusio quia temperantia ab monachis

    that’s the best I can do, but someone whose Latin is less rusty will have to prettify that. it’s not very smooth, and just barely grammatically acceptable :-p

  61. #61 Jadehawk, OM
    January 14, 2010

    oops, forgot to close the i-tag :-p

  62. #62 Peter H
    January 14, 2010

    Interesting that sties such as Ham’s do not allow “feedback,” discourse, dialogue.

  63. #63 Peter H
    January 14, 2010

    Perhaps that unintentional misspelling wasn’t misplaced after all!

  64. #64 Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
    January 14, 2010

    Let me give credit to the original author of the sluts code, Robert A. Heinlen, in a small illuminated book called The Notebooks of Lazarus Long “Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks.” My copy published in 1973 cost $4.95, that must have been the good old days.

  65. #65 John Morales
    January 14, 2010

    Patricia @59, fututio ipsum, as a first approximation.

  66. #66 taipanleader
    January 14, 2010

    Anyone surf over to Ham’s blog and notice the links to “Already Gone”? Fills me with some hope that those who are God-soaked as kids come to realise the insanity of it all.

  67. #67 cag
    January 14, 2010

    Salt brine – that will “cure” Ham.

  68. #68 Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
    January 14, 2010

    John @65 – Really? That doesn’t sound naughty at all. Ahh, I was hoping for something like: E Humanus Fornicatus Maximus.

    See that’s bullshitus Latin.

  69. #69 John Morales
    January 14, 2010

    Sorry, Patricia.
    However, Ken Ham is indubitably a coprocephalos. :)

    (greek, latin, what’s the diff? :))

  70. #70 Rorschach
    January 14, 2010

    All because they shake their fist at God–but why?

    I really think we have to laugh at these clowns more often, and more publicly.
    Ham and the like are way beyond ridiculous.

    raven @ 49,

    He just isn’t bright or sane enough to figure out that the fundies have nothing to offer anyone but a rerun of the Dark Ages.

    That also applies to their thinking, and their way of acquiring knowledge.Their proposal to do this is essentially that of St Augustine from the 5th century, “don’t look at nature, look at what’s written in our book”.
    It’s all very sad.

  71. #71 Bride of Shrek OM
    January 14, 2010

    Oh man, this is gonna be the BEST convention I’ve ever attended. I’m already gathering props:

    1) Glow in the dark life sized octopus for centrepiece of dinner table

    2) What Would Dawkins Do? T-Shirt to wear at Pharyngulite drinkies

    3)Blow up cow sized dinosaur for getting PZ cowboy shots

    4)A 10 inch “perfect fit” banana which is actually a rather discrete ( or indiscrete depending on how you look at it) dildo, again a potential table centrepiece.

    5) the 8 copies of Gideons that I have filched from various hotels since I first decided to attend the conference. This is my new hobby. I nicked the first one for Rorschach but anyone else needing toilet paper/scoob rolling paper/litter box liner is welcome to one.

    5) and my latest addition- a leather studded bra with peekaboo nipple holes just in case Kenny boy decides to turn up and I can flash my fabulous ta-tas at him.

  72. #72 Rorschach
    January 14, 2010

    5) and my latest addition- a leather studded bra with peekaboo nipple holes just in case Kenny boy decides to turn up and I can flash my fabulous ta-tas at him.

    *faints*

  73. #73 ElitistB
    January 14, 2010

    “Thus, a Creator who owns them, to whom they owe their existence, and against whom they have rebelled, is anathema to them!”

    THIS. RIGHT. HERE.

    Slave mentality. “So and so owns me, thus I have to do whatever they tell me to do and like it.” They are so afraid of taking responsibility for their actions that they willingly enslave themselves to an imaginary figure.

    This is complete BS and I can’t stand how they can be so blind that they can actually utter sentences like this while somehow still feeling righteous.

  74. #74 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 14, 2010

    5) and my latest addition- a leather studded bra with peekaboo nipple holes just in case Kenny boy decides to turn up and I can flash my fabulous ta-tas at him.

    Bride, for a moment there, I thought you were referring to the long banned troll. It must have been a near death experience.

  75. #75 WowbaggerOM
    January 14, 2010

    Rorschach wrote:

    *faints*

    Well, it’s lucky we’ll have a doctor to look after y…oh.

    BoS – am I still on the list for the table with you guys?

  76. #76 Rorschach
    January 14, 2010

    BoS – am I still on the list for the table with you guys?

    Of course you are, you better be, but in the case that you’re not, I shall make the BoS wear the leather bra when she shakes Prof Dawkins’ hand I swear.
    :D

  77. #77 Strangest brew
    January 14, 2010

    Methinks that Ham is trying to deflect a little ridicule from his bruvver in bollocks Hovind…but for the grace of Yahweh there goes I kinda thang!

    Hovind, Chick, Ham and Comfort all use the same sort of language and the same two dimensionality in their speel.
    They pitch the morality stories and credulousness at a level of a seven year old.
    This is either indicative of the average mental age of their marks or they really are pitching the effluent at seven year olds…give ‘em the child they will give you the retard kinda deal!

    Hovind, as well as et al, is obviously mentally retarded in IQ allotment and is arguably suffering from a form of schizophrenic megalomania!

    The inability to admit or understand his crime, or brushing it aside with ‘a for jeebus’ defence.
    Then blaming the government and tax authority for his predicament smacks of classic dissociation.

    (Neatly ignoring the reality in which he asked for and got advice from an attorney that told him how to possibly avoid tax and who was himself struck off another’s state law register before he landed on Hovind’s doorstep…which Hovind probably regarded as a gift from heaven in his insanity.)

    Hovind is relegated to playing xian martyr, pretending to talk with figments and characters that might be recognisable to the average victim in his delusional version of reality.

    Of course casting himself as a victim is just the egocentric currying of sympathy and support of his dilemma at the hands of an uncaring and godless secular authority, bit like jeebus without the excuse, or indeed the nails.
    Although metaphorically speaking he might be getting nailed in other ways!

    His defence during his trial was cringe worthy from beginning to end and is still remarkable in the fact that some jerk off lawyer would actually go into a court and argue his clients case based on his clients insane refusal to realise the shit he is in, again classic mental illness.

    Ham is probably trying to reconcile rumblings and mutterings in his own flock and at the same time take a poorly aimed pot shot at atheists.

    When in doubt attack is the xian maxim!

    ‘Explaining’ the Hovind descent into barking dementia the Hambone is also into the damage limitation phase of fundamental pig shit spouting.

    Bad bizzyness when one of their own goes into dementia and publicly exposes the fact!
    What to do, well for an xian tis easy, bit of cognitive dissonance of course.

    The characters in Hovind’s discourse are performing in an ‘allegorical’ cameo!

    Funny how when shit is flying a sudden lurch to rationality is an easy step thus neatly indicating that Ham can be a shade or two more rational when required.
    Also indicating that Ham knows exactly what he is preaching and realises that there is more cash in lying about an inerrant fact in a fairy story then admitting to a allegorical meaning to his pet hobby.

    But when needs must and as a fire blanket ‘allegorical’ will do nicely, it also indicated that Ham knows what allegorical means, interesting no?

    The pop at PZ was to easy a shot to punt.

    Of course a certain twist to the rant means that Ham could trumpet a superiority in front of his marks…at least in his own universe… to them danged intelektuals!
    A certain misinterpretation is all that is required and depending on his flocks literary ignorance can claim victory while appearing astute!

    Switch, bate and roll the dice…the xian way!

  78. #78 fiona.wallace.fiction
    January 14, 2010

    …which reminds me – we really need to have an atheist singles night so we can, erm, ‘construct some subjective, personal meaning’.

    Hey – perhaps all the singles could wear badges with that on it:

    Hello! Can we create some subjective, personal meaning together?

    Tassie Devil (who has now been outed by google)

  79. #79 jafafahots
    January 14, 2010

    Ham is totally confused. It’s not his silly non-existent god I’m not believing in because of being pissed off at…

    It’s John Frum I’m refusing to believe in because I’m pissed off at him.

    Two years – two fucking years spent building a bamboo air traffic control tower, and I didn’t get jack shit for it.

    Fuck you, John Frum! I am SO not going to believe in you until it makes you CRY!

  80. #80 WowbaggerOM
    January 14, 2010

    …which reminds me – we really need to have an atheist singles night so we can, erm, ‘construct some subjective, personal meaning’.

    I’m all for that. I’m sure I’m not the only one…

  81. #81 dannystevens.myopenid.com
    January 14, 2010

    If your going to the convention, and haven’t already done so, pop on over to http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=2208 and let us know.

    I also live in the “sunshine state”. We must need the excuse to escape the “god botherer state” more than others need to leave a burning building.

    I’ve made up a name badge with my usual online avatar and name (DanDare). The convention seems to have built up a reputation as some kind of ’60s event. Wonder what it will be like?

    See you there!

  82. #82 Rorschach
    January 14, 2010

    dannystevens, the aussie Pharyngulite horde has planned to be there for months, and will be there in full strength, so no need to advertise around here LOL

    The convention seems to have built up a reputation as some kind of ’60s event.

    Please elaborate ?

    I’ve made up a name badge with my usual online avatar and name (DanDare)

    That might actually be a good idea so people know who everyone is. The pharyngulites won’t need them tho since we will get together on the Friday, socialise and get a little wasted just to warm up..:-)

  83. #83 Moggie
    January 14, 2010

    #15:

    The need of realistic ethics was felt from the very dawn of the scientific revival, when Bacon, at the same time that he laid the foundations of the present advancement of sciences, indicated also the main outlines of empirical ethics, perhaps with less thoroughness than this was done by his followers, but with a width of conception which few have been able to attain since, and beyond which we have not advanced much further in our day.

    Bacon: the foundation of modern science and ethics.

  84. #84 MadScientist
    January 14, 2010

    Humans are greater than gods; others have said as much in past centuries, and yet religion will have us bow down to something that does not exist – worse still religion would have us listen to liars who claim that they speak for this god and know what it wants. A lying president who claimed that this nonexistent being spoke to him was bad enough – fortunately we now have a president who does not appear to be that delusional. (I hope he does less damage, and with any luck some good.)

    Where was this benevolent being as humans studied the natural world and learned to manipulate it – to fly, to leave the earth and touch an alien world. No doubt he was raping the children of his adherents in order to teach his adherents a lesson of some sort. Perhaps he was murdering people in droves in one of the wars he inspired, just as we see him demanding murder and mayhem in the old testament. Or perhaps he’s just putting words in the mouth of his sock-puppet Ken Ham. Or perhaps Ham is the puppet master?

  85. #85 renaissanceblonde
    January 14, 2010

    Hi – first post here!

    I love the blog, PZ, and the neat way you skewer the morons like a narwhal. I’m far from godless myself (Deistic Celtic/Norse pagan) but I would rather live next door to an atheist than a fundie of ANY stripe.

    I’d also like to apologise on Queensland’s behalf for Ken Ham. He does, however, provide me with some minor amusement.

  86. #86 se-rat-o-SAWR-us
    January 14, 2010

    For those who haven’t seen Bill Maher interview Ham in Religulous.

    Ham [stern, angry face and voice] to Maher: Are you God?
    Maher [shakes head, resigned to the stupidity]: No.

    Listen to the brief DVD commentary to hear the love Maher and Larry Charles have for Ham.

    And while were at it, the Bible’s absolute reverence for the Egyptians, one more time:

    Written in 1280 BC, the Egyptian Book of the Dead describes a god, Horus ? Horus is the son of the god Osirus ? born to a virgin mother. He was baptised in a river by Anup the Baptizer ? who was later beheaded. Like Jesus, Horus was tempted while alone in the desert ? Healed the sick ? The blind ? Cast out demonds ? And walked on water. He raised Asar from the dead. “Asar” translates to “Lazarus.” Oh yeah, he also had twelve disciples. Yes, Horus was crucified first ? And after 3 days, two women announced ? Horus, the saviour of humanity ? had been resurrected.

  87. #87 shonny
    January 14, 2010

    Rampant nuttery seems to best describe the US christoloonies (and a few others elsewhere).
    Notice that the latest one spewing godfucking bile is Pat Robertson over the disaster in Haiti.
    How low can they get? And how can people become such zombies that they accept the shit?

    The more that is exposed the more frightening The God Virus becomes.

  88. #88 Gregory Greenwood
    January 14, 2010

    Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM @ 39;

    Patricia, bad slut! The only time we talk about the orgy is when there is a new member to induct into the club. I guess I better get you on the spanking couch.

    Wait, there’s an orgy? Why does nobody ever tell me about the orgies? Its not fair damn it!

    You just know that the likes of Ken Ham are going to get the vapours about atheist ‘sexual immorality’ right about now. The response is easy enough to imagine;

    “Orgies! *cluthches pearls* They are talking about orgies like filthy heathens! Won’t somebody think of the children!”

    Of course what this actually translates to is;

    “What! Even the damned atheists get orgies? No fair! I knew I chose the wrong religion. I could be enjoying a nice pagan fertility rite about now, but oh no! I had to pick the weird, prudish god who has ‘issues’.”

  89. #89 Gregory Greenwood
    January 14, 2010

    Bride of Shrek OM @ 71;

    5) and my latest addition- a leather studded bra with peekaboo nipple holes just in case Kenny boy decides to turn up and I can flash my fabulous ta-tas at him.

    Ken Ham is utterly undeserving of your fabulous ta-tas, though I am sure that plenty of your fellow Pharyngulites would be highly appreciative. ;-)

  90. #90 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 14, 2010

    The Dude: Fuckin’ Ken Ham… that creep can spew, man.
    Walter Sobchak: Yeah, but he’s a pervert, Dude.
    The Dude: Yeah.
    Walter Sobchak: No, he’s a sex offender. With a record. He served 6 months in Chino for raping a piglet.
    The Dude: Oh!
    Walter Sobchak: When he moved to Ohio he had to go door to door to tell everyone he was a piglet rapist. [sic]
    Donny: What’s a… piglet rapist, Walter?
    Walter Sobchak: Shut the fuck up, Donny.

  91. #91 DebinOz
    January 14, 2010

    I’m so excited, and can hardly wait for the conference here in the ‘spiritual wasteland’ of Australia (according to my ex father-in-law). I’ve ordered some new t-shirts, have the kids organised, and am ready for some wonderful godless knees-up – WOOT.

  92. #92 DebinOz
    January 14, 2010

    Are we going to have a drink at Y and J’s to salute Chloe?

  93. #93 NewEnglandBob
    January 14, 2010

    Slap some Mayo on that Ham and take it out of the toaster oven, it is all done.

  94. #94 Rorschach
    January 14, 2010

    Rev @ 90,

    priceless !

  95. #95 RickR
    January 14, 2010

    John Morales @#42- I’ve never read Dante, but I did read “Inferno” by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. In one scene, one of the damned states “We are in the hands of infinite power and infinite sadism”.

    It was never clear whether the speaker meant Satan of god. Which, I suppose, was the point.

  96. #96 alysonmiers
    January 14, 2010

    Ken Ham simply cannot wrap his brain around this bizarre idea that “some people do not believe in God.” Not only can he not picture the universe without the Magic Skydaddy scrim hanging in his face, but he can’t imagine how other people can live without that illusion. There are no atheists in Ham’s universe; just people who don’t want to worship his God. Through that lens, it’s no surprise that the atheist convention looks so bizarre to him.

    That, and he’s cottoning onto the fact that we heathens really know how to have a good time, and without the hangover of guilt afterwards.

  97. #97 Pope Bologna XIII - The Glorious High Sauceror of Pastafarianism and Grand Poobah of His Holy Meatba
    January 14, 2010

    [i]“The difference is that we believe those rules should be developed by humane principles that recognize the equality and interdependence of all people, rather than being rules contrived by priests to perpetuate their power by inventing arbitrary ultimatums from imaginary superbeings.”[/i]

    God couldn’t have put it better himself.

  98. #98 RickR
    January 14, 2010

    Sorry, that should be: satan or god.

    [/Rev]

  99. #99 baliset
    January 14, 2010

    It may be useful to understand a bit of background here. When Ken Ham knifed his former friends in Australia, Wieland et al, one of the more curious things that occurred during the split and subsequent acrimony surrounded a difference of opinion in how to handle the “creationists even *we* think are crazy” question. A lot of website material common to both organisations before the split was now hosted separately. Ham’s (AiG) site removed a piece critical of Hovind, and the spurned Australian branch (Creation Ministries) kept theirs up. As insane as both sides are, there was at least the suggestion from Wieland that “the brand” could be tainted by not reproving (be it ever so mildly) loons like Hovind with his “Dinos are alive and well in Indonesia”/antisemitic/9-11 conspiricy theorism gush.

    This new blog post from Ham is educative, as it is, as far as I know, his first pronouncement on Hovind for some time. And what does Ham do? Defend Hovind.

    Ham is crafty, have no doubt. Evil, but crafty. He dare not come out too strongly against egregiously bad creationists like Hovind or Baugh because it DOES NOT MATTER how shonky their “other” beliefs are; their money is still more valuable. Do they *still* pedal discredited Creationist arguments AiG caution against using? No matter. Are they likely to be antisemitic? Hush now. In prison for a *decade* for tax fraud. Dismiss it in a line but don’t separate yourself from Hovind supporters by disowning him.

    I think Ham’s little rant was just a keep-alive tickle to show he still hasn’t got the guts to just come out and say “Hovind is a crazy man’s crazy. Don’t touch him! You’ll get the crazy too!”

  100. #100 Celtic_Evolution
    January 14, 2010

    Rev #90

    Lebowski reference… and on bowling night no less! Sweet serendipity, you rock Rev…

  101. #101 Strangest brew
    January 14, 2010

    #99

    “Ham is crafty, have no doubt. Evil, but crafty.”

    It is probably more about maintaining a flow of cash through the turnstiles of Ham’s circus then any ‘bruvver in de crap’ thang.

    If Ham denounces Hovind not only does he create an internecine war of words b’twixt ‘n’ b’tween Hovind clones and Ham clones…but…

    Comprehensively screws the fishing of demented fuckwits that want to believe crap, cos if they war the stupid get caught in between Ham’s comic version and Hovind’s comic version and being not that bright they might become Buddhists and split the difference.
    America is big but having the two of the largest monuments to absurdity bitch fighting is not good bizzyness!

    Just politics really..the seedy kind!

  102. #102 https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnzYFSRFGBVc7i7Ah_p05XVo1r8TIQ4dn8
    January 14, 2010

    it should be clear that we aren’t a bunch of despondent nihilists.

    Of course, many nihilists are not despondent.
    Well, so I’ve heard.

    DaveH of Lundun.

  103. #103 Anri
    January 14, 2010

    RickR says:

    John Morales @#42- I’ve never read Dante, but I did read “Inferno” by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. In one scene, one of the damned states “We are in the hands of infinite power and infinite sadism”.

    It was never clear whether the speaker meant Satan of god. Which, I suppose, was the point.

    Well, not to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I don’t know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power.

  104. #104 Miki Z
    January 14, 2010

    I think Satan has infinite power in Catholicism, but God’s infinite power is of a higher cardinality.

  105. #105 Strangest brew
    January 14, 2010

    #103

    “I don’t know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power.”

    Then why does Yahweh and his brat have such a hard time combating Beelzebub.

    Is god supposed to not have infinite power…if so then Satan is holding his own…ergo he has infinite power as well?
    Seems god has not the cojones to handle his old pal!

  106. #106 Celtic_Evolution
    January 14, 2010

    Well, not to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I don’t know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power.

    Which, of course, creates yet another conundrum for christianity.

    If god is of infinite power, and satan is not… why would god not simply do away with satan and all of his evil tricks that apparently cause us poor stupid humans to question god’s existence?

    Just blink satan out of existence… it seems that, for a loving, caring, compassionate god, that would be the thing to do to. Think of all the poor Haitians that would be alive today if god had only done away with satan, right Pat Robertson?

    So either god is unable to perish satan, in which case he is not god and why should we care… or he is unwilling to perish satan and allows him to harm, seduce, and otherwise affect unwitting humans, in which case he is sadistic and sociopathic.

    Either way, why the fuck would anyone want to be associated with such a being?

  107. #107 claire-chan
    January 14, 2010

    I dislike the lack of ability to comment on K. Ham’s AiG website, as opposed to how Pharyngula has open commenting. Despite all the spam about which you continually complain. I’m really sorry you get so much junk, P.Z..

    However, thank you for keeping it open. I like that very much.

  108. #108 Strangest brew
    January 14, 2010

    #105

    “Is god supposed to not have infinite power”

    Better as ‘Is not god supposed to have infinite power.’

    #106

    Reminded me of the classic Epicurus poser…

    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
    Is He able, but not willing?
    Then He is malevolent.
    Is He both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is He neither able nor willing?
    Then why call Him God?

    The blustering and puffing I usually get from committed xians for this is magnificent in its desperation!

  109. #109 RickR
    January 14, 2010

    “Well, not to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I don’t know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power.”

    Perhaps not, but he’s certainly King Cheese of The Hot Place.

  110. #110 heironymous
    January 14, 2010

    [blockquote]It’s pretty obvious the book of Genesis is designed to be understood as metaphor. [/blockquote]

    I don’t 100% agree with this. The book of Genesis when it was written was probably meant to be taken literally.

  111. #111 Hurin
    January 14, 2010

    Imagine–listening to a meaningless talk at a meaningless conference held on a meaningless planet in a meaningless universe! Now, that would be an uplifting conference!

    I know this is supposed to be a red herring, but it has to be the saddest one I’ve ever seen. What it really says is “I can’t imagine finding meaning in anything other than the banal self delusion I indulge”. Stating that you need an imaginary parent and a contrived “happily ever after” ending in order for your life to have meaning has to be the ultimate nihilism. If that is really what makes life livable for you, then why even bother?

  112. #112 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 14, 2010

    I dislike the lack of ability to comment on K. Ham’s AiG website, as opposed to how Pharyngula has open commenting. Despite all the spam about which you continually complain. I’m really sorry you get so much junk, P.Z..

    However, thank you for keeping it open. I like that very much.

    There is the difference. Ken Ham’s site is where to go to receive the revealed wisdom from holy man. There is no interaction for the readers. Here, while PZ may start the topics but this blog is fueled by the interaction of the readers.

  113. #113 386sx for a hundred, Alex!!
    January 14, 2010

    I dislike the lack of ability to comment on K. Ham’s AiG website, as opposed to how Pharyngula has open commenting.

    If he interacted with the logical musings his sheeples flocks, they would quickly discover what an idiot he is. (For example, in this case they would wonder why Ham doesn’t think it is blasphemous for Kent Hovind to post fake conversations with God onto the internet, and other idiotic theological stuff like that.)

  114. #114 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 14, 2010

    Huuummmm, 386sx, could it be that our tentacle bearded, baby roasting, nihilist overlord is able to stand up to more scrutiny than the devout Ham?

  115. #115 KOPD42
    January 14, 2010
    Well, not to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I don’t know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power.

    Which, of course, creates yet another conundrum for christianity.

    If god is of infinite power, and satan is not… why would god not simply do away with satan and all of his evil tricks that apparently cause us poor stupid humans to question god’s existence?

    That’s what always bothered me about the story of Job. According to the Bible, God’s all-powerful and all-knowing, and Satan knows this. Yet Satan makes enters into a wager with God? Why would Satan do that? Why would you bet against somebody who’s never wrong? And what is God thinking, letting it happen? He lets Satan torture and murder women and children just to prove that Job will stay faithful. Hell of an ego.

  116. #116 386sx for a hundred, Alex!!
    January 14, 2010

    Huuummmm, 386sx, could it be that our tentacle bearded, baby roasting, nihilist overlord is able to stand up to more scrutiny than the devout Ham?

    Yes I believe they would soon find out what an empty headed fool Mr. Ham is. Most of them are probably too steeped in “stupidness” to question Mr. Ham’s words, but other people not of his flock would sneak in there and point out the obvious stupidity and emptiness of his words.

  117. #117 raven
    January 14, 2010

    And what is God thinking, letting it happen? He lets Satan torture and murder women and children just to prove that Job will stay faithful. Hell of an ego.

    The Jewish version of god isn’t really much of a nice deity. That was the point of the Job story.

    Xianity has evolved over time. These days satan isn’t very powerful while god is all powerful. It used to be that satan was planting all the fossils to hide the existence of god. These days it is god hiding the fossils to hide his own existence.

    While god is more powerful these days, he is still a monster.

  118. #118 abb3w
    January 14, 2010

    baliset: When Ken Ham knifed his former friends in Australia, Wieland et al, one of the more curious things that occurred during the split and subsequent acrimony surrounded a difference of opinion in how to handle the “creationists even *we* think are crazy” question.

    So, there might be a case made for Ninth Circle….

    Anri: I don’t know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power.

    Depends whether you view Satanism as a heretical Christian sect or not.

  119. #119 Steven Mading
    January 14, 2010

    Posted by: heironymous Author Profile Page | January 14, 2010 10:33 AM

    [blockquote]It’s pretty obvious the book of Genesis is designed to be understood as metaphor. [/blockquote]

    I don’t 100% agree with this. The book of Genesis when it was written was probably meant to be taken literally.

    Yes, that one bothers me too. All too often I see people use the logic “It seems stupid if I interpret it literally, therefore the authors obviously didn’t intend me to believe it.” – forgetting that with this particular book, there’s plenty of precedent for places were stupid things are meant literally, so it’s not as if that rationale can be universally applied as a rule of thumb here.

  120. #120 Hypatia's Daughter
    January 14, 2010

    #115 KOPD42 And wouldn’t an omniscient God know what Job would do (the outcome of the bet)? And what’s the payoff to the winner – gold? jewels? a night in Las Vegas at the loser’s expense?

  121. #121 CRS
    January 14, 2010

    @ Hypatia’s Daughter

    Re: Job, you would not believe the mental gymnastics theology uses to jump that hurdle. Every sect (Jewish and Xtian) has their own take on it. A very good Yale Open Course on the Hebrew Babble refers to the story’s beauty. Yeah, the killing of a man’s family and cattle by YHWH and then to be afflicted by boils, etc. is so edifying. Masochistic in the extreme.

  122. #122 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    January 14, 2010

    Isn’t the ‘Satan’ of the Bible and of original Christian Theology more like God’s Beta Tester then some sort of rebel and ultimate evil anyway? I think we’re asking the wrong questions in asking why there isn’t more of him in the bible for this reason.

  123. #123 CRS
    January 14, 2010

    Yes, Rutee, he seems to be a sort of prosecuting attorney for the heavenly court in the Job story. The theory is that exposure to Zoroastrianism (during the Babylonian exile) led to the idea of Satan as a powerful source of evil. YHWH got to remain the most powerful (and blameless), and Satan has had bad press ever since.

  124. #124 https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
    January 14, 2010

    Nerd @ #1

    Cue Twilight Zone theme music…

    I’m a bit late in responding but The Hamster’s rantings make much more sense if you listen to this at the same time instead.

  125. #125 Anri
    January 14, 2010

    abb3w says:

    Depends whether you view Satanism as a heretical Christian sect or not.

    Ah, good point, I didn’t even consider that angle. I don’t know much about Satanism as it’s actually practiced (if there is anything that ogranized – the few ‘Satanists’ I have met seem to defy any sort of central dogma.. or for that matter, any sort of sense at all…) So I have no idea how their central worship figure is expressed.

    ….

    My expression of the problem of evil is, of course, nothing new, and my take on it is nothing original with me.

    Interestingly enough, I’ve only ever heard two cogent relpies to it.
    A few Christians I have spoken with hold that god, while powerful, is not actually ommnipotent. This seems to conflict with the description of god as ‘almighty’, but they seem to think that that’s just shorthand for ‘really, really powerful – no, really powerful!’

    The other response I have heard is that in demonstrating the contradiction between god being ommnipotent, perfectly good, and yet still allowing (or doing!) evil, it is claimed that this is the shortage of man’s thought and language when applied to god. In other words, we cannot concieve or express god’s might or goodness with our limited human facilities.

    Of course, the answer for this is also straightforward – aside from the obvious question about god not bothering to make us capable of understanding him – a believer is left with a (twofold) problem:
    If words cannot express god’s mind, if we can’t even try to capture it thusly, then you can’t explain it to me using words, and therefore all holy writ is garbage. All of it.
    Also, many fairly smart relgious people have happily applied logic and language to the existence and wishes of god – presumably they must all be wrong as well. Baibai, Christian philosophy.

    Speaking for myself, it’s this twisted snake’s nest of logical mess at the heart of Christianity that keeps me from entertaining it even as a faith-only, evidence-free kind of dogma.

    In my experience, digging this deeply into what one of the faithful actually believes just elicts an uncomfortable shrug from them.

  126. #126 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    January 14, 2010

    “Yes, Rutee, he seems to be a sort of prosecuting attorney for the heavenly court in the Job story. The theory is that exposure to Zoroastrianism (during the Babylonian exile) led to the idea of Satan as a powerful source of evil. YHWH got to remain the most powerful (and blameless), and Satan has had bad press ever since.”

    I’m not sure on that, because I’ve never heard of the Jews giving a damn about him, which they would if it was taken during the Babylonian Exile. I thought Satan went from Prosecuting Attorney to Evil Deity sometime during the Dark Ages, after Satan had already been conflated with several deities of other mythos to try to bring in converts from the area (Like how the Norse myths we know of technically come from after the christianization of the area)

  127. #127 CJO
    January 14, 2010

    Satan is literally “the accuser”. He doesn’t cause or promote evil, he’s the angel tasked with reporting on it. Beelzebub (“Lord of Flies,” from Baal, the old Canaanite deity) is the more common name for the evil power in the New Testament.

    It’s all fairly confused, but the take-home is that in the Hebrew scriptures, Satan is an agent of God, not his opponent. Conflating the idea of the devil with the serpent in Eden, for instance, is entirely a later Christian fabrication. No such implication exists in Genesis.

  128. #128 David Marjanovi?
    January 14, 2010

    What we human beings do is wrest meaning for ourselves from a pitiless, uncaring background

    No.

    What we do is wrest fun for ourselves from a pitiless, uncaring background!

    Now excuse me. I have a manuscript to review want to review a manuscript I was sent!

    Pastor Farm – Don’t worry you’ll get there. The endless heathen orgies are held during the OM initiations.

    TREASON!

    I never got mine! <trying to lift ridiculously large sword off wall, and failing> Who’s in on the conspiracy!!! I should kill them where they stand!

    <sob>

    If there were a god, the sluts would be ignorant instead of me.

    No. False prophets are in (Canto XX) Bolgia 4

    That comes afterwards. First comes Deuteronomy 18:20?22.

    18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
    18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
    18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

    Temperantia pro monachus.

    Urgh. That’s probably just an innocent typo, but it’s like saying “for he” when you want to say “for them”. You want -is, not -us.

    You have another typo in the next paragraph ? you wanted id (“it”), not is (“to them”).

    However, combibo has the ending for the first person singular. You the imperative singular instead, which ends in -e.

    omnes in effusio quia temperantia ab monachis

    Quia! That sounds good! Unfortunately I can’t at all remember if it’s appropriate. :-)

    However, I’d replace omnes by omnia (the neuter form), and ab means “away from” ? “for” is good old pro.

    fututio ipsum, as a first approximation

    That would be the noun, followed by “male-singular-self?. What you want is?

    FVTVE·TE·IPSVM

    ?or ipsam if you’re talking to someone female. Or vos ipsos (male plural) or vos ipsas (female plural).

    Deistic Celtic/Norse pagan

    :-o

    Aren’t these three mutually incompatible options?

    That’s what always bothered me about the story of Job. According to the Bible, God’s all-powerful and all-knowing, and Satan knows this.

    “The Bible”? Both of these concepts occur only in parts of the Bible that are younger than the Book of Job.

    And the “omnibenevolent” part is younger still. Rather than the mildly henotheistic heavenly court full of divine sons (“God’s Beta Tester”, LOL! :-D ) found in the Book of Job, the Book of Isaiah declares monotheism in no uncertain terms. So mono- that there’s not even room for a devil in it:

    45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed [ = Messiah], to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; [?wwwwhatever that means;]
    45:2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
    45:3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
    45:4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
    45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
    45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
    45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

    Even Islam doesn’t go that far.

    to try to bring in converts from the area

    I think simple confusion is more likely.

  129. #129 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 14, 2010

    Pastor Farm – Don’t worry you’ll get there. The endless heathen orgies are held during the OM initiations.

    WTF?

    How did I miss out on this during my OM initiation?

  130. #130 David Marjanovi?
    January 14, 2010
  131. #131 aratina cage
    January 14, 2010

    David Marjanovi?, now that is a good chapter to remember to stump bible-thumpers and an easy one, too: the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything + the Trinity.

  132. #132 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 14, 2010

    How did I miss out on this during my OM initiation?

    I could have sworn that I sent the invitations to every recipient of the OM for every initiation orgy. I will have to check my records.

  133. #133 SC OM
    January 14, 2010

    Well, I guess the secret’s out now, but there appears to be some confusion. What she neglected to mention, of course, is that the OM-initiation orgies are (with very few exceptions) women-only events. It’s a bonding thing.

  134. #134 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 14, 2010

    harumph

  135. #135 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 14, 2010

    It’s a bonding thing.

    And a branding thing.

    Oops! Did I say that?

  136. #136 SC OM
    January 14, 2010

    And Janine and Patricia really need to stop talking before the Orgy Committee comes for them. Next thing you know, they’ll be describing for all the world in detail what we do with the bac

  137. #137 destlund
    January 14, 2010

    Talk about some well-earned Gumbies! (Just in reference to the post; I haven’t read the comments)

  138. #138 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 14, 2010

    Um, kind of not safe for work. This is where we have to be careful about the branding and cooking.

    Thinking about it, our orgies and kind of dangerous.

  139. #139 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 14, 2010

    I’m not sure if I’m horribly disgusted or extremely turned on.

  140. #140 destlund
    January 14, 2010

    Having read the comments; ta-tas, bacon, Ham, and Isaiah! The only things missing are GOATS ON FIRE!

  141. #141 lenoxuss
    January 14, 2010

    I believe there is no way for sentient, emotion-laden existence to not be “meaningful”. A life-containing universe cannot help but have purpose. I get a little frustrated when atheists agree that for the universe to have a meaning, there must be a God behind it, therefore the universe has no ultimate meaning. What the universe lacks is an ultimate Plan, but that’s not the same thing as ultimate meaning.

    The “purpose” of life is not something we “make for ourselves”, because then we would get invent morality, and we don’t. (Only God, supposedly, has the power to make up what’s right or wrong. Not.) The badness of suffering is part and parcel of what suffering is, and the same for the goodness of freedom and pleasure. In short, my opinion on the subject is “brute facts, brute facts”.

    The longer atheists talk about meaning as solely something we “make for ourselves”, the longer theists will assume us to be relativistic or nihilists, and in a cartoon way, too. I do respect and appreciate nihilism, I just respectfully disagree. I think. Maybe?

    No person “makes the meaning” of a butterfly ? it is meaningful exactly insofar as it is a butterfly. If this is nonsense, I would say it is less so than the nonsense of a butterfly’s meaning coming from an outside force, be it God or PZ. If everything were rational, nothing would exist. :)

    Well, I digress in the sense that a butterfly becomes more meaningful the more people are there to appreciate it. But that’s not the same as “choosing” whether the butterfly is meaningful. We have no choice in that matter.

  142. #142 NotMyGod
    January 14, 2010

    Ham and sons of Ham (figuratively),
    You are *begging* to be made fun of. And you wonder why we don’t respect religion? Ay gevalt! You sure do a good job of alienating people who are smart and rational.
    Just occurred to me: Shouldn’t Ham and the rest *want* atheist to be fruitful, multiply and organize? Wouldn’t this help bring on the Rapture, which Xians want? Same reason they support Israel? I support Israel, but for a different set of reasons, I’m afraid.
    I didn’t read all the comments on this section, but how did it veer into an orgy chat?

  143. #143 Brownian, OM
    January 14, 2010

    I’m not sure if I’m horribly disgusted or extremely turned on.

    The part of me that is turned on by the thought of women’s nether regions is turned on, while the part of me that immediately reaches for the soap after handling uncooked meat really hopes she’s going to hop in the shower right after.

    Sex and OCD don’t always make the best of partners.

    Him, walking into the bedroom to find her naked in bed: “Oh, honey, you look delicious! Are those chocolate-dipped strawberries? Rowr, I am so turned on right now.” [Grabs the strawberries and leaves the room]
    Her: “Hey, where are you going?”
    Him, in the kitchen, putting the food in tupperware and into the fridge: “Oh, you didn’t think we were going to eat these in bed, did you? Those sheets are Egyptian cotton. But I am so going to show you how turned on you make me once I’ve got these put away. So hot! Say, you washed your hands after touching these and before you got in the bed, right? Maybe you should wash ‘em again, just to make sure. God, I love you. Hey, how long has this milk been in here?”

    Man, sometimes I really hate my life.

  144. #144 Celtic_Evolution
    January 14, 2010

    I didn’t read all the comments on this section, but how did it veer into an orgy chat?

    It’s a law of pharyngula threads that given a certain amount of time, all conversations will inevitably veer towards either bacon, lesbians or orgies.

    Clearly, this needs a name…

  145. #145 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 14, 2010

    It’s a law of pharyngula threads that given a certain amount of time, all conversations will inevitably veer towards either bacon, lesbians or orgies.

    Or some combination of the above.

  146. #146 Gregory Greenwood
    January 14, 2010

    Raven @ 117;

    While god is more powerful these days, he is still a monster.

    So Yahweh has leveled up to a level 80 Epic evil deity?

  147. #147 creating trons
    January 14, 2010

    “Clearly, this needs a name…”

    well instead of having a tasty BLT, we could have a BLO.

    your turn…

  148. #148 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 14, 2010

    Occasionally we’ll talk about scotch whisky or biology.

  149. #149 Kel, OM
    January 14, 2010

    Occasionally we’ll talk about scotch whisky or biology.

    I like those days, I end up learning a lot.

  150. #150 Gregory Greenwood
    January 14, 2010

    Hypatia’s Daughter @ 120;

    And what’s the payoff to the winner – gold? jewels? a night in Las Vegas at the loser’s expense?

    No silly. The payoff is succulent, tasty souls. Lightly fried in a guilt garnish and seasoned with a sprinkling of unecessary suffering for flavour.

    Yahweh and Satan are quite the connoisseurs of fine spectral cuisine, you know.

  151. #151 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 14, 2010

    While god is more powerful these days, he is still a monster.

    I say that god is getting weaker. 6,000 years ago he could poof the entire universe into being in less than a week. A couple of thousand years later he couldn’t manage a restart of the Earth but had to settle for a big flood. A couple of thousand years later he died and it took him three days to reincarnate himself. Nowadays he’s reduced to showing himself on slices of toast and dog’s asses.

  152. #152 Kel, OM
    January 14, 2010

    I say that god is getting weaker.

    More than weaker, he’s getting senile. Bushfires were raging in Victoria, countless prayers for rain to put it out and what happens? Severe flooding in North Queensland. Missed by 3000km. If that’s not senility…

  153. #153 Jadehawk, OM
    January 14, 2010

    However, I’d replace omnes by omnia (the neuter form), and ab means “away from” ? “for” is good old pro.

    ab also signifies an actor, so in my version it would work like “modesty is what monks do” :-)

  154. #154 Gregory Greenwood
    January 14, 2010

    I would like to claim that my integrity is unimpeachable, and that I cannot be bought.

    Unfortunately, this is not true. I would pretty much believe in any god that provided me with an endless supply of bacon, lebians and orgies (not necessarily in that order). Well, just so long as the deity in question was not an evil sociopath like Yahweh.

    So far, the FSM in the lead. If any other deity wants to make me an offer, then they know how to contact me.

  155. #155 Jadehawk, OM
    January 14, 2010

    and of course the moment I hot post I realized when I said “modesty”, I meant “moderation” :-p

  156. #156 Gregory Greenwood
    January 14, 2010

    ‘Tis Himself, Om @ 151;

    I say that god is getting weaker. 6,000 years ago he could poof the entire universe into being in less than a week. A couple of thousand years later he couldn’t manage a restart of the Earth but had to settle for a big flood. A couple of thousand years later he died and it took him three days to reincarnate himself. Nowadays he’s reduced to showing himself on slices of toast and dog’s asses.

    I think you have a point there. I can just see a destitute Yahweh, dressed in a old overcoat stuffed with rags and newspaper, down to his last few coins. Bottle of rot-gut booze in hand, he rails against the cruelty of his lot:-

    *Imagine druken, rambling tone*

    “I used to be a power to be reckoned with, you know! I was a real player, back in the day. Everyone was scared of me. Even the fancy-pants ancient gods like Zeus didn’t dare diss the Y-man. I created everything, all this around us now, in just one week. Actually, it was all done in six days. I put my feet up on the seventh, just to lety everyone know whose the best! *hiccough*

    *belch* Someone got on my bad side and blammo! They were gone, just like that. I took out almost all you little humans like that once with a great big flood. Can think why for the life of me now. I was a bit of a rascal back then. Tee Hee! Watching all the humans run about like headless chickens was hilarious! I laughed myself sick! Well, that might have been the hangover actually.

    *stagger* Where was I? Oh yes. I used to be the big man, but you know what I do for a living today? Do you? No? Well I’ll tell you. I reveal myself to you ungrateful apes on peices on toast and dog’s arses! That’s right, dog’s arses! Its so damned humiliating. Still, I’ll get back on my feet, and then you’ll be sorry! I’ll fix all you lot but good. You see if I don’t!

    *collapses in a corner, and starts snoring loudly*

  157. #157 https://me.yahoo.com/a/9sNhu9YQhMTEOf7RqBDZe6iHIV139_JC#829ff
    January 14, 2010

    Badger3k, not sure what name it will sign me in with.

    I agree – Australia, you owe us all a new camera, or else I (and we) will take you off our facebook friends lists. As soon as I put you on, that is.

    Irony, thy name is Ham.

  158. #158 Brownian, OM
    January 14, 2010

    Badger3k, not sure what name it will sign me in with.

    I agree – Australia, you owe us all a new camera, or else I (and we) will take you off our facebook friends lists. As soon as I put you on, that is.

    The commanding language; the crisp, pear-shaped tones–I’d recognise a graduate of Stuyvesant High School anywhere.

  159. #159 CJO
    January 14, 2010

    The whole Kw*k episode was worth it solely for the sheer comedy gold Brownian yet still continues to find there.

    Jeebus that shit is funny, Brownian.

  160. #160 CJO
    January 14, 2010

    “crisp, pear-shaped tones.”

    I still haven’t stopped laughing, and people are starting to look at me funny.

  161. #161 WowbaggerOM
    January 14, 2010

    I say that god is getting weaker. 6,000 years ago he could poof the entire universe into being in less than a week. A couple of thousand years later he couldn’t manage a restart of the Earth but had to settle for a big flood.

    Yeah, this is the one that gets me – and which I like to point out to Christians whenever I get the opportunity. Why is something powerful enough to create the universe (albeit in six days) suddently reduced to the status of irritable pissant rain god?

    And what about those iron chariots? What kind of wuss-god is driven away by iron fucking chariots?

  162. #162 Sven DiMilo
    January 14, 2010

    What kind of wuss-god is driven away by iron fucking chariots?

    a magnetic one?

  163. #163 Brownian, OM
    January 14, 2010

    The whole Kw*k episode was worth it solely for the sheer comedy gold Brownian yet still continues to find there.

    I’ve never encountered anyone so indignantly baffled by everyone’s reaction to him: clearly we were expected to respect his upper class superiority AND his ability to mingle with the common man.

    He did everything but call us “townies” and cry that we wouldn’t let him sit at our booth at Pop’s Chock’lit Shoppe.

    Still makes me howl.

  164. #164 Brownian, OM
    January 14, 2010
    What kind of wuss-god is driven away by iron fucking chariots?

    a magnetic one?

    No Sven: magnets attract iron objects.

  165. #165 renaissanceblonde
    January 14, 2010

    @128

    Yeah: Brigid, the Fire of Inspiration, is my Goddess-focus because she represents Creativity. Odin is my God-focus because he represents knowledge and sacrifice.

    I’m Deistic because I believe in higher powers, I just think they’ve got better things or don’t give a crap about us. :P

  166. #166 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 14, 2010

    Lots of mythological critters can’t handle iron. Celtic elves, unicorns, various færies have an aversion to iron. So it shouldn’t be surprising that a mythological god has the same problem with iron.

  167. #167 WowbaggerOM
    January 14, 2010

    So it shouldn’t be surprising that a mythological god has the same problem with iron.

    It should if it’s the same god who created the bloody stuff in the first place. What, he didn’t know he was allergic to it? Did that slip his mind when he included iron ore in his Six Day Recipe for the Universe?

  168. #168 Rorschach
    January 14, 2010

    Did that slip his mind when he included iron ore in his Six Day Recipe for the Universe?

    HELLO !
    Remember, the omnipotent creator of the universe had to rest when he was done.
    Enough said.

  169. #169 Joffan
    January 14, 2010

    Gregory:

    I would pretty much believe in any god that provided me with an endless supply of bacon, lebians and orgies

    … it would be a malicious god indeed that supplied me with an “endless supply” of lesbians, especially if they were the only other actors in the orgies. The bacon is scant compensation.

  170. #170 Evil Merodach
    January 14, 2010

    I think Ken has a point. I, for one, am getting very tired at shaking my fist at God all the time. And not just Yaweh but Baal, Ahura-Mazda, Tiamat, Marduk, Zeus, Poseidon, Ixchel, Xbalanque, Yen-Lo-Wang, Osiris, Baldur, Amaterasu, Mithras …well you get the idea.

    I don’t know why I have all this rebelliousness in me against things that are nonexistent. I’m worried I’ll start up on ghosts, yetis, and chupacabras soon. All this disbelief is so damn time-consuming.

  171. #171 Carlie
    January 14, 2010

    ….*stumbles in*…
    Damn, that last OM orgy was a doozy – I just woke up. What’d I miss?

  172. #172 Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
    January 14, 2010

    Buuut David…dear, some of us sluts ARE ignorant.

    Now Carlie, we’re both going to get chastised for mentioning…you know what. Off to the spanking couch with you my lass.

  173. #173 SC OM
    January 14, 2010

    Damn, that last OM orgy was a doozy – I just woke up. What’d I miss?

    Bacinis. Resort ’11 preview.

  174. #174 Bride of Shrek OM
    January 14, 2010

    Carlie

    I know the feeling honey, last OM party I went to I innocently put my car keys in a communal bowl that was sitting on the table and *bam* someone tells me I have to sleep with some guy called Smoggy.

  175. #175 Sven DiMilo
    January 14, 2010

    magnets attract iron objects.

    Well, sure, so, you know, any god who didn’t want, like, chariots stuck all over her would try to avoid the area, right? If she was magnetic and saw them coming?

    Hey, wait…is this…”Theology”?

  176. #176 Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
    January 14, 2010

    Bride of Shrek – Oh bad luck dear, but it could have been worse. I drew the keys to the stock trailor, and there was Floyd Rubbers bloody Southdown ram… those damned horns are murder.

  177. #177 Sven DiMilo
    January 14, 2010

    pssssssst…you’re forgetting the ZFirst and Second Rulez of the orgies…

  178. #178 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 14, 2010

    Well, there was that time that I drew the Truth Machine’s keys. It was interesting but damn was it rough. TM did not think my fucking was intellectually honest.

  179. #179 Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
    January 14, 2010

    TRUTH MACHINE!!!

    yeek, reels off to the grog keg… helmet, someone give me a helmet. shriek!

  180. #180 Rorschach
    January 14, 2010

    TM did not think my fucking was intellectually honest.

    That must be one of the funniest things I’ve read for a long long time…:-)

  181. #181 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 14, 2010

    reels off to the grog keg

    Ah, fortunately only the day old grog keg. If it was the 7 day old grog keg, she might have undergone spontaneous combustion with that much downed, or with 10 feet of an ignition source…

  182. #182 SC OM
    January 14, 2010

    Well, there was that time that I drew the Truth Machine’s keys. It was interesting but damn was it rough. TM did not think my fucking was intellectually honest.

    *spews drink across the room*

  183. #183 WowbaggerOM
    January 14, 2010

    Well, there was that time that I drew the Truth Machine’s keys. It was interesting but damn was it rough. TM did not think my fucking was intellectually honest.

    Gold!

    Crap. He’s going to come for me now, isn’t he?

  184. #184 Bride of Shrek OM
    January 14, 2010

    Just by mentioning him by name we’ll invoke his wrath. Now we’re all gonna get our butts kicked.

  185. #185 Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
    January 14, 2010

    Janine has won her Golden Clusters with that remark.

    Oh wait, are Golden Clusters larger than Brass Bosoms?

  186. #186 WowbaggerOM
    January 14, 2010

    Just by mentioning him by name we’ll invoke his wrath. Now we’re all gonna get our butts kicked.

    I hear that, at sleepovers held for members of high school debate teams, if you say his name in front of a mirror five times he’ll appear and take you to task for your poor argumentative skills and lack of knowledge…

  187. #187 Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
    January 14, 2010

    Well if I could just get these damned ram horns sorted out I could deal with the Truth Machine. *snort*

    But Janine has a love Jones going.

  188. #188 Lynna, OM
    January 15, 2010

    Well, I finally had time (time won from regular time-to-go-to-sleep) to read parts of this thread. Janine @178 that was fucking priceless … and surprisingly intellectually honest.

    I love you.

  189. #189 Lynna, OM
    January 15, 2010

    At the OM orgy following my mollydom, we added jello to the usual decadent rituals. This was done in honor of my love for the Jello Corridor in which I live. Rev BDC, this detail is just for you. The jello was green.

  190. #190 SC OM
    January 15, 2010

    But Janine has a love Jones going.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlkJ7JXETr0

  191. #191 Kel, OM
    January 15, 2010

    I hear that, at sleepovers held for members of high school debate teams, if you say his name in front of a mirror five times he’ll appear and take you to task for your poor argumentative skills and lack of knowledge…

    Man I could have used that 10 years ago, even today really. It’s just not fun unless someone is taking you to task and therefore pushing you to be better.

  192. #192 antirick
    January 15, 2010

    All I can say is – Mr PZ you dont have to refute his arguments point by point, dont let him frame the argument.

  193. #193 Knockgoats
    January 15, 2010

    Unfortunately, as I’m in the UK, following my OM (won, of course, under another name), I’ve had to take part in the induction orgies by video-link only. OK, I’m a fairly visual person, but a virtual spanking couch just isn’t the same!

  194. #194 Knockgoats
    January 15, 2010

    Lots of mythological critters can’t handle iron. Celtic elves, unicorns, various færies have an aversion to iron. So it shouldn’t be surprising that a mythological god has the same problem with iron. – ‘Tis Himself

    The semiotics of iron are fascinating. There’s also the Hindu cosmology, which divides time into successive ages of gold, silver, bronze and iron – each worse than the last; I think this has a counterpart in ancient Greek mythology too. My guess is that this disparagement of iron is a bit of upper-class nostalgia: in the bronze age, the most effective weapons – bronze swords and spears – were limited to a small military aristocracy by their expense, in turn due to the limited supplies of tin. One iron-smelting was invented, this class monopoly of effective violence collapsed. The magical properties assigned to iron may reflect the corresponding lower-class glee at having a way to counter upper-class depredations (iron of course also made many non-military activities such as ploughing and tree-felling very much easier).

  195. #195 triskelethecat
    January 15, 2010

    Maybe the caffeine hasn’t kicked in yet, but I’ve read antirick’s comment 5 times and STILL can’t figure out what he/she is saying.

    @Patricia, Janine, SC, et al: thanks for the morning laughs (bacon, lesbians, spanking couches and all).

  196. #196 Sven DiMilo
    January 15, 2010

    ‘nother laff for Janine

    And I begin to perceive the faintest wisp of an outline for the plot of Pharyngula The Movie…

    or, wait, are we still working on the Opera? Even better.

  197. #197 Carlie
    January 15, 2010

    Wait, there was a key swap? I wondered where everyone had gone and why I had to clean the place up by myself…

  198. #198 https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
    January 15, 2010

    Knockgoats @ 194

    By my reckoning we’re now in the Hindu age of Artificial Polyamides. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it though.

  199. #199 Brownian, OM
    January 15, 2010

    That key swap was for sex?!

    Um, whoever’s Acura this is, I’ll leave it parked outside PZ’s with the keys in it. The timing belt should probably be tightened. I don’t know how that blood got on the front bumper.

  200. #200 Jadehawk, OM
    January 15, 2010

    Brownian?! what did you do to my car?!?!

  201. #201 David Marjanovi?
    January 15, 2010

    and an easy one, too: the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything + the Trinity.

    :-o

    Mark my words: the FSM had His Noodly Appendage in this.

    ab also signifies an actor

    Interesting. That was withheld from me. I’ll have to look it up sometime.

    and of course the moment I hot post

    No comment. This is my meatspace name I’m using here.

    Still, I’ll get back on my feet, and then you’ll be sorry! I’ll fix all you lot but good. You see if I don’t!

    “I’ll beat you up bad, but good!”
    ? Donald Duck

    Odin is my God-focus because he represents knowledge and sacrifice.

    Now that’s a strange combination. After all, those with knowledge tend to know how to get away early enough.

  202. #202 Jadehawk, OM
    January 15, 2010

    Interesting. That was withheld from me. I’ll have to look it up sometime.

    upon further consideration, it doesn’t quite work in the way I wanted it to work. it does signify an actor, but probably more in the “bread comes from bakers” (panis ab panifice) sort of way. which still technically works, but it’s not what I wanted to express. I wanted to express general possession, not whether something is given to (pro) or given by (ab) someone; however, my latin grammar is too rusty for that.

    No comment. This is my meatspace name I’m using here.

    *glare*

    be nice, or i’ll force-feed you raw mushrooms; with vinegar.

  203. #203 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    January 15, 2010

    “Now that’s a strange combination. After all, those with knowledge tend to know how to get away early enough.”

    …Um, Gandalf? Spock? Granted, they’re not worshipped, but…

  204. #204 David Marjanovi?
    January 16, 2010

    be nice, or i’ll force-feed you raw mushrooms; with vinegar.

    I meant it in the other direction. I wasn’t complaining about that typo; that would be silly.

    …Um, Gandalf? Spock? Granted, they’re not worshipped, but…

    …as fictional characters, they can behave as illogically as they like and still be called wise or logical, respectively. :-)

  205. #205 blf
    January 17, 2010

    [A]s fictional characters, they can behave as illogically as they like and still be called wise or logical…

    Applies to the gods, albeit some, such as YHWH (????) are best called insane. And certainly fictional.

  206. #206 https://me.yahoo.com/a/FvHHcZs.tZQO1BCeBRTaZJ_sYLGblP0UFh1G04dztQ--#27bb4
    January 17, 2010

    I cant wait for Myers to do a one on one debate with Kent Hovind once he gets out. We should video it and send a copy of the DVD to every Christian in Australia. I myself will promise to distribute 1000 DVDs for free if Kent Hovind takes the challenge.

  207. #207 https://me.yahoo.com/a/FvHHcZs.tZQO1BCeBRTaZJ_sYLGblP0UFh1G04dztQ--#27bb4
    January 17, 2010

    I cant wait for Myers to do a one on one debate with Kent Hovind once he gets out. We should video it and send a copy of the DVD to every Christian in Australia. I myself will promise to distribute 1000 DVDs for free if Kent Hovind takes the challenge.

  208. #208 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 17, 2010

    The debate should occur in the peer reviewed scientific literature, the only place where science is refuted. By more science. If the deluded Hovind has any real evidence he gets a chance to present it. Failure to use that route means he acknowledges he is nothing but an delusional ignorant evidenceless conman. Oh, he has had years to show us that…

  209. #209 Rorschach
    January 17, 2010

    bold font troll @ 206,207

    I don’t imagine Dr Myers has any plans to debate convicted criminals, for one.
    And I fail to see the relevance of this for “every Christian in Australia”.

  210. #210 RogerS
    January 30, 2010

    PZ Meyers: “We don’t believe in a creator god, so we reject the notion that we are ‘owned’ by one, but you can’t say that we find such a creator anathema ? we don’t believe it exists! What’s repellent are self-styled prophets and priests (who are real) demanding that we follow their antiquated dogma.”

    It appears that the religion chosen to be criticized is the one most feared to be true: Christianity.

    Blaise Pascal: “Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true.?

    SETI smelling the coffee at last?

    “Prof Davies said: We need to give up the notion that ET is sending us some sort of customised message and take a new approach.? He suggested that the search could focus on deserts, volcanic vents, salt-saturated lakes and the dry valleys of Antarctica – places where ordinary life struggles to survive – to find “weird” microbes that belong to a “shadow biosphere”.” (source)

    The uniqueness of the tremendous amount and varieties of ?remaining? life on our planet has led to two predominate schools of thought:

    1. The harmonious and purposeful creation account in Genesis by an all powerful God is so far the best explanation

    2. Life can easily evolve and there must be uncountable varieties of life forms on similar planets

    Since SETI?s silence has become deafening, it looks like Prof Davies? legs are getting wobbly on #2. His best recourse is now looking for life only where #1 claims it occurred.

    Written in love & concern, RogerS
    -

  211. #211 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 30, 2010

    RogerS #210

    It appears that the religion chosen to be criticized is the one most feared to be true: Christianity.

    How did you get this from Myer’s comment? Pretty well all religions have creator gods. There’s nothing particularly special in this respect about your favorite pet god. Also your comment doesn’t follow from PZ’s

    What’s repellent are self-styled prophets and priests (who are real) demanding that we follow their antiquated dogma.”

    Pope Benny doesn’t like condoms and so lies about them. Your particular buddy Ken Ham thinks everyone should ignore reality and accept a 2500 year old myth. Mullahs have rape victims imprisoned for immorality. Etc., etc., etc.

    Nope, nothing there to even hint that Christianity might even be true. We can provide arguments to show it’s false, but you don’t want to hear those, do you?

    I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to say with your SETI argument. Davies is suggesting that we look for exotic microbes in Antarctica. That’s because Martian meteorites (bits of the planet Mars) have been found there.

    Out of all the billions of species of life that exist or have ever existed on Earth only one certain and a few possible species are intelligent (the jury is still out on cetacean intelligence). Intelligence seems to be a very low probability attribute for life. But very low probability does not equal zero. So why do you think out of all the trillions of planets orbiting trillions of stars in this immensely vast universe there’s only one intelligent species?

    Written with pity for your limited world view, ‘Tis Himself.

  212. #212 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 30, 2010

    It appears that the religion chosen to be criticized is the one most feared to be true: Christianity.

    No, all religions and gods are false. Show conclusive evidence otherwise.

    SETI smelling the coffee at last?

    Nope, just looking in more places. Welcome to science. Still searching in my spare computer time for ET.

  213. #213 RogerS
    January 31, 2010

    Tis Himself: ?How did you get this from Myer’s comment? Pretty well all religions have creator gods. There’s nothing particularly special in this respect about your favorite pet god. Also your comment doesn’t follow from PZ’s?

    PZ Meyers: “We don’t believe in a creator god, so we reject the notion that we are ‘owned’ by one??

    The ownership comment definitely fits Christianity:
    1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (KJV) What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

    Nerd: ?No, all religions and gods are false. Show conclusive evidence otherwise.?

    Today, it looks like the ones who need to come clean are the so called ‘Scientists’:

    Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data
    ?Details of the breach emerged the day after John Beddington, the Chief Scientific Adviser, warned that there was an urgent need for more honesty about the uncertainty of some predictions. His intervention followed admissions from scientists that the rate of glacial melt in the Himalayas had been grossly exaggerated.?(phonie science)

    -RogerS

  214. #214 WowbaggerOM
    January 31, 2010

    1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (KJV) What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

    Are you familiar with 1 Wowbagger? ‘And yea, a scumbag shall come forth and preach the word of Yahweh, who is no god at all but an illusion believed by the foolish.’

    My book says your god doesn’t exist. Got any means to demonstrate otherwise?

  215. #215 David Marjanovi?
    January 31, 2010

    <headshake>

    RogerS, you have a lot to read about Climategategate (the scandalous quote-mining and otherwise misrepresentation of a few carefully cherry-picked e-mails coupled with arguments from ignorance and lack of understanding plus a specifically American political, ideological agenda).

    There were lots and lots of ScienceBlogs posts about this for a month or two. How is it even possible that you noticed none of them?

    The ownership comment definitely fits Christianity:

    It also fits lots and lots of others, Islam and Judaism come to mind immediately.

    The uniqueness of the tremendous amount and varieties of ?remaining? life on our planet has led to two predominate schools of thought:

    Again, your ignorance is speaking. You have not even read the book Rare Earth (Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee, 1997) which argues very convincingly that, while life arises very easily, it is extremely improbable that intelligent life* evolves from it, because that requires a large number of conditions (the right amount of water so that plate tectonics etc. etc. can happen, a large moon to keep the axis from wobbling too much like that of Mars does, the right kind of distance from the center of the galaxy so that heavy elements are available but there are not too many supernovae or other dangerous events close by, and the list continues for hours), the combination of which is exceedingly rare.

    Ward & Brownlee conclude that there are probably lots and lots and lots of planets where beings comparable to bacteria live, but almost none where beings comparable to a tree live, and extremely few, perhaps even just one, where beings comparable to a human live.

    * As defined by radioastronomers: “capable of building a radio telescope”.

    BTW, what for would Elohim create such a huge universe when there’s life on just one planet? You are the one for whose ideas the lack of SETI success poses problems.

    Written in love & concern, RogerS

    Written in complete lack of knowledge of the vast majority of the relevant facts…

    I don’t doubt the sincerity of your concern, nor even that of your love. They’re just both founded on arguments from ignorance, ignorance which is easily remedied.

    Your concern is entirely unfounded, and you are lazy. Too lazy to sit down and learn. Catholics call this “sloth” and “one of the 7 Deadly Sins”.

  216. #216 David Marjanovi?
    January 31, 2010

    Davies is suggesting that we look for exotic microbes in Antarctica. That’s because Martian meteorites (bits of the planet Mars) have been found there.

    No, the meteorites were found on the ice, not in dry valleys. He’s noting that life occurs on Earth in places that would have been thought sterile 100 years ago, places similar to ones that are known to occur on other planets and certain moons. Looks like he agrees with the Rare Earth hypothesis.

  217. #217 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 31, 2010

    Today, it looks like the ones who need to come clean are the so called ‘Scientists’:

    Written by someone who didn’t do the research necessary to understand what happened, and what was there. No “smoking gun” was present in those e-mails. Not to say they weren’t quote-mined (a favorite lying tactic of creobots like you) extensively in an attempt to show wrong doing. But, when everything was looked at in total and with the proper perspective, there was nothing there.

    Still no conclusive physical evidence presented for your imaginary deity. Tsk, tsk. One might think it doesn’t exist, and your deity exists only between your ears.

  218. #218 Alan B
    January 31, 2010

    Hi RogerS

    Long time no see or hear.

    Are you coming back to explain Flood Geology on the everlasting thread? If I remember, you left a few things outstanding.

    Best wishes

    Alan B

  219. #219 RogerS
    January 31, 2010

    PZ wrote: “He [Ken Ham] can’t have his readers actually seeing what the other side has to say…”

    What do you think we were taught in the govt. subsidized school system? The EVO theory is as bankrupt as the subsidizer.

    Tis Himself wrote: ?Your particular buddy Ken Ham thinks everyone should ignore reality and accept a 2500 year old myth. Mullahs have rape victims imprisoned for immorality. Etc., etc., etc.?

    Darwinian evolutionists hide behind a (pulpit) of ?science? while spewing nothing but (religion). Etc., etc., etc. Notice how “religion” dominates Pharyngula ?scienceblogs?.

  220. #220 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 31, 2010

    Roger S, most of us are at this thread. It is a direct continuation of what you and Alan started about a year ago. Only now we just passed 20,000 posts. Join us there.

    The EVO theory is as bankrupt as the subsidizer.

    Sorry, but evolutionary theory is good science. It explains the totality of life on earth without the need for a deity. It is the only scientific theory of biology out there. Your ideas are religious ideas. Religion simply cannot refute the science. That requires more science. Science your side never puts into the scientific literature, because what it does isn’t scientific, and they know it.

    Darwinian evolutionists hide behind a (pulpit) of ?science? while spewing nothing but (religion). Etc., etc., etc. Notice how “religion” dominates Pharyngula ?scienceblogs?.

    Ah, the old science as religion bullshit. Something you can’t prove, but your side make a big deal out of. And it all starts with the fallacious concept that everybody must have a religion. Sorry, some people don’t have religions.

    Science has no gods, no priests, no holy books, no churches, no parishioners, no theology, no tithes. Science is nothing but a methodology for examining evidence, and figuring out how the world works. Science expects to continually improve, so some ideas will change. Just honest evidence looked at in an honest fashion, without the need for your deity.

    As I said above, your old threads have continued and can be found at the link above.

  221. #221 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 31, 2010

    The EVO theory is as bankrupt as the subsidizer.

    Repetition must be some type of coping mechanism for creationist. They’ve been saying this since the theory of Evolution was formulated

  222. #222 David Marjanovi?
    January 31, 2010

    What do you think we were taught in the govt. subsidized school system? The EVO theory is as bankrupt as the subsidizer.

    <smoke coming out of ears and nostrils>

    Enough is enough. Have you ever noticed, moron, that there’s more than one country on this planet!?!

    Did you know that the only halfway rich countries with a noticeable proportion of creationists among the population are the USA and Turkey?

    Darwinian evolutionists hide behind a (pulpit) of ?science? while spewing nothing but (religion).

    Your links don’t work, and your sentence is akin to colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

    Notice how “religion” dominates Pharyngula ?scienceblogs?.

    There’s no such thing as Pharyngula ?scienceblogs?. Pharyngula is one of dozens of ScienceBlogs. There are many where religion is never mentioned, like this one

  223. #223 RogerS
    January 31, 2010

    David M: “Again, your ignorance is speaking. You have not even read the book Rare Earth (Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee, 1997) which argues very convincingly that, while life arises very easily, it is extremely improbable that intelligent life* evolves from it, because that requires a large number of conditions (the right amount of water so that plate tectonics etc. etc. can happen, a large moon to keep the axis from wobbling too much like that of Mars does, the right kind of distance from the center of the galaxy so that heavy elements are available but there are not too many supernovae or other dangerous events close by, and the list continues for hours), the combination of which is exceedingly rare.”

    Dear David M,
    You are now not far from Creationism and the kingdom of God.

    An observation,
    Roger,S

  224. #224 Owlmirror
    January 31, 2010

    It appears that the religion chosen to be criticized is the one most feared to be true: Christianity.

    Translation: I do not actually know or care what “true” means!

    Written in love & concern, RogerS

    Translation: I do not actually know or care what “love” and “concern” mean either! I will gladly use them when I mean “smugness” and “contempt”!

    The ownership comment definitely fits Christianity:

    Translation: I approve of slavery !!

    The EVO theory is as bankrupt as the subsidizer.

    Translation: More smugness and contempt, just for you !!

    Darwinian evolutionists hide behind a (pulpit) of ?science? while spewing nothing but (religion).

    Translation: I do not actually know or care what “science” means !! And “religion” means whatever I want it to mean, too !! Say, how do you like my latest false equivalence, which I gladly claim to be true equivalence, because I don’t know or care what “true” means !?

    Notice how “religion” dominates Pharyngula ?scienceblogs?.

    Translation: I do not actually know or care what “religion”, “Pharyngula”, or “scienceblogs” mean !!

    You are now not far from Creationism and the kingdom of God.

    Translation: Since I have no idea what science is or how it works, I will gladly make moronic and insane assertions based on my profound ignorance and apathy !!

  225. #225 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 31, 2010

    You are now not far from Creationism and the kingdom of God.

    Only in your delusions. Solid scientist, who knows how weak and non-existent the evidence for you imaginary deity is. And how non-existent the evidence for creationism is, since it is based on a book of myths.

    Translation, I have no evidence, so I must bullshit with religious word salad.

  226. #226 SC OM
    January 31, 2010

    OK, I’ll admit it. I’m glad RogerS is back because I missed the translations.

  227. #227 Owlmirror
    February 1, 2010

    I’m glad RogerS is back because I missed the translations.

    I suspect that if he stays, he will incur the banhammer for epic godbotting, wanking, and mind-boggling insipidity.

    It’s not like he’s keeping the thread going any longer, or inspiring geoinfodumps.

  228. #228 RogerS
    February 1, 2010

    PZ wrote: “the world must be filtered through the benevolent and opaque lens of the Maximum Leader”

    Owlmirror wrote: “Translation:… Translation:… Translation:…”

  229. #229 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    February 1, 2010

    What? Has Owlmirror out witted you?

  230. #230 Ichthyic
    February 1, 2010

    What? Has Owlmirror out witted you?

    A dead cat could outwit poor Roger.

  231. #231 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    February 1, 2010

    But can a live fuckosaurus outwit RogerS?

  232. #232 Ichthyic
    February 1, 2010

    But can a live fuckosaurus outwit RogerS?

    0×0=0

    they would just spout irrelevant gibberish at each other.

    the only thing that would lose would be anyone trying to follow wtf either of them were trying to say.

  233. #233 Owlmirror
    February 1, 2010

    RogerS could outwit RogerS, and frequently does.

    (Hence the fractal wrongness.)

  234. #234 David Marjanovi?
    February 2, 2010

    Dear David M,
    You are now not far from Creationism and the kingdom of God.

    An observation

    Dear RogerS,

    Once again you demonstrate that you don’t understand what you’re reading. The Rare Earth hypothesis does not contain a single miracle. There’s not the slightest need for anything supernatural in it. It’s all so simple! Why drag a ridiculously improbable, completely unnecessary assumption into it?

    Why?

    Because you want to believe it?

    Isn’t that the worst imaginable reason for believing anything?

  235. #235 David Marjanovi?
    February 2, 2010

    To follow up on my observation, the list of necessary conditions is long ? but the list of planets in the galaxy is longer still. It is therefore not at all surprising that the entire list of conditions applies to at least one planet.

    There are 100 billion stars in this galaxy alone, Roger. Many stars have several planets.

    “A-million-to-one odds happen eight times a day in New York City.”

  236. #236 Owlmirror
    February 2, 2010

    Once again you demonstrate that you don’t understand what you’re reading.

    If he made an effort to understand, he might realize that there is an enormous short-circuit in his epistemology, and then he might lose his faith… and that would be bad™.

    There are 100 billion stars in this galaxy alone

    At a bare minimum — more recent estimates have been upwards due to the discovery of a bar in the spiral of the Milky Way. [1],[2]

  237. #237 RogerS
    February 9, 2010

    SCIENCE & EMPTINESS

    THE scientist at the centre of the ?climategate? email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide. Professor Phil Jones said in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Times that he had thought about killing himself ?several times?… Jones, 57, said he was unprepared for the scandal: ?I am just a scientist. I have no training in PR or dealing with crises.? (source)

    Eight Notable Predecessors:

    1. Alan Turing was an English scientist, mathematician, logician, and cryptographer, and arguably the greatest British scientist of the 20th century. In 1952, he was convicted of ?Acts of Gross Indecency?, after admitting a sexual relationship with another man. ?On the 8th June 1954, unable to endure the humiliation and pain of his punishment, Turing took his own life by eating an apple laced with cyanide.

    2. Wallace Hume Carothers was an American chemist, credited with the invention of Nylon. After his monumental discovery, Carothers suffered depression stemming from ?inventor?s block?, which coupled with the sudden death of his sister, caused him to take his own life by poisoning in 1937.

    3. George Eastman, born in Waterville, New York in 1854, founded the Eastman Kodak Company?In 1932, Eastman committed suicide, leaving a note that read, ?My work is done. Why wait??

    4. Nicolas Leblanc was a French chemist and surgeon, famed for being the first person to manufacture soda from common salt. In 1775, the French Academy of Sciences offered a prize for a process whereby soda ash could be produced from salt? In 1802, Napoleon returned the plant (but not the prize money) to him, but by then Leblanc was so broke he could not afford to run it. He killed himself in 1806.

    5. Edwin Armstrong, born on December 18th 1890, was an American electrical engineer, who invented FM radio?Determined that FM radio would never succeed, Armstrong jumped from the 13th floor of his apartment in 1954. He was 63 at the time.

    6. Hans Berger, born in Neuses, Germany in 1873, is best known as the first person to record electroencephalograms (EEGs) from human subjects and is the discoverer of the rhythmic Alpha brain waves?Disturbed by the rise of Nazism and the effects of the Second World War, Berger hanged himself on June 1st 1941.

    7. Ludwig Eduard Boltzmann was an Austrian physicist famous for his founding contributions in the fields of statistical mechanics and statistical thermodynamics. He was one of the most important advocates for atomic theory when that scientific model was still highly controversial?Most likely suffering from bipolar disorder, Boltzmann took his own life while on holiday with his family. He is buried in Vienna in a tombstone that reads S=k*logW. (source)

    8. Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. Matthew 27:3-5 (KJV)

    Matthew 7:26-27 (KJV) And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

    -Written with love & concern,
    RogerS

  238. #238 Ichthyic
    February 9, 2010

    THE scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide.

    Roger, the reason the man was depressed, was because of fuckwits just like yourself.

    do you feel no shame in your continuing attempts to murder people by suicide?

  239. #239 Ichthyic
    February 9, 2010

    …and I’ll trade you a Ted Haggard or a Gary Aldridge for every Boltzmann or Berger you wish to trot out.

  240. #240 blf
    February 9, 2010

    Written with love & concern

    Liar.

  241. #241 Caine
    February 9, 2010

    RogerS @ 237:

    -Written with love & concern,

    Mm hmm. You write gleefully of suicides, not caring in the least about the context of those deaths; you exhibit no compassion nor do you care at all about the contributions of those people. They gave a great deal more to society than you and your ilk ever have.

    You are a prime example of the self-absorbed nastiness which forms the core of too many religious people.

  242. #242 Owlmirror
    February 9, 2010

    Matthew 7:26-27

    If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26 (KJV)

    Written with love & concern,
    RogerS

    Translation: I still do not actually know or care what “love” and “concern” mean and will still gladly use them when I mean “smugness” and “contempt”!

  243. #243 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    February 9, 2010

    -Written with love & concern,

    No, written with hate and contempt. We know the Xian codewords Roger S. NOTHING you say fools us.

    Roger S, if you find science evil, do yourself a favor and take science out of your life. You will need to remove all electronics and electrical devices including your computer, TV, radio, and electrical service. Cease using all cars, medicine and medical treatment, purified water, grocery stores, plastics including polyester clothes. Go work on an Amish farm, and never, ever set foot off of it. Or, shut the fuck up.

  244. #244 RogerS
    February 9, 2010

    I lift up a light in gross darkness for those standing on the precipise.

    2 Corinthians 5:14 (KJV) For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

    Translation: Unless you comes to the light you are “good as dead”.

    A work in progress,
    RogerS

  245. #245 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    February 9, 2010

    I lift up a light in gross darkness for those standing on the precipise.

    What light? Your deity doesn’t exist, no conclusive physical evidence for one. Unless you have an eternally burning bush to present to science for study. Your babble is a book of fiction/mythology, and you can’t prove otherwise with evidence. So all you have is your delusions, which we don’t care to share. Take your delusions elsewhere. I suggest a mental health professional.

  246. #246 David Marjanovi?
    February 9, 2010

    Wow, are you disgusting, Roger the Dodger. Are you disgusting.

    First you insinuate that it’s normal for scientists and inventors (?not remotely the same thing?) to kill themselves by listing a laughable 7 examples. With a slight bit of effort, you could compile a list of tens of thousands of scientists who died peacefully and of a natural death. But I know you won’t, because you prefer to keep lying to yourself.

    Then you insinuate that the only reason ever to kill oneself is to find oneself complicit in deicide.

    The stupid! It burns!

    In your next comment, you go on to simply state that your favorite story is “the light”. First, my friend, you have to establish that that story is true? then we can discuss whether it’s “the light”.

    Really, I think you’re projecting. I think you are depressive and believe everyone else must be at least as depressive as you ? simply because you can’t imagine what it’s like to not be depressive.

    BTW, precipice.

  247. #247 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    February 9, 2010

    Christians never kill themselves.

  248. #248 David Marjanovi?
    February 9, 2010

    I knew about the 200 billion number, but wasn’t sure if I had confused it with something else, and about the bar and the 2 instead of 4 main spiral arms. But the number of 400 billion was news to me! Thanks!

  249. #249 Owlmirror
    February 9, 2010

    I lift up a light in gross darkness for those standing on the precipise.

    Translation: My ego is gargantuan. And my ego declares that there is a new way to spell “precipice”.

    Unless you comes to the light you are “good as dead”.

    Translation: I want you all to be dead unless you worship my gargantuan ego.

    A work in progress,

    Translation: An intellectual suicide in progress.

  250. #250 RogerS
    February 12, 2010

    Mcqueen’s Parade

    16 August 2002
    IT NEVER occured to Alexander McQueen to lie about his sexuality. “Never,”
    he tells the Face. “I came out really young. I was never in [the closet]. I
    was sure of myself and my sexuality and I’ve got nothing to hide. I went
    straight from my mother’s womb onto the gay parade.” For his next project,
    the 32-year-old designer reveals that he is hoping to have a child. “I
    deserve one,” he says, “because I’ve got a lot of love to give.” But for now
    he has a different kind of baby to worry about: his debut fragrance, which
    is due next year. Some of you may be wondering how it’s going to smell, but
    you’ll wish you hadn’t asked. “It could smell like a man and a man having
    sex, a woman and a woman having sex, a man and a woman having sex, or a man
    and a dog having sex. I don’t care, as long as you’re having sex. It all
    begins in ‘s’ and ends in ‘x’.
    (article)

    Parade’s over, McQueen e’x’its into eternity.

    2010, Feb 11:
    Gay Fashion Designer Alexander McQueen Commits Suicide
    February 11th, 2010 at 8:49 am by Ryan Prado
    Forty-year-old fashion designer Alexander McQueen – whose notable celebrity
    dressings include Lady GaGa and Kylie – was found dead from an apparent
    suicide at his home in Greenpark, London. (article)

    -RogerS

  251. #251 Feynmaniac
    February 12, 2010

    16 2010, Feb 11:
    Gay Fashion Designer Alexander McQueen Commits Suicide

    I guess in creationist statistics sample sizes of n=1 suffices, especially if the claim fits your agenda.

  252. #252 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    February 12, 2010

    Roger S, given your recent fixation on suicide, which is utterly and totally irrelevant to any intellectual argument for or against atheism, one might think you have problems and are considering suicide. We certainly aren’t.

    Oh yes, your deity doesn’t exist since you have provide no conclusive physical evidence for one. Your babble is still a book of mythology/fiction since you haven’t proven otherwise with hard evidence. And your testament is wortheless since you are a proven lair. Still a delusional fool Roger S, as your fixation with suicide attests to.

  253. #253 Feynmaniac
    February 12, 2010

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

    I guess all Christian evangelicals are tax cheaters who have gay sex with drug-dealing prostitutes.

  254. #254 Feynmaniac
    February 12, 2010

    RogerS,

    I noticed you left out this part of the article about Alan Turing:

    He was given a choice between 18 months prison time (which considering his crime, was not exactly wise), or chemical castration, which included side effects such as breast enlargement. He chose the latter.

  255. #255 RogerS
    February 12, 2010

    AUGUST 15, 2009 12:00PM

    Bi Health Summit Exposes Critical Health Needs

    Research presented by Cheryl Dobinson, MA, and Stewart Landers, JD, MCP, from their two separate studies was remarkably similar. Bisexuals reported suffering from depression and anxiety in higher rates than heterosexuals or lesbians and gay men. In terms of attempting or thinking of attempting suicide, bisexual men were 7 times higher, while gay men were 4 times higher, than straight men; bisexual women were 6 times higher, while lesbian women were 4 times higher, than straight women. An Australian study revealed that middle-aged bi women were 24 times more likely to engage in self harm, like cutting, than straight women, as a coping mechanism. (article)

    Sorry, but the number don’t look pretty.

    -RogerS

  256. #256 Kel, OM
    February 12, 2010

    Quoting the bible is not the equivalent of QED.

  257. #257 RogerS
    February 12, 2010

    Correction: change “number” to “numbers”

  258. #258 Kel, OM
    February 12, 2010

    So that justifies treating them poorly?

  259. #259 Feynmaniac
    February 12, 2010

    RogerS,

    Did you ever consider the fact that these people are driven to suicide because they are treated like scum by many of your fellow Christians?

    Anyways, given a certain you-know-who you really shouldn’t be discussing sexual issues and psychological well-being.

  260. #260 Feynmaniac
    February 12, 2010

    Parade’s over, McQueen e’x’its into eternity.

    2010, Feb 11:
    Gay Fashion Designer Alexander McQueen Commits Suicide
    February 11th, 2010 at 8:49 am by Ryan Prado
    Forty-year-old fashion designer Alexander McQueen – whose notable celebrity
    dressings include Lady GaGa and Kylie – was found dead from an apparent
    suicide at his home in Greenpark, London. (article)

    Next sentence:

    Some reports are saying that McQueen was grieving heavily from the death of his mother just last week.

    Fail.

  261. #261 Kel, OM
    February 12, 2010

    I remember listening to a podcast recently about this issue. Gays and lesbians who are shunned by their family and community are far more likely to engage in self-harm, while those who receive good family support about who they are don’t engage in that form of behaviour.

    Seems pretty obvious, humans are social creatures so exile and being ostracised are much more likely to lead to self-destructive behaviour. Which of course conservative fucks can point to as an indicator of the deviant lifestyle to further justify their discrimination of those who are most in need of support.

  262. #262 RogerS
    February 13, 2010

    Kel,
    I know both a former transvestite and lesbian who were leading destructive lives. With love and support from a church that believed in deliverance from sin, they left their former lifestyles and now live very normal productive lives in their community. The lesbian married & had a son who became a Purdue grad and is likewise living a fulfilling married life. The transformation was due to long term effort by dedicated Christians and the inward work of Christ.
    I believe the fate of their new lives will not align with the poor statistics I previously cited.

  263. #263 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    February 13, 2010

    Feynmaniac and Kel, the harm done to LGBT people is well worth it because a few individuals are convinced to not live such degenerate lives. If they were allowed to life their lives with impunity, they would be destructive.

    Kiss the belt of love not given lightly.

  264. #264 Owlmirror
    February 13, 2010

    Parade’s over, McQueen e’x’its into eternity.

    Translation: I do not know or care what the phrase “selection bias” means!

    Sorry, but the number don’t look pretty.

    Translation: I do not know or care what the phrase “social bias” means!

    I know both a former transvestite and lesbian who were leading destructive lives.

    Translation: Why, yes, I do think that my anecdotal confirmation bias is truth.

    The transformation was due to long term effort by dedicated Christians and the inward work of Christ.

    Translation: Why, yes, I do think I can read God’s mind.

    I believe the fate of their new lives will not align with the poor statistics I previously cited.

    Translation: Why, yes, I do think I know everything, just like God!

  265. #265 Kel, OM
    February 13, 2010

    I know both a former transvestite and lesbian who were leading destructive lives.

    And that justifies being cruel to them, how?

    With love and support from a church that believed in deliverance from sin

    Do you think that maybe the church’s stance that they are defective may have contributed in the first place?

    Again, how does any of those statistics justify treating gays or lesbians as inferior or defective? A nod’s as good as a wink to a blind bat, if you’re going to believe in original sin then surely you must take stance that homosexuality is no more defective than any other “sin”. Why not take Christ’s message on “love your neighbour”?

    This is why I’m anti-theist. Theism is justifying discrimination and cruelty by invoking magic properties. It’s bad enough that discrimination exists without divine justification – but you’re mortal and fallible and you’re justifying treating people with contempt and cruelty for something that’s beyond their control. So much for God being a loving God – all I see preached from believers is a God of intolerance, a God of cruelty, a God of discrimination and extreme persecution.

    And you say you’re doing the work of Christ? Mr “Love your enemies”, Mr “Do good to those who wrong you”, Mr “Judge not lest ye be judged”, Mr “Turn the other cheek”? Bullshit you are. You’ve turned God into Satan to justify your own prejudice, then you have the nerve to say you’re doing Christ’s work… you’re doing a grave disservice to the one you call God.

  266. #266 RogerS
    February 24, 2010

    Educational ?Brainwashing? Claimed by Prominent Scientist

    Recently two prominent British scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, admittedly were ‘driven by logic’ to conclude that there must be a Creator.
    “It is quite a shock,” said Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy. The Sri Lankan-born astronomer explained: “From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. Once we see . . . that the probability of life, originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect ‘deliberate,’ ” or created.
    Professor Wickramasinghe also said: “I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . . We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there isn’t.” (Source)

    Educational ?Brainwashing? Backlash

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called ?the greatest scientific scandal of our generation? ? the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
    Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify. (Source)

    “Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.”
    -Blaise Pascal 1623-1662

  267. #267 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    February 24, 2010

    HAHAHAHAHA

    You actually are using Inhofe as an argument against idiocy?

    wow that’s rich

    HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHA

    RogerS you’re funny.

    And so what if a couple of scientists believe now?

    Can they offer any actual evidence for a “creator”?

    Nope.

  268. #268 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    February 24, 2010

    Roger S. Still no evidence for your imaginary deity. Still no evidence your babble is anything other than mythology/fiction. Still delusional if you think your babble has any meaning to us.

    The problem you have Roger S, is that you must first prove conclusive physical evidence for the creator. Without that, you have nothing. That makes your whole religion invalid. You cannot presuppose it validly. That is why we laugh at you. You can’t even get out of the starting blocks with any logical argument.

  269. #269 Menyambal
    February 24, 2010

    “From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation.

    Chandra Wickramasinghe has been a believer in various kinds of nonsense since I don’t know when. If he believes that he was brainwashed, he believes that with no evidence at all. Creationists have loved him a long time, so he isn’t new, and he probably isn’t right.

    If there was a creator, science would have found it by now, or rather, never moved away from it. When what we now call science got started, most scientists assumed that there was a creator, but the relentless search for truth has led away from that hypothesis. Science finds truth. There is no creator, and that’s the truth.

    ?the greatest scientific scandal of our generation? ? the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files

    True, that piddling little confusion was the greatest scientific scandal–science doesn’t have scandals very often. The e-mails didn’t show a damn bit of wrong-doing–the leakers picked out a few confusing sentences, spun them for maximum confusion, and suckered a lot of gullible idiots.

    You, RogerS, are a gullible idiot who has been suckered so bad that you now work for the people who have brainwashed you.

  270. #270 Owlmirror
    February 24, 2010

    Educational ?Brainwashing? Claimed by Prominent Scientist

    Translation: Argument from authority demonstrated by insipid Creationist.

    Recently two prominent British scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, admittedly were ‘driven by logic’ to conclude that there must be a Creator.

    Translation: Illogical argument from ignorance and incredulity advanced by Prominent Scientists.

    PS: “The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur’an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion.” — Fred Hoyle

    Educational ?Brainwashing? Backlash

    Translation: Creationists can’t get enough of that false equivalence.

    “Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.”

    Translation: Hypocritical Creationists hate truth, refuse to know truth, and try to obscure truth, if truth demonstrates that beloved Creationist presuppositions are nothing but established falsehoods.

  271. #271 RogerS
    February 24, 2010

    Deep Life ?How Did It Get There?

    Although knowledge about the subsurface biosphere is just now starting to bloom, rough calculations suggest that Earth’s upper crust is rife with life. Bacteria and archaea may reach as far as 4 km below the continental crust and 7 km into the oceanic crust, says Fredrickson. Deeper still, the rock is presumably too hot for life, which is not known to survive temperatures above 113°C.
    Science News,Vol. 151, No. 13, pp. 192-193, March, 1997. (Source)

    “We normally think of the biosphere as being mostly limited to the planet’s surface. However, if one accepts that life extends deep into the Earth, the ultimate volume of the biosphere is much greater than we ever realized.
    “Even though the density of subsurface life may be relatively low, if you add up all those tiny microbial bodies, you get an enormous amount of life that’s equal to perhaps greater than the surface biosphere.” (Source)

    US average depth of crude oil and natural gas is approximately 1 mile.(Source)

    This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen?even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. This small, consistent amount is found so often among various specimens that contamination can probably be ruled out. Ancient human skeletons, when dated by this new ?accelerator mass spectrometer? technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! ?Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be older than 100,000 years will be shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests. This prediction, first published in the 6th Edition (1995), p. 157, has now been confirmed.(Source)

    Simple Explanation from Walt Brown (Ph.D. in ME from MIT, B.S. from West Point)

    Very precise measurements now show that most fossils?regardless of presumed ?geologic age??have roughly the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. (This includes fossil fuels: coal, oil, and methane.) Therefore, this former life must have been living at about the same time?less than 100,000 years ago. Because almost all fossils are preserved in water deposited sediments, all this former life was probably buried in a fairly recent, gigantic flood. -In The Beginning p.343

    2 Peter 3:3-6 (KJV) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
    -RogerS

  272. #272 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    February 24, 2010

    Still delusional Roger S. Your “authorities” are not speaking from scientific authority. Rather trying to reconcile their religious beliefs with sophistry. For example:

    have roughly the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.

    is to be expected from regular science. Why? Radioactivity within the earth causes neutron activation of carbon 13 to carbon 14, so there is a very small, but steady amount of carbon 14 being formed. It is not a scientific proof for creation, but rather for real science and an old, 4.6 billion year old, earth.

    You deity doesn’t exist and your babble is fiction. You have demonstrated no evidence otherwise. And the is the first steps you must do to convince this blog you have anything other than lies and deception. And quoting your ficitonal babble like it means something confirms your delusional status.

  273. #273 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    February 24, 2010

    THE scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide.

    So by failing to understand his work, and demonizing him because you’re a lackwit, he is therefore responsible for his depression.

    What the hell is wrong with some people?

  274. #274 David Marjanovi?
    February 24, 2010

    Deep Life ?How Did It Get There?

    Water seeps down, you moron.

    Please.

    Think. Just once. And if you’ll never do it again, just think this one time!

    This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen?even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal.

    14C is produced by particles flying around very fast and hitting carbon or nitrogen. One source is the sun; that’s why 14C occurs in the air. Another is radioactivity; that’s why coal and oil contains small amounts of 14C if it lies close enough to uranium deposits for long enough, and why it contains the more 14C the closer it lay to deposits of uranium or other radioactive elements; when it lay far enough from any such deposits, it does not contain any measurable amounts of 14C.

    All this has been known for decades, Dodger. As usual, you talk about things you don’t know anything about, and, what’s worse, you believe everyone else (even those scientists who study that stuff for a living!) knows just as little as you.

    You should be ashamed of such stupidity.

    BTW, 2 Peter is pseudepigraphic ? it was written a century after Peter’s death by someone who wanted to borrow Peter’s authority.

  275. #275 Kel, OM
    February 24, 2010

    Classic sign of a troll, posts his inanity until it gets refuted and then completely changes topic.

  276. #276 Owlmirror
    February 26, 2010

    Deep Life ?How Did It Get There?

    Translation: After having it pointed out that I hate truth, I will now demonstrate my hatred of truth !!

    This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen?even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal.

    Translation: I neither know nor care how carbon-14 is formed.

    Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be older than 100,000 years will be shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests.

    Translation: I neither know nor care about the applicability of carbon dating to anything older than 10 half-lives of 14C.

    This prediction, first published in the 6th Edition (1995), p. 157, has now been confirmed.

    Translation: See how I confirm my presuppositions with bullshit pseudoscience.

    Simple Explanation from Walt Brown

    Translation: False “explanation” from Walt Brown.

    (Ph.D. in ME from MIT, B.S. from West Point)

    Translation: I am easily impressed by a Creationist liar bearing degrees, in inapplicable subjects no less.

    Very precise measurements now show that most fossils?regardless of presumed ?geologic age??have roughly the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. (This includes fossil fuels: coal, oil, and methane.)

    Translation: Very precise measurements now show that most fossils older than ten half-lives of carbon-14 are indeed older than ten half-lives of carbon-14.

    Therefore, this former life must have been living at about the same time?less than 100,000 years ago.

    Translation: Therefore, I must lie and assert with no evidence or logic that most fossils older than ten half-lives of carbon-14 have only existed for about ten half-lives of carbon-14.

    Because almost all fossils are preserved in water deposited sediments, all this former life was probably buried in a fairly recent, gigantic flood.

    Translation: Because I presuppose that all water deposited sediments came from a fairly recent, gigantic flud, I must conclude that all former life was buried by a fairly recent, gigantic flud. I ♥ circular reasoning !!

    2 Peter 3:3-6

    Translation: Please read this bible verse with which I have brainwashed myself with a fairly recent, gigantic flud !!

  277. #277 David Marjanovi?
    February 27, 2010

    Oh yeah, forgot one thing… Roger the Dodger and Walt Brown accept that the Earth is 100,000 years old rather than 6,000? Iiiiiiinteresting.

  278. #278 Owlmirror
    February 27, 2010

    Read that again: less than 100,000 years ago

    6,000 < 100,000, so YECs can work with that. And some YECs don’t mind one or two orders of magnitude, as long as they can figure out ways to reject the greater orders of magnitude of secular science.

    RogerS has been caught many times citing things that contradict [some aspects of strict] YEC dogma, and saying things contradicting his own earlier statements. He doesn’t care at all when this is pointed out to him. He will literally cite anything at all, and say anything at all, and ignore all contradictions, because he, like all Creationists, really does not care about what is true and what is false. Only defending his presupposed assumptions and dogma matter to him, even if he can’t even articulate his dogma coherently.

  279. #279 Alan B
    February 27, 2010

    Hi RogerS

    You refer to Drs Chandra Wickramasinghe and Fred Hoyle.

    Unfortunately, you have chosen 2 men, brilliant in their own fields, who think they are thereby qualified to state as fact things they have hardly studied in unrelated fields.

    Thus, it was these two who were convinced by the speculation of an Israeli scientist that Archaeopteryx might be a fraud. Without discussing it with genuine experts they went to the Natural History Museum, London and asked to photograph the London Archaeopterix specimen, arguably the second best found so far. They concluded that it was a deliberate fraud. You can find the story by googling Dr. Wick.’s name combined with feathers.

    “Playing the role of amateur detectives, we poured over our pictures for hours on end, and after several months we were sufficiently convinced to go to print.”

    So where did they publish this earth-shattering discovery? In a high impact science journal like Nature? Or Science? A palaeontology journal, perhaps? Since this was an important British-owned fossil, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London? No. The British Journal of Photography! Volume 132, March 8th, March 29th, April 26th 1985.”

    Anybody who pours over the same set of photographs for hours on end over a period of months is going to see what they wanted to see in the first place. They convinced themselves that they, with no knowledge of Archaeopterix other than some high resolution photos, knew more than the entire scientific staff of the Natural History Museum who have worked on the fossil for years decades.

    This is just an example of the arrogance of these two scientists in a field about which they knew little. Other examples could be taken. It is hardly surprising that two excellent scientists in their own field are not going to be over convincing once they go off into other fields.

    (Incidentally, the NHM staff produced a detailed, peer reviewed paper published in Science which showed that Hoyle and his team were mistaken.)

  280. #280 RogerS
    March 10, 2010

    Scientists Surprised, Embarrassed, & Disturbed: ?Far From Truth?

    The deepest borehole drilled for scientific purposes is located on the Kola Peninsula near Murmansk, Russia, in the northwestern part of the Baltic Shield. The drilling of the main borehole began in 1970, and a final depth of 12,262 metres was reached in 1994. The drilling of this and other deep and superdeep wells has produced one surprise after another, and the findings have been extremely embarrassing for earth scientists [1]. One scientist commented: ‘Every time we drill a hole we find the unexpected. That’s exciting, but disturbing.’ And a science reporter remarked: ‘Kola revealed how far from truth scientific theory can roam.’
    At the Kola hole, scientists expected to find 4.7 km of metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rock, then a granitic layer to a depth of 7 km (the ‘Conrad discontinuity’), with a basaltic layer below it. The granite, however, appeared at 6.8 km and extends to more than 12 km; no basaltic layer was ever found! Seismic-reflection surveys, in which sound waves sent into the crust bounce back off contrasting rock types, have detected the Conrad discontinuity beneath all the continents, but the standard interpretation that it represents a change from granitic to basaltic rocks is clearly wrong. (Source)

    David M wrote: Water seeps down, you moron.
    Please.
    Think. Just once. And if you’ll never do it again, just think this one time!

    It is too bad these other ?surprised scientists? were not informed by David ahead of time. The Marjanovic ?water seeps down? transport mechanism may have transported C14 as well as the lifeforms. I bet Allen B could propose an entirely different mechanism responsible for lifeforms 6.7 km down. The big question is how ?far from truth? is it?

    Another surprise at the Kola hole was that lifeforms and fossils were discovered several kilometres down. Microscopic fossils were found at depths of 6.7 km. 24 species were identified among these microfossils, representing the envelopes or coverings of single-cell marine plants known as plankton. Unlike conventional shells of limestone or silica, these coverings were found to consist of carbon and nitrogen and had remained remarkably unaltered despite the high pressures and temperatures to which they had been subjected. (Source)

    BTW, Good to see that Kel & Allen B are still hopping.

  281. #281 WowbaggerOM
    March 10, 2010

    RogerS,

    The Wikipedia page on the Kola Borehole has this line:

    he Kola borehole penetrated about a third of the way through the Baltic continental crust, presumed to be around 35 kilometres (22 mi), reaching rocks of Archaean age (greater than 2.5 billion years old) at the bottom.

    Emphasis mine. Remind me – is 2.5 billion years more or less than 6,000?

  282. #282 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 10, 2010

    RogerS, still not presenting any real evidence. In fact, what you presented confirms evolution and geology. You are batting 1.000 in confirming science. In fact, you keep shooting your in the foot with your inane and illogical attempts to prove science wrong. You can’t prove yourself right by proving science wrong. Your creationism is not the default position. You must prove it in its own right. Which you have totally and utterly failed to do.

    Why aren’t you starting with physical evidence for your imaginary deity? Without a deity, your babble is nothing but a book of myth/fiction. And since it is myth/fiction, the creation myth in it is fiction. You can only convince us by starting with the appropriate material. No god, no babble, ergo you are wrong. That is where things stand at the moment. You need to change that.

  283. #283 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 10, 2010

    RogerS,

    I fail to see how this supports anything you would like it to support.

    Care to explain?

  284. #284 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 10, 2010

    Also RogerS I’m having a difficult time finding any information about these supposed fossils outside of your one link and lots of creationism and conspiracy sites with an occasional other site just repeating word for word the same paragraph.

    Do you have anything from a legitimate source?

    Thanks

  285. #285 RogerS
    March 10, 2010

    Rev.BigDumbChimp:

    RogerS,

    I fail to see how this supports anything you would like it to support.

    Care to explain?

    Sure.

    I attribute it to a world wide, mountain covering, “fountains of the deep” breakup, Pacific Ocean Basin displacing, mountain raising, year long catastrophic FLOOD of judgement that Noah’s contemporaries failed to predict.

  286. #286 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 10, 2010

    Ok, can you now provide actual evidence for this?

    You can attribute things to the flud all you want, but you have to actually back up those claims.

    Something you have been 100% unable to do on every single one of your visits here.

    By the way your above link is not evidence for this.

  287. #287 Aquaria
    March 10, 2010

    It doesn’t matter what your wishful thinking attributes it to.

    What evidence do you have for any of these assertions?

    None, as Josh so amply demonstrated.

    You’re like Oliver from Upper Class Twit of the Year-You don’t know when you’re being beaten, and you don’t have any sort of sensory apparatus known to man.

  288. #288 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 10, 2010

    RogerS, since science explains the evidence better than your religious sophistry, your creationism continues to lack support. That is your problem. You don’t have the proper evidence to support your claims. No evidence for a one time world wide flood, a kill off of all Homo sapiens except one family. Absolutely not present in the geological record. You also must contend with civilizations with written records in place before and after the alleged flud. Since you don’t, you have nothing of consequence to offer.

  289. #289 RogerS
    March 10, 2010

    David M wrote:

    Oh yeah, forgot one thing… Roger the Dodger and Walt Brown accept that the Earth is 100,000 years old rather than 6,000? Iiiiiiinteresting.

    David, please read Brown?s following line again. He is on a YEC time line:
    ?Therefore, this former life must have been living at about the same time?less than 100,000 years ago. Because almost all fossils are preserved in water deposited sediments, all this former life was probably buried in a fairly recent, gigantic flood.? -In The Beginning p.343

    You yourself evidently have little confidence in radioactive carbon still active in coal, oil, metane, etc. other than due to ?water seeps down? & uranium contamination. When radioactive carbon supports a young earth the ratios are skewed by contamination but when they date ?LESS THAN 100,000 yrs? they suddenly become credible and become OVER 6,000 yrs.??? If a global flood is considered, the dispersion of radioactive carbon in sedimentary rock and still contained in fossil fuels at great depths makes sense.

    ?uranium deposits of the USA?reserves are found at depths of up to 240m? (Source)

    The average depth of crude oil and natural gas is about 1 mile or 1,600m, pretty far from contamination by uranium as low as 240m.

    True dating accuracy by C14 is highly questionable but it can be useful as a rough indicator only if the effects of a global flood are factored in.

    Carbon 14 Accuracy Seriously Questioned

    “In the light what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as a “proof” for their beliefs. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who based their argument upon the dates. The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. ?This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read?.”

    Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error, Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol 19, No 4 (1981) pp. 9-29

  290. #290 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 10, 2010

    Rogers, your carbon-14 idiocy is just that. Idiocy. Carbon-14 is only one dating method, and all the others show the Earth to be millions, if not billions of years old. Trying to throw doubt on Carbon-14 dating, where there is none within the scientific community as we are well aware of its limitations, does nothing to prove your own points. It just makes you look like you have no idea of what you are doing. For your idea (it doesn’t even reach hypothesis stage) of creationism must be shown independently of attempting (but always failing in) trashing science, starting with conclusive physical evidence for your deity. For some strange reason, you keep failing to do that. Almost like all you have is a presupposition argument. There is tremendous doubt as to the existence of your deity/creator. So, start there.

  291. #291 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 10, 2010

    RogerS, here is some homework for you.

    Instead of cherry picking random inconsequential articles that you think are poking big holes in everything that we actually know about science, try and put forth some support for your claims.

    Present us positive science supporting your “yet to be given one iota of support” view that the earth is 6000 years old, there was a great flud and Noah really did build that really big boat with all the cute fuzzy creatures in pairs on it. Not another article you think upsets the established well supported science we have.

    Actual science Rog.

    /pats Rog on the head and sends him on his way

  292. #292 Owlmirror
    March 11, 2010

    Scientists Surprised, Embarrassed, & Disturbed: ?Far From Truth?

    Translation: God commands me to bear false testimony, and I enjoy quote-mining so as to bear false testimony as God commands me.

    The Marjanovic ?water seeps down? transport mechanism may have transported C14 as well as the lifeforms.

    Translation: I still neither know nor care what 14C is nor how it forms.

    [Editor's note: Hm. I note that the stylistic trope of adding commenter names to what they said as a sneer is something that I recall Alan Clarke did, and RogerS did not do. Is the banned pedophile sockpuppeting?]

    I bet Allen B

    Translation: I can’t spell names right even when they are right in front of me, even though the spelling should be very familiar indeed.

    David, please read Brown?s following line again. He is on a YEC time line:

    Translation: Please read Brown?s line again, because “less than 100,000″ must mean “6,000″. Because I say so.

    I attribute it to a world wide, mountain covering, “fountains of the deep” breakup, Pacific Ocean Basin displacing, mountain raising, year long catastrophic FLOOD

    Translation: I presuppose a world wide, mountain covering, “fountains of the deep” breakup, Pacific Ocean Basin displacing, mountain raising, year long catastrophic FLOOD, and therefore any hint of water anywhere in the world leads me to conclude that my presuppositions are correct !!

    You yourself evidently have little confidence in radioactive carbon still active in coal, oil, metane, etc. other than due to ?water seeps down? & uranium contamination.

    Translation: I still neither know nor care what 14C is, nor how it forms, nor how it decays. Also, I have forgotten how to spell “methane”.

    When radioactive carbon supports a young earth

    Translation: I presuppose a young earth, and therefore ignore the simple fact that radioactive carbon does not actually support a young earth.

    but when they date ?LESS THAN 100,000 yrs? they suddenly become credible and become OVER 6,000 yrs.???

    Translation: I can’t do the basic math working out that if the half-life of 14C is 5,730±40 years, then ten half-lives of carbon-14 must be greater than 6,000 years. Math is hard !!!

    If a global flood is considered, the dispersion of radioactive carbon in sedimentary rock and still contained in fossil fuels at great depths makes sense.

    Translation: If a global flood is presupposed, the dispersion of radioactive carbon in sedimentary rock and still contained in fossil fuels at great depths makes no sense at all, but I don’t actually care about making sense.

    The average depth of crude oil and natural gas is about 1 mile or 1,600m, pretty far from contamination by uranium as low as 240m.

    Translation: Other people mine for uranium; but I, like ALL YECs, mine for quotes ! I so enjoy bearing false testimony by quotemine !!

    [Editor's note: Is RogerS/Alan Clarke a sociopath on top of everything else?]

    [Editor's note: Actual Uranium Geology, as opposed to YEC bullshit about uranium geology:

    The uranium concentration in Earth's crust was calculated by Vinogradov to be 2,5*10-4% (250 ppm). [2] There have been several studies [3-5] in which uranium concentrations of some mantle rocks were measured to be in the range of 0.024-2.4 ppm.

    ]

    True dating accuracy by C14 is highly questionable

    Translation: I still neither know nor care what 14C is, nor how it forms, nor how it decays, nor how the decay rate is used for dating. Since its results contradict my YEC presuppositions, I question them. Not that I would care about or understand the answers to my questioning.

    [Editor's note: I assumed that YEC presuppositions prevented RogerS/Alan Clarke from reading Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, but given the laughable blunders in basic math and logic made above, I suspect that they're both too stupid to understand it, even if they did read it. ]

    but it can be useful as a rough indicator only if the effects of a global flood are factored in.

    Translation: I shall demonstrate my invincible ignorance of radiocarbon dating by flat-out lying and asserting with neither logic nor evidence that my presupposition of a “global flood” is true, and that its nonexistent “effects” can be “factored in” to radiocarbon dating.

    Carbon 14 Accuracy Seriously Questioned

    Translation: Yay! More old papers to quote-mine !!

    [Editor's note: Good fucking grief. I just knew that that 1981 date meant that the cited reference would be in here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html ]

  293. #293 Rorschach
    March 11, 2010

    *sniff*

    That was just beautiful.

  294. #294 Alan B
    March 11, 2010

    #280 Hi RogerS

    Just for clarification, who is “Allen B”?

    Is it supposed to be me??

    I am the author of the piece just before yours (which, of course, you have ignored – but then little changes, does it?). Just to remind you, I am Alan B. The first part is the same spelling as Alan Clarke (who, I admit, I sometimes refer to as Alan C).

  295. #295 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    March 11, 2010

    I’ve been thinking about it, and Owlmirror is probably right in thinking that some sockpuppetry is going on. That does not speak well for the creationist community’s integrity that they would stoop to such unseemly behavior. Just another reason to see them as nothing but liars and bullshitters.

    RogerS, come forward to the eternal thread, and post your stuff there. That thread is an open thread, so you can bring forth your ideas. The thread is the link below PZ’s picture on the home page. One might think you are hiding here in the shadows of an old thread because you are ashamed to be seen or heard. More unseemly behavior.

  296. #296 Alan B
    March 11, 2010

    #280 and others

    Hi RogerS

    Are you aware of the amount of scientific work that has been done on C-14 dating? The paper you chose to quote was from 1981. Considering that papers take a finite time to produce from scratch to being published, that’s 30 years ago!!

    Even if it were valid (and I don’t intend to chase that up) it is so far out of date as to be pre-history!

    Just another thought …

    You quoted a source in #280. Going to it and nosing around a little it appears to have been written by David Pratt. Looking at his website shows that he is a student of Theosophy and relies on a date of the Earth of around 2 billion years old, based on Hindu or Budhist writings.

    So. You who believe that the Earth (indeed, the Creation) is around 6000 years old are relying, not on science, but the studies of heathen religions. These are only out by a factor of around 2 compared with science whereas you are out by a factor of around 500,000 (taking 4.5 Gy & 9000 y).

    Odd N’est pas?

    (Apologies to David M if my 50+ year old French is incorrect)

  297. #297 David Marjanovi?
    March 11, 2010

    I don’t need to add anything, Owlmirror and Alan B have said it all. Roger, you have no clue what you’re talking about, and that’s painfully obvious. Read some of the writings of St Augustine as soon as you find the time.

  298. #298 Rey Fox
    March 11, 2010

    Sockpuppetry or not, I think Roger should be banned for the one-two punch of his copy-paste addiction, and his apparent glee in the suicides of scientists and homosexuals (I honestly think he can’t separate the two).

  299. #299 Owlmirror
    March 11, 2010

    So. You who believe that the Earth (indeed, the Creation) is around 6000 years old are relying, not on science, but the studies of heathen religions. These are only out by a factor of around 2 compared with science whereas you are out by a factor of around 500,000 (taking 4.5 Gy & 9000 y).

    I reiterate what I wrote @#278, with some modifications:

    Alan Clarke/RogerS have been caught many times citing things that contradict some aspects of strict YEC dogma, and saying things contradicting their own earlier statements. They doesn’t care at all when this is pointed out to them. They will literally cite anything at all, and say anything at all, and ignore all contradictions, because they, like all Creationists, really do not care about what is true and what is false. Only regurgitating their presupposed assumptions and dogma matter to them, even if neither of them can even articulate their dogma coherently.

    —-

    Read some of the writings of St Augustine as soon as you find the time.

    The only bit of Augustine that matters is the part that basically says “don’t say stupid things about the natural world and claim that they are Christian truths when they aren’t because they make Christianity look stupid.” (On the Literal Translation of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim))

    That citation from Augustine was posted for them many times before. Obviously, they don’t give a shit about looking stupid or making Christianity look stupid.

    Augustine is not otherwise helpful in the matter of science, and the rest is theology, which I doubt they need more of, given their total self-brainwashing.

  300. #300 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    March 12, 2010

    I’m picturing RogerS scouring the wingnut websites for any sign that science has ever discovered anything that altered a previously held view even slightly and then trying to jackhammer that into some perceived support of the flud/creation/Noah/crucified bunnies/Celene Dion is good music.

  301. #301 Alan B
    March 13, 2010

    #300

    … Celene Dion is good music.

    Come on, Rev., enough foolishness …

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.