In which I have hurt Ken Ham's feelings

Oh, dear. Earlier, I wrote about Ken Ham's visit to the Pentagon, a soul-shuddering thought if ever there was one, and it seems Ken has read it. He has replied with a blog entry titled Biology Professor Calls Me “Wackaloon”. Ken, Ken, Ken. You act shocked at the thought that one guy publicly stated that you were Mr Flaming Nutbar, but you shouldn't be. Millions of people, including some of the most knowledgeable biologists in the world, think just about every day that you are an airhead, an ass, a birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a charlatan, a cheat, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a con artist, a crackpot, a crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a dumb-ass, a dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fake, a fathead, a fraud, a fruitcake, a gonif, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a jackass, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a mountebank, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a numbnuts, a numbskull, a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a racketeer, a sap, a scam artist, a screwball, a sham, a simpleton, a snake oil salesman, a thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead, and much, much worse.

You're a clueless schmuck who knows nothing about science and has arrogantly built a big fat fake museum to promote medieval bullshit — you should not be surprised to learn that you are held in very low esteem by the community of scholars and scientists, and by the even larger community of lay people who have made the effort to learn more about science than you have (admittedly, though, you have set the bar very, very low on that, and there are 5 year old children who have a better grasp of the principles of science as well as more mastery of details of evolution than you do.)

Maybe you should write a blog entry calling attention to each insult given to you. I think that's your calling, and it's probably god's intended mission for you in life, to inspire contempt.

(I encourage each and every one of my readers to express their true feelings about Ken Ham in the comment thread here. Then I want Mr Ham to write an indignant post complaining that "So-and-so called me a “disgrace to brain-damaged clowns”", or whatever — that'll keep him occupied for years, and will distract him from his campaign of abusing the minds of young children. Be creative.)

More like this

Poor little Ken Ham gets no respect. He sets up this fancy museum, he keeps pushing his silly ideas, and what happens? Smart people like Daniel Phelps, president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, calls him a moron. Deservedly. I don't need to say much, though. The scathing excoriation of Ham…
This may sound like pro-religion news, but it's really not: Wal-Mart is going to sell Jesus action figures. Maybe it is spreading religious mythology through cheap general stores, but it is also the commodification of a religious hero…so it's devaluing Jesus. The other thing to consider is what…
The excellent Slacktivist notes, once more, that Ken Ham’s biblical exegesis is just as sound as his science. But there's a twist.  He writes, "For decades I’ve been having this argument:" YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONIST: The Bible clearly says that God created the universe in six days, 6,000 years ago. ME…
Continuing with our discussion of the Evolution 2008 conference ... Yet another item from the first day of the conference, the pre-conference teachers day sponsored by Evolution 2008 and the Minnesota Citizens for Science Education (MnCSE) ... The Minnesota Citizens for Science Education…

Keith,

How old is the earth?

Why don't you all nominate a 'champion' (as the Philistines goaded the Israelites to do)

So... you admit that you're a Philistine?

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

This old blog entry from June has now gone over 1000 comments. Egads.

Look, I'm just here because everyone else is here. What I want to know -- is why is everyone else here?

So... you admit that you're a Philistine?

I think Keith's got a long way to go before he qualifies as something as high-up the ladder as a Philistine. Right now he's barely pond-scum.

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Look, I'm just here because everyone else is here. What I want to know -- is why is everyone else here?

SIWOTI

Look, I'm just here because everyone else is here. What I want to know -- is why is everyone else here?

Poking squishy things with a stick is fun?

By John Morales (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

I'm here because I still have troll shit on my ruby slippers from kicking the crap out of Colleen & Paliban Mom this morning. Might as well end the evening stomping on this troll too, but he doesn't show much fight. Damned flaccid trolls.

SIWOTI!

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Stop it 'little ones' - my sides are aching - on the verge of splitting! From coelacanth to coelacanth - mind-blowing! You ask ME to provide proof, yet offer none of your own - just quoting the current evolutionistic paradigm is not proof - or it could EQUALLY be a 'proof' of common DESIGN. I freely admit that my beliefs are my faith - tighten your corsets and admit to your own 'faith'. How old is the Earth? I don't know - I've never found a 'best before' or 'use by' date anywhere on/in/above it. Do you KNOW how old it is? If you claim that you do, then allow me to claim that I KNOW that God exists.
TTFN!

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

SIWOTI

But of course...
It is our version of "Peace be with you."

"SIWOTI, my friend."

"And SIWOTI for you too, my friend."

Patricia,

I thought Paliban Mom was a Poe - did she prove otherwise?

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

KA troll:

Do you KNOW how old it is? If you claim that you do, then allow me to claim that I KNOW that God exists.

Earth.

Your turn.

By John Morales (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Keith, the word of a liar and bullshitter is worthless. Either show some physical proof for your imaginary god or go away. The burden of proof is on you. You show the proof, not tell it.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Yeah run you sissy.
Turn in your troll card on the way out, you're a disgrace to the breed.

Keith Allen #1009 wrote:

I freely admit that my beliefs are my faith - tighten your corsets and admit to your own 'faith'.

If this admission is in answer to my question at #990, I'm afraid I don't understand how to apply it. I wrote:

If you became convinced that the evidence supported the Theory of Evolution, would you no longer believe that God exists? Or, would you retool your understanding of God, and now believe that God worked through evolution?

Was your response an "I don't know?" I'm not sure.

How old is the Earth? I don't know - I've never found a 'best before' or 'use by' date anywhere on/in/above it.

The date stamp written in the rocks by radioactive elements is a bit smudged, but it definitely reads something like "4.5 billion years", plus or minus a bit.

If you claim that you do, then allow me to claim that I KNOW that God exists.

Only if God is a rock with radioactive elements in.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Keith Allan wrote:

TTFN!

Yes, run away like the pathetic lying coward you are. Go cry to jebus about how the mean atheists hurt your feelings.

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Wowbagger, I went and looked at her website, and the stuff she had for sale on cafe press (?) it looked to me like she is a genuinely deluded christian. Because I see these people everyday in my gawd soaked town I'm not amazed that they can be so incredibly stupid.

Keith, if you want me to believe in god, show me the physical proof for god. Oh yes, there is none, so god is a delusion, which makes you delusional.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Do you KNOW how old it is?

Several dating techniques all come up with the same answer. Are you saying that radiometric decay rates are off by a factor of a million?

It is our version of "Peace be with you."

"SIWOTI, my friend."

"And SIWOTI for you too, my friend."

*snort*

Correct you merry, gentle friends
Let nothing you dismay
For trolls so dull and ignorant
Infest the 'Net this day
So we must all out-pedant them
For they have gone astray

O postings of rightness and joy,
rightness and joy
O postings of rightness and joy.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

or it could EQUALLY be a 'proof' of common DESIGN

If there was a designer, he did a pretty piss-poor job of things. He's made it look like he's just built process on top of process, even a 1st year engineering student could build a better and more functional eye than the proposed designer of life.

Owlmirror, Clap, clap, clap.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

"In which I have hurt the feelings of P Z's flock"

I thought we might get back to basics by giving this one a title! It's amazing that you could possibly believe that obedient sheep could ever hurt my feelings - like it or not, this is funnier than watching Seinfeld (yes, I prefer comedy without expletives). I still don't see why the burden of proof is on ME - if any of you had even a quantum of humility, you could 'find out' for YOURSELVES! Then again, I guess not - isn't there something about 'casting your pearls'? I was an atheist for sixteen years (until age 32) - why do you think I 'changed'? It was because atheism is a cul-de-sac in the journey of life - you are all 'going nowhere' and are content to do so. Fair enough, you have the freedom to make such a choice - so why do you ridicule those who have a 'different' view of life? You definitely will not accept this, but you are all so insecure that you need EVRYONE to agree with you! Ironically, you all accuse ME of being unable to think independently - give my regards to your 'shepherd' (from whom I borrowed the title).

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Do we know how old the Earth is? We have a hell of a lot of evidence that it is about 4.5 Billion years old. It's a lot more evidence, in fact, than you have.
You claim to have tried to debate in a serious way. Is making endless lists of unsupported assertions coupled with deranged speculations about the beliefs and motives of your opponents serious debate?
On the subject of evidence, here's a question your baramin never answers: What, hypothetically, would you accept as evidence for evolution?

or it could EQUALLY be a 'proof' of common DESIGN

Well, you know, except where it's uncommon design. Of course the bird has wings which have a common design with dinosaur legs--because of a common designer. And the bat wing has common design with a bird wing because of common design? Don't be ridiculous, the bird and dinosaur have a common designer, not the bat and the bird (except way back), so the bat wing has common design with mammalian insectivores.

So see, there's common design, then there's uncommon design. And don't ask why birds and bats have distant common design, but no common design in their wing modifications.

But idiots like Keith know, it's because god wanted it just so. Don't ask for a reason, not a design (rational and purposeful) reason, or any other one. God wanted bats and birds to share common the common design of a tetrapod, but not of bird or bat, and the fact that it's exactly as evolution predicts is pure coincidence. The mere fact that an unobserved "cause" which is claimed to be able to do anything at all means that scientific prediction is void in biology and nowhere else (unless the creationist claims design of the universe, or of the Theia collision, etc., which are then included in their theocratic exceptionalism).

True, I'm extrapolating, filling in the blanks for these vapid morons. They haven't thought beyond "it's because god wants it that way," for they both have intellectual deficits and they completely lack open-mindedness. I had to do their thinking for them, and the only reason it sounds so stupid is because creationism happens to be mind-numbingly stupid.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

KA

Fair enough, you have the freedom to make such a choice - so why do you ridicule those who have a 'different' view of life?

Because you're ridiculous.

I was an atheist for sixteen years (until age 32) - why do you think I 'changed'?

Because rigorous thinking is not your forte, and you're a coward who doesn't want to face reality without his security blankie.

By John Morales (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

KA, still no physical evidence for your imaginary god. TSK, TSK.

Your paranoia is interesting, since nobody is out to get you. Believe what you want, but we don't have to believe as you do. Why else would you post here unless you felt we had to believe as you do?

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

You KNOW what's CONVINCING, Keith? Writing IMPORTANT WORDS in all CAPS.

Your mindless blather wouldn't convince anyone if you didn't capitalize without any reason to do so, but we're secretly convinced by your inability to write English properly.

Or, if you're a Poe, well done. For you've done really well in convincing us that you have nothing but errors to use to try (quite ineptly) to manipulate others in the same way that you've been manipulated.

If you're for real, you're simply wondering what the hell I'm talking about, naturally.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

KA

Ironically, you all accuse ME of being unable to think independently - give my regards to your 'shepherd' (from whom I borrowed the title).

You do know the etymology of the word 'pastor", and thus pastoral care, right? ;)

By John Morales (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Quick question: What 'age' did radiometric dating give for the strata laid down by the eruption of mount St Helen?
Quick response: Kel - are you SERIOUS???!!!!
Quick answer: A dog changing into a cat - or vice-versa.
Quick rebuttal: Nerd of Redhead - claptrap, claptrap, claptrap.

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

I still don't see why the burden of proof is on ME - if any of you had even a quantum of humility, you could 'find out' for YOURSELVES!

I did try. I prayed to God to turn my water into Vodka, he didn't obliged. I also prayed to the laws of nature to turn my water into ginger beer, and with a little help from methodological naturalism, I now have a keg full of fermenting ginger beer. Nature works, God doesn't. Here's a challenge, can you back up a single thing you've said about the process of evolution with any science literature? Can you find a single source that says that evolution demands spontaneous generation?

Quick Keith, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah blah.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

hehe. He thinks he hurt my feelings. That's kinda funny. Sad but funny.

Evolution isn't a different view of life. It's how life came to be.

Creationism/ID isn't a different view of life. It's a fairy tale based on a theist need for a creator. It's not based on evidence or science. It's based on an irrational need to ignore the evidence and value faith over all things.

The reason we ask "how old is the earth?" is because we like to see how much of science a creationist troll like yourself is denying. People like yourself who dodge the answer usually are ashamed of their answer because it opens them up to a whole new line of ridicule. Which is deserved, especially when they try to date the earth based on a book written by superstitious tribesmen.

I'm an atheist because I've never encountered any evidence that any gods exist.

Life isn't a cul-de-sac. It's a dead end. That you have to believe it's a endless highway that stretches into eternity is just a pathetic delusion.

Keith Allan, pustule and liar, whimpered:

I still don't see why the burden of proof is on ME

Then you don't even comprehend the basics of a debate - no wonder you refer to it as a 'debate', because in your world it's obviously something very different from what it is in the real world.

I was an atheist for sixteen years (until age 32) - why do you think I 'changed'?

Hmm, based on your powers of reasoning and your writing skills I'm going to with...lobotomy?

Fair enough, you have the freedom to make such a choice - so why do you ridicule those who have a 'different' view of life?

If you morons were content to keep your views lies to yourselves then we wouldn't care. But you attempt to pass those lies of as truth and, in doing so, make the world a far worse place for everyone, including those who don't choose to wallow in delusion and superstition.

And don't even get me started on how you and your miserable, hateful flock of deluded morons lie in order to prevent people's freedom to choose things like contraception and abortion, or perform stem-cell research, or be treated equally while in same-sex relationships.

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Ironically, you all accuse ME of being unable to think independently

You have us at the disadvantage that our thought is constrained by reality. That gives what we say a certain sameness... called "knowledge".

Quick response: Kel - are you SERIOUS???!!!!

Deadly. Are you going to actually attempt to show any evidence to back up any of your assertions on science, or just keep showing you know how to use the shift key?

Quick answer: A dog changing into a cat - or vice-versa.

In evolution, a dog will never change into a cat, or vice versa. They both have a common ancestor, but have both continued on their own evolutionary path. How is it you have no understanding of evolution yet reject it so vehemently?

KA troll:

Quick question: What 'age' did radiometric dating give for the strata laid down by the eruption of mount St Helen?

Whatever the age is of the erupted magma, of course, should the attempt be made.

You do know that that stratum was not created ex-nihilo, right? It's existing material.

By John Morales (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

John - of course I know the meaning of 'pastor' - why else do you think I used the word 'shepherd' to describe your mentor!
Glen - do YOU even know what you are talking about?
Nerd ... - I just had to see for myself how 'small-minded' P Z's sheep are.
John again - so you're a Linus fan; me too, so at least we have ONE thing in common!
Glen again - Do you seriously believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds? You've obviously been watching your Dumbo dvd too much!

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Typical, the troll turns.

Come on Keith whip out your gawd. Let's see the old nasty bastard. Looks to me like he's lost all his magical powers.

You do know that that stratum was not created ex-nihilo, right? It's existing material.

Considering Keith's level of intellectual competence I'm not going to be surprised if he reveals that he believes magma from volcanoes comes fresh from his god's ass.

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

In terms of dating the earth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

as for Mt St. Helens
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html

"Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable.""Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless. "

Keith, the only Baaaaaing is coming from your posts. PZ does not tell me what to do or say, so just another Lie for JebusTM from you. Time for you to either prove your imaginary god or just go. At the moment, you are just flailing around but nothing of substance is being said, nor will be said, until you are willing to start quoting the scientific literature to back up your allegations. Since that is beyond your capabilities, leaving is your only choice.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

The main impression I am getting of Keith is fear. This impression is reinforced by his constant claims - incantations really- of being amused. I also note his inept attempts at affecting a nonchalant attitude.
He clearly desperately needs his religious beliefs to be true. But he knows that a large number of very smart knowledgeable people (scientists) have come to conclusions that threaten those beliefs. This nags at him. I notice a major part of his agenda here is to try to establish the idea that people don't really believe in evolution, but that they have some other ulterior motive for claiming to. This is consistent with his insane claims about the nonexistence of evidence for evolution. He clearly cannot tolerate the thought that hundreds of thousands of knowledgeable people have come to accept evolution because they sincerely and seriously believe that it is by far the best fit with the evidence.

And then there's this:

You definitely will not accept this, but you are all so insecure that you need EVRYONE to agree with you! Ironically, you all accuse ME of being unable to think independently - give my regards to your 'shepherd' (from whom I borrowed the title).

Notice that he came here, a notorious "evolutionist" site to argue with us, not that we all descended at whatever God-bothering sites he prefers to argue with him. Who needs everyone to agree with him?

So, to summarise KA: Geology, cosmology, physics, palaeontology and biology are utterly wrong, due to their contradiction of a particular bronze-age mythos.

Oh yeah, freethinkers are sheep, and subscribe to "doctrine of pure hopelessness".

Yet to come: slavery is freedom, death is life, and 2+2=5.

By John Morales (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Dumbfuck Keith, deal with the "common design" and "uncommon design" issue, instead of trying to dishonestly shift the issue.

I know you are unable to think coherently, but it is required if you are going to convince anybody here of anything. So try for once to explain the patterns of "common descent" and of "uncommon descent" in a design-entailed manner (which will take up the rest of your futile life if you really do try to make "design" into science).

I am not interested in trying to deal with every lurch of your mind, as it is clear that you lack any meaningful comprehension of these matters. You do what all of your cohorts do, deal piecemeal with every issue in evolution, while our thoughts encompass the sweep of life in its related complexity. You cannot comprehend what we know from within your abysm of ignorance, and I am not willing to engage in your discombobulated way of "dealing" with the issues of life.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Keith, the scientific literature contains hundreds of thousands of papers, if not millions these days, that support the theory of evolution. There is not even a competing theory in the scientific literature. There are minor points of evolution, like gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium, that are being discussed. That is the way science works, and both points back up the theory of evolution.

Intelligent design is just biblical creationism in cheesy, ill fitting lab coat. The only documentation for ID comes from a group that has been declared by a US court to be promoting a religious theory. And ID has not been published in the scientific literature to any extent. And the few papers that were published have been refuted.

A vast majority of scientists will believe that evolution occurred due to the overwhelming evidence, but if they are believers, see the guiding hand of god behind evolution. God cannot be used in science, so they keep such beliefs private, meaning outside of their published scientific works. Believing in evolution does not require one to be an atheist.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

I asked Keith what he would consider evidence for evolution and he came up with this:

Quick answer: A dog changing into a cat - or vice-versa.

Now Keith you're just being stupid. Let's see how many ways that is wrong:
1) Evolution does not predict or claim that speciation happens in single organisms, but that it is a multigenerational process.
2) A dog giving birth to a cat or vice versa (the usual creationist formation of this particular strawman) would be a disaster for the Theory of Evolution.
3) It would, in fact, be evidence of supernatural intervention in the natural world; a miracle.
4) Your example exhibits none of the features and processes underlying the Theory.

Your attempt at an answer was very revealing. Specifically it revealed that:
1) All your "knowledge" of evolution comes from creationist sources.
2) Despite your claims of proficiency in science, you really don't know a whole hell of a lot about it.
3) If you really were an atheist for 16 years, you weren't very good at it.
4) You are afraid to learn about evolution from the scientific perspective.

Nicely done Kel!

A few years back I went to the big dinosaur display at OMSI in Portland, Oregon, I remember standing by a T Rex model and thinking that with a few modifications you could have a giant chicken.
(OMSI - Oregon Museum of Science and Industry)

Kel - maybe you should ask Steve C; he says that Evolution is how life came to be - and he's one of you!
Nerd ... - excellent, at last some clever humour - but you did miss a comma between the last two 'blah's'.
Wowbugger - just to return the constant mis-spelling of my surname! Also, 'we morons' are not the ones trying to silence 'the opposition' by making ridiculous claims of child-abuse. I notice that you also seem to have a fixation about 'lying' - is it because your parents finally told you that Father Christmas wasn't real? Oh, and don't even get me started on the murder that you call 'abortion'!
Emmet - but do you have knowledge of 'truth'?
Kel - I haven't made ANY assertions about science - just about untestable theories. Also if they both had a common ancestor, why would that mean that they cannot 'change back'?
John - the attempt has been made, and the result was definitely not in the same ball-park as that which has actually been observed. I cannot recall the actual figure - just that it was hundreds (maybe even thousands) of years.
All of you - it's quite time-consuming to respond to so many opponents. You don't seem willing to nominate a 'champion', and the 'novelty' of your noxious rantings is wearing thin - it was highly amusing, but hearing the same jokes over and over again dulls their impact. So, one final comment: It is the worst kind of fraud to claim that biology cannot function without the Theory of Evolution - which theory makes no predictions whatsoever! So, TTFG! Hurray, do I hear?

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

My first experience seeing a T-Rex was at the Field Museum in Chicago thirty some years ago. I was taking the afternoon off from a scientific meeting and wandering around the Museum. Turn a corner in the dinosaur area and there staring at me is a gaping T-Rex head. Quite the fright coming face to face with something that in its day could bite me in two. Took a few minuted for the ticker to get back to normal. This was long before the museum acquired Sue.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

KA:

So, one final comment: It is the worst kind of fraud to claim that biology cannot function without the Theory of Evolution - which theory makes no predictions whatsoever!

Antibiotic resistance.

By John Morales (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Keith, evolutionary theory predicts the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Which has happened. Another nail in your wrong concepts of evolution.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

KA:

John - the attempt has been made, and the result was definitely not in the same ball-park as that which has actually been observed.

See here, in particular #14 of "Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Methods" in this Science in Christian Perspective article.

By John Morales (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Ta, Ta yourself Keith. What a moron. D- in trolling.
I've read knitting patterns that gave me more excitement than your stupid ass remarks.

Kel - maybe you should ask Steve C; he says that Evolution is how life came to be - and he's one of you!

You said: The Theory of Evolution (and I am not referring to Natural Selection - a TRUE science) relies on spontaneous generation of life Well before Steve C came on the scene. Stop weaselling away from your own words.

Kel - I haven't made ANY assertions about science - just about untestable theories.

You've made assertions about the big bang theory, about abiogenesis and evolution all of which are false. You've completely misrepresented science because you have some old book of mythology that tells you we are God's golems.Are you going to show anywhere in scientific literature that states:

  • Evolution requires the spontaneous generation of life
  • that cats will turn into dogs
  • that the big bang came out of nothing
  • Come on, you've asserted all these things. Surely you have something in the evolutionary literature to back these up. You wouldn't want to be bearing false witness would you?Evolution is very testable, it makes predictions on a variety of fronts and it has been confirmed countless times. How do you think we knew where to look to find Tiktaalik? You need rocks of the right age and the right type, we look in those rocks and BAM! intermediate between lobed-finned fish and tetrapods. We have two less chromosomes than our chimpanzee cousins, so we look in the genome and BAM! there's a pair of fused chimpanzee chromosomes, complete with their old telomeres and centromeres. Banana trees are introduced to Hawaii and within the last 1000 years a species of butterfly has emerged with a mouth that can feed on it. Nylon is synthesised and within 50 years there is bacteria feeding on the nylon. How much more evidence do you need? Evolution has been observed countless times, and the evidence for common descent is overwhelming. Why is it our kidneys have two layers, one to take the salt out (a fish kidney) and another to put it back in? Why is it we have such a similar morphological structure to the other primates, and there is a gradual transition in the fossil record towards human life? Why are there Neanderthals, who speciated from us around 700,000 years ago? If you don't want to believe any of that, fine. It's your life. But don't pretend to us that because you see it as untestable that it is untestable. Evolution makes many many many falsifiable predictions, it's how we have confirmed so much. We've found the fossils, we've looked at the building blocks, we've seen morphology, evolution is the only explanation that ties it all together because it makes predictions that match what we've found.

Keith Allen:

It is the worst kind of fraud to claim that biology cannot function without the Theory of Evolution - which theory makes no predictions whatsoever! So, TTFG! Hurray, do I hear?

From the Tiktaalik article:

The discovery was published in the April 6, 2006 issue of Nature[1] and quickly recognized as a classic example of a transitional form. Jennifer A. Clack, a Cambridge University expert on tetrapod evolution, said of Tiktaalik, "It's one of those things you can point to and say, 'I told you this would exist,' and there it is."

Clearly you failed to read the Tiktaalik link Wowbagger generously found for you. The existence of a fossil like Tiktaalik, including a rough indication of what strata it would most likely be found in, was predicted by the theory of evolution, before it was found. Evolution has made many other similarly successful predictions, involving fossils of the lineages of horses, elephants, pigs, humans, whales, and hundreds of other animals.

Nor is that all. The theory of evolution predicted DDT would gradually become ineffective due to the evolution of resistance - and it did. After bedbugs became highly resistant to DDT in the 1930s, it was predicted other insects would also evolve resistance - which they did. Over the course of a few decades, the amount of DDT farmers required to control pests exploded by a factor of over 100 - and then they gave up and moved on. Similarly, malaria-bearing mosquitoes also evolved resistance to DDT, eventually making it useless. Pyrethoid pesticides have (so far!) been much longer-lasting, but nonetheless every so often new pyrethoid-family pesticides are required due to the evolution of resistance.

Much the same for antibiotics - the emergence of bacteria resistant to ethyromycin, vanomycin, and several other antibiotics was predicted before it occurred.

"I try to get out and they pull me back in!" Seriously, I just realised how ill-mannered it was of me not to say 'thank you all' for a really fun time. However, I do 'have a life' - so I'll just wish you all a Merry Myersmas and a Happy New Billionsofyears!

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

It is the worst kind of fraud to claim that biology cannot function without the Theory of Evolution - which theory makes no predictions whatsoever!

Again, liar! Liar liar with pants on fire! There's predictions about the fossil record, about the genetic code, about the morphology of animals, about the mechanisms of speciation, about the nature of mutations and how natural selection acts, about the spread of life on this planet, about hybridisation, and so much more. And this all has to fit in with the predictions made in earth science. It has to fit in with the laws of chemistry, and the laws of physics. There are so many ways of falsify evolution, the fact that it hasn't been falsified by now with millions of scientists working on it as our knowledge base has increased exponentially shows the strength of the theory. Why else would Neil Schubin go fossil-hunting in the Arctic circle in order to find a transitional form between fish and tetrapods?

Keith Allan, liar, wrote:

Also if they both had a common ancestor, why would that mean that they cannot 'change back'?

For the same reason an adult human cannot 'change back' into a baby - you imbecile.

I have a 'fixation' on lying? Well, most honest people - though, being a christian, I doubt you know many - have a distaste for lies and those who lie. I call you what you are - a liar.

Why? because you've lied - frequently and repetitively. You lied about what posters wrote, you've lied about the theory of evolution claiming to explain the origins of life and you've lied about the theory of evolution making no predictions. Heck, you've even lied about lying. I will continue to describe you as a liar as it is the correct term for one who lies.

Then there are the lies you tell yourself - the god of the bible is real, jesus existed and died on the cross, science gets it all wrong (except for the things it provides like technology and medicine) and that there's a big cover-up to pretend creationism doesn't have any basis in fact.

You are dependent on lies because - as Col. Nathan Jessup (a character as fictitious as your jesus, yet far more believable) said - you can't handle the truth. So you lie.

TTFG? Oh, I doubt it. You've done nothing but lie; you'll be back.

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

RickrOll @1063, nice references.

By John Morales (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

you know, the bigger the addresses, i think the less those morons can ignore them. Thanks John, but i don't think i'll be learning the proper way to post links. This way is Much less subtle.
I just wish the wiki article were up to scratch.

Hopefully Keith will pull a Nance and dissapear from the nets. God willing! ;) Sphere Coupler dissaperated from this place as well. I think we must be getting better at this. I just wish someone would take the time to knock John Shore down a couple of pegs... Ah well,

Hopefully Keith will pull a Nance and dissapear from the nets. God willing! ;)

Or maybe he'll pull a Kelly Tripplehorn.

(You may remember him from this)

I say this not because I genuinely wish Keith would decorate his squalid bedsit with his brains, but as a (rather obvious) reminder: pompous, grandiose behavior is usually a big red flag for deep-seated insecurities.

By minimalist (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

How uneducated about this controversy can you become?
How much of a religious bigot can you become?
Oh wait, I thought we were talking about Meyers, not Ham. Sorry.

Who is "Meyers" and what does he have to do with anything?

By minimalist (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Just as we are waving goodbye to one troll...

"Reminder: pompous, grandiose behavior is usually a big red flag for deep-seated insecurities."-Mini

- that's exactly what i said to A. Davidson on Aardvarcheology (he's still there, by the way-sockpuppeting of course!); what a neato coincidence! Although, i guess since i have read Jung, this may not be the strangest thing to consider in his case.

Jack was most likely being fascescious. RIGHT?! (nod and wimper)

Or maybe he'll pull a Kelly Tripplehorn.

From the obit:

The family asks that in lieu of flowers remembrances be made to any charity of choice dealing with mental health issues, in particular research for bipolar disorder.

Well.

I have to admit, KA's relentlessly mocking and insipidly grandiose comments that skip all around common creationist talking points do kind of seem... rather manic.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Yikes, the apostrphe key on Keith Allen's keyboard must be worn out.

His CONSTANT use of CAPS and 'apostrphes' is MOST 'annoying'. Few people talk like they write and I hope for Keith's sakes he is one of those people. I couldn't stand to listen to someone who was either yelling or using his fingers as quotation marks for every other word.

Shoo, Keith. This blog deserves a better class of troll.

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

hey hey, Feynmaniac, you know one of the most potent troll baits is overuse of verbal inecticide! They love their crucifiction complex- don't feed that.
That being said...right on!

Go away for a few hours and that brain damaged troll, Keith, takes up my offer and smears the walls with his own shit.

BLEAH!

By Janine ID AKA … (not verified) on 03 Dec 2008 #permalink

Ken Ham = A master at exposing hypocrisy of the intolerant evolutionist! The truth brings pain and pain brings nasty comments to a man who brings the truth. The Bible proves right every time, repent and be saved from your sin which is taking you to hell. That is the heart behind Ken Ham. What is your heart other than chasing after that which you never saw happen and belive it.

Thanks for this Blog. Not only have you got much more publicity for the museum, you have made yourself look like a religious radical, who really cannot control their temper. I know he doesn't believe what YOU believe, doesn't mean you need to sink to a low. Maturity is something I expect from people who are "scientists" and you definitely fail to keep that image.

#1082-3, you're pathetic. Go post on the current open thread where the derision of your ham is ongoing.

Bah.

By John Morales (not verified) on 04 Dec 2008 #permalink

Lets see, the bible was written by men and predicts nothing except through exaggerated interpretation. Your god doesn't exist. The immaturity is shown by those unable to face these truths. Go to the front page where some Hamykens threads are running and face the full force of the blog if you have any cojones. Otherwise, go away.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 04 Dec 2008 #permalink

Ken Ham = A master at exposing hypocrisy of the intolerant evolutionist! The truth brings pain and pain brings nasty comments to a man who brings the truth. The Bible proves right every time, repent and be saved from your sin which is taking you to hell. That is the heart behind Ken Ham. What is your heart other than chasing after that which you never saw happen and belive it.

Ken Ham is a fraud and a liar.

Please tell me one thing that Ken Ham has exposed.

Ahem,

zombies,this thread is closed.

And resident evil zombie killers,this thread is closed.Your efforts are pointless,for the zombies are braindead drones,that can not compute the most simple intellectual concept,as for example,"i might be wrong".

Thanks for this Blog. Not only have you got much more publicity for the museum, you have made yourself look like a religious radical, who really cannot control their temper. I know he doesn't believe what YOU believe, doesn't mean you need to sink to a low. Maturity is something I expect from people who are "scientists" and you definitely fail to keep that image.

Situational comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours is it?

What happened to Keith wanting to debate??? He never did answer my question. He really does like to project though.

Praise God He sent His Son to die for sinners like us! There will be a day when many will have to stand before Him and make account for their sins. Ken Ham will be one who God will say to, "Well done, my good and faithful servant".

Praise God He sent His Son to die for sinners like us! There will be a day when many will have to stand before Him and make account for their sins. Ken Ham will be one who God will say to, "Well done, my good and faithful servant".

Does "My good and faithful servant" translate to "lying dirtbag who corrupts the minds of children" in creospeak?

Good and faithful servant = slave. Dumbass.

in your mind, yes. apparently. but what it really means? it means we will be held accountable for our actions. God has made it possible for our sins to be forgiven through His Son, Jesus Christ. are yours?

in your mind, yes. apparently. but what it really means? it means we will be held accountable for our actions. God has made it possible for our sins to be forgiven through His Son, Jesus Christ. are yours?

Why should I want the memory of a long dead probably mostly fiction character in book written decades after his alleged death to forgive me for things that I need no forgiveness for?

Not only have you got much more publicity for the museum

Uh, yeah, can you point to anybody who even learned for the 1st time about the creation museum from this kerfuffle? Let alone, can you demonstrate that any more are likely to go now than if the dual promotion had continued?

Thought not. Evidence and thinking are not the strong suits of creationists.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

person22 @ #1091:

Praise God He sent His Son to die for sinners like us!

What sickening idiocy!
The concept of "sin" is meanningless, as it refers to transgression against abitrary and outdated laws enforced by an imaginary being.
Even if the above were not the case, the torture and death of an innocent person does nothing at all to eliminate the sins of others.
Even if it were possible to be forgiven by blood sacrifice, I have done nothing remotely evil enough to need such forgiveness.
And even if I had, I would not want it at the expense of an innocent human life.
I guess this just goes to show, yet again, how much more moral atheists are than christians. You lust for the blood of the innocent, while I do not. And yet you will fantasize about me being tortured without end, merely for daring to think for myself.

person22's continued idiocy:

There will be a day when many will have to stand before Him and make account for their sins.

No, there will not, for your imaginary friend does not exist. But if he did, I would tell him that nothing I did in my life was as vile as the countless acts of torture, opression, murder, and genocide his followers committed in his name. If he continued defending this madness, I would spit in his vile face. Your god is an imaginary monster. That is what you worship, a delusion that would be unworthy of your devotion even if it were real.

the mindless godbot yet again:

Ken Ham will be one who God will say to, "Well done, my good and faithful servant".

Such a senseless waste of human life, to take pride in being a slave to an imaginary tyrant who celebrates deceit. Ken Ham is a despicable fraud. You are just a pathetic hollow shell of a man. You have cast aside your humanity, traded your freedom, your conscience, and your intellect for a handful of nothing.

By phantomreader42 (not verified) on 04 Dec 2008 #permalink

Also, if there is neither 'reason' nor 'purpose', 'survival' has no meaning.

So what? Survival still happens. Why does it need a metaphysical meaning???

We have in Australia an abundance of marsupials only seen as well in South America - though they were mostly wiped out by the more successful placental mammals invading from the north.

Not even. The (almost-)marsupial carnivores of South America died out shortly before the Great American Interchange, apparently at the same time as an impact off Argentina.

Till some 20 years ago, people liked to blame competition for everything without testing it. That wasn't science.

tell me just ONE proven example of a species changing into a completely different one.

Fail.

The theory of evolution predicts that species change into similar ones, not into completely different ones. See comment 1051: a dog giving birth to a cat (without being a foster mother or something) would be evidence against the theory of evolution.

(BTW, on the Internet, using all-caps is considered shouting. Use HTML instead: <i> or <b>.)

Also, 'manufacturing' lifeless so-called 'building blocks of life' is not synonymous with 'creating' life.

Just wait for it.

Wow! I certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons!

You put the clown among the audience.

Whether you accept it or not (or even believe it or not), God does exist - without this belief/knowledge, there can be only hopelessness/despair.

How does "God does exist" follow from "without this belief/knowledge, there can be only hopelessness/despair"?

Logic -- ur doin it rong.

And besides, "without this belief/knowledge, there can be only hopelessness/despair" is not even correct. Two grave failures at logic in just one sentence. Bravo.

As for fossils - these can only be formed under rapidly generated pressure

Wrong.

There are lots of fossils that haven't experienced any pressure at all. Look at the 115-million-year-old pterosaur skeletons from Brazil: they're still three-dimensional, with the hollow bones still circular in cross-section.

Stop talking about things you don't know anything about.

Oh, how can you possibly know that God never speaks to anyone? Is it because He has never spoken to you? Have you ever tried speaking to Him?

What did you imagine? Almost all of us, PZ included, grew up as believers and then deconverted.

It has been related further that on the same day
the madman forced his way into several churches
and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo.

"Eternal Rest to God", that is.

it's highly likely that the Israelites did indeed massacre the surrounding nations

See comment 948. Apparently it's all just a story invented to teach lessons, such as "if you have Yahwe on your side, you win -- bigtime --, if not, you lose -- bigtime --, so always make sure you do what the priests tell you -- bigtime".

Do you really believe in trolls?

Have you ever been to the Internet, sir?

A troll is someone who comes into a discussion, says something he knows the other participants will find outrageous, and then sits back and laughs at their outraged reactions. Of course we believe in that sort of troll; we've seen such trolls with our own eyes several times -- some of them even admitted to being trolls.

As I understand it, it's irrational to believe something, on a basis of faith alone, where the evidence militates against it [...]

I use "irrational" as the cover term for both; if you find the distinction necessary, what about "antirational" for what you call "irrational" and "irrational" what you call "non-rational"? After all, in- doesn't necessarily mean "against", often it just means "not".

name-calling, condescension, and mocking cannot be substituted as criticisms and refutations.

We don't substitute them. We add them.

Salutations to the bleating 'flock'

Fuck ewe, you old goat.

LOL! I'm stealing this. :-D

All of you - it's quite time-consuming to respond to so many opponents. You don't seem willing to nominate a 'champion'

Dumbest argument I've ever seen. Look, Philistine, you're welcome to bring all your fellow ignorants over here to help you.

Also if they both had a common ancestor, why would that mean that they cannot 'change back'?

For the same reason an adult human cannot 'change back' into a baby - you imbecile.

Wrong!

Evolution is not development. It does not have an inbuilt direction. Directional selection goes into whatever direction the environment determines. Reversals -- convergence on one's ancestors -- happen all the time.

However, reversals in all characters that have changed since a certain time are extremely improbable. Evolution can only work with what is there.

So, you're right for the wrong reasons.

By David Marjanović, OM (not verified) on 04 Dec 2008 #permalink

I see we're still being tag teamed by IgnoranceRUsTM, makers of highly religious god/creobots.

Person22, if you have ever worn clothes with a polyester/cotton blend, when can we arrange for your stoning? Or is it now "go, and sin no more by keeping your mouth shut."

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 04 Dec 2008 #permalink

The (almost-)marsupial carnivores of South America died out shortly before the Great American Interchange, apparently at the same time as an impact off Argentina. David Marjanović, OM@1098

Do you have a reference, David? I hadn't heard that.

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 04 Dec 2008 #permalink

Hehe.

God creates us. Creates sin. Punishes us for his creation. Creates Son. Son dies horribly. Forgives us for the sin he created for us to commit. Judges us for sin which he created. Sends us to eternal torture if we don't love him and commit sin.

person22. your god is a dick. nonexistent but still a dick.

Not even. The (almost-)marsupial carnivores of South America died out shortly before the Great American Interchange, apparently at the same time as an impact off Argentina.Till some 20 years ago, people liked to blame competition for everything without testing it. That wasn't science.

Wow, cool. Got that information from Life On Earth, so it's 30 years old and 20 years out of date :P

Myers,

If I met you in a bar, debating anyone, on any topic where I agreed with you 100%, and you spoke to our opponent in the same manner as you have in this blog entry, I assure you sir that I would end up grabbing you by the back of the head and bashing your face into the bar with enough force to break your teeth and nose.

Adults (and I use the term in the biological sense as emotionally you're 3) who behave as you do over a simple disagreement need their asses beat repeatedly until they learn to debate the topic but treat the human being with respect. This is the problem with debates over the Internet. You can say anything hurtful from the safety and comfort of your little hole. I guarantee you that in a public situation you would show more respect. Whether created or evolved, your survival instinct would tell you to watch your fucking mouth.

I sincerely hope that some day, some where, you disrespect the wrong person at the wrong time and receive a crash course lesson in what happens to arrogant asses like yourself when they fail to show civility and respect towards fellow human beings. You deserve it, and it would certainly do wonders for your personality.

P.S. If you are going to speak as you have in a public forum, please stop speaking about scientific matters. Your behavior is a disservice and an embarrassment to the scientific community. Rational adults do not behave like you do. If you want to be respected among adults, act like one.

Ah,the hate-filled raging 5am drive-by troll is here....Time to make dinner then.

DT @1103, you sound just like a Christian, with your hatred and threats. Despicable.

Oh yeah, you've just responded to a post written half a year ago. You're a bit slow, eh?

By John Morales (not verified) on 04 Dec 2008 #permalink

Ah, yes. I am going to take advice about how to act like an adult from someone who thinks breaking someone's face is a rational, mature response.

If violence is required, call on the good christians. Forget about us atheists, we're a mild mannered bunch. So who is the real, mature adult?

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 05 Dec 2008 #permalink

The only thing not forgiven in Christianity is blasphemy, violence is okay because you are already a sinner anyway and jesus forgives all ;)

If I met you in a bar, debating anyone, on any topic where I agreed with you 100%, and you spoke to our opponent in the same manner as you have in this blog entry, I assure you sir that I would end up grabbing you by the back of the head and bashing your face into the bar with enough force to break your teeth and nose.

Oooooooooooooh. Mr Internet tough guy!

I love Mr. Internet tough guy.

Can your dad beat up his dad too?

DT,

This is the problem with debates over the Internet. You can say anything hurtful from the safety and comfort of your little hole.

You're a fucking hypocrite. You take a pseudonym so that no one knows who you are and try to intimidate by describing how you would violently beat them. Would you really do this in a public forum? Prove it. Tells us your real name and where you live to show how brave you really are. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 05 Dec 2008 #permalink

Oh nooooooooooooooooozzzz !!!!!

Someone is wrong on the Internet !!!!

Do you have a reference, David?

I'll look for one if I don't forget...

By David Marjanović, OM (not verified) on 05 Dec 2008 #permalink

Posted by: DT | December 5, 2008

Myers,

If I met you in a bar, debating anyone, on any topic where I agreed with you 100%, and you spoke to our opponent in the same manner as you have in this blog entry, I assure you sir that I would end up grabbing you by the back of the head and bashing your face...

Turning the other cheek, I see.

By Janine ID AKA … (not verified) on 05 Dec 2008 #permalink

Janine, also a perfect follower of the Golden Rule. I guess DT wants somebody to beat him up of they disagree with DT in a bar.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 05 Dec 2008 #permalink

DT,

If I met you in a bar I would make you cry like a girl, using only a waxy Q-tip and mild sarcasm.

Ken Ham is a fraud and a liar.

Please tell me one thing that Ken Ham has exposed.

His dishonesty? His ignorance? His dedication to spending time and money on opposing science? His contempt for reason and rational argument? His delusion that he knows anything?

OK, that's 5 things. I could go on...

Ken Ham:

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 05 Dec 2008 #permalink

I love you, P.Z., and you're wrong about evolution and God.

By Erik Loza (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

So sorry for all of your closed minded thinking and lack of simple intelligence. Creation is evidenced in the creation itself. I'm sure you recognize that a watchmaker made a watch and a watch would not just happen even if you had all the parts and they were tossed about in a box for millions of years. If someone created a watch, it is SIMPLE to deduce that the perfectly ordered universe is created. Even small children can see through the outdated fairy tale of evolution. You have rationalized yourselves out of the very intelligence you were born with. May the God of the universe enlighten your darkened minds. God Bless You.

Love you in Christ.

Eric and Nes:
If you continue to make evolution a test for God to pass or fail, don't be surprised when God fails. In any test, there is a right and wrong answer. That's what makes it a test.

Yes, I know you "know" that God cannot fail. But that's only because you're not supposed to test God. You're testing God. Problem for you.

You're also coming in to a tremendously long thread that began in June, and has been 'dead' for a while. But suddenly Christian creationists are popping over. I'm curious as to how you found out about it. Is there some new link on a creationist site?

So sorry for all of your closed minded thinking and lack of simple intelligence.

So sorry for all of your closed-minded thinking and lack of simple knowledge.

If someone created a watch, it is SIMPLE to deduce that the perfectly ordered universe is created.

"Perfectly ordered"? Look again.

How do you explain Stupid Design, for example the fact that all known life uses DNA as the material of heredity, when DNA falls apart when stored in water and has to be repaired constantly?

Is there some new link on a creationist site?

Evidently.

By David Marjanović, OM (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

Nes, circular reasoning shows both a lack of intelligence, and a lack of understanding on how science works. By the way, your god doesn't exist, Jesus is a myth, and the bible was written by men to subjugate other men.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

Very interesting stir of emotion!

I'm just jumping into this discussion, and I can plainly see that this creationist has generated much emotion from the group. I don't know the history behind this discussion, so what I'm wondering is, WHY so much vehemence? Has this Ken Ham person done anything besides stating a belief in a different theory of the origin of life?

There are weirdo, psycho-paranormal exhibits and museums that exist without as much commotion over their being.

What's the dialogue timeline?

Lili, there is no scientific evidence to back up Ken Ham's theory. In fact, there is an awful lot of scientific evidence for it being total wrong. For example, dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago, and man did not arise as homo sapiens until about 200,000 years ago. So Ham is off by quite a bit.

Ham tells a big lie when he states his theory it is about origins. He theory is about showing the bible is correct, which is a theological statement. Hence it is a religious theory. Scientists hate liars, since the worst professional offense is to deliberately lie to your colleagues.

Science can only be refuted by science. Religion cannot refute science, nor can science refute religion. By science can make religion look out of date by its findings.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

Has this Ken Ham person done anything besides stating a belief in a different theory of the origin of life?
There are weirdo, psycho-paranormal exhibits and museums that exist without as much commotion over their being.

Other museums the support views that are in fact pseudoscientific are in a substantial minority. Their very lack of influence means that they are relatively harmless.

In the United States of America, a large portion of the populace adheres to creationism, and rejects actual evidence-based science, and seeks to lower the standards for teaching biology so as to accommodate creationism.

Ken Ham panders to this large majority, and heads an organization that directly supports the rejection of evidence-based science and the lowering of educational standards. His actions are far more harmful than those of a more generic kook.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

I'm just jumping into this discussion, and I can plainly see that this creationist has generated much emotion from the group. I don't know the history behind this discussion, so what I'm wondering is, WHY so much vehemence? Has this Ken Ham person done anything besides stating a belief in a different theory of the origin of life?

Ham lies, distorts and denies evidence and then pushes to have these ideas taught as fact. The end result being that children are not just being taught bad science when it comes to evolution, geology and other subject but also in how science and critical thinking works.

lilli #1122 wrote:

There are weirdo, psycho-paranormal exhibits and museums that exist without as much commotion over their being.

No, that's mistaken. There's just as much commotion over "weirdo, psycho-paranormal exhibits and museums" which deal with other forms of pseudoscience. Skeptic groups attack all of them, out of a concern for the truth. The more public acceptance, the more attention they get. Depending on what's being promoted, scientists from the related field do indeed get involved. Witness the huge battle over "alternative medicine" being waged by rational scientists vs. the "let all views have equal credibility" promoters of quackery.

Pharyngula and other science blogs have also gone after folks like Deepok Chopra, 9-11 Truthers, or anti-vaccination loons, among others. It's not limited.

The reason Ken Ham and the Creation Museum is coming in for so much particular attention is that this blog focuses specifically on biological evolution, and Ken Ham has been getting far too much "official" recognition as simply having "a different theory of the origin of life." No he doesn't. 'Theory' is a scientific term.

Creationism is trying to ride to credibility on the coat-tails of Relative Ethics. "We all have our own views, and everybody's truth is just as good as everyone else's." Do I really have to tell you why that's a bad idea?

Is it really worth all the time and effort spent criticizing one mere mortal? Surely we can put our energy and time towards a more useful endeavor. Just a thought...

Well, Nes gets points for correctly spelling "closeD minded", but not for being educated.

"So sorry for all of your closed minded thinking and lack of simple intelligence. "

Not that I believe that you'll come back and answer, but what exactly is a "simple intelligence"? Is it anything like a simple mind? Does it have to do with how we have to accept God like a child? Well, we've put away our childish things, like that other Bible verse says.

Or is "simple intelligence" like "common sense", which is typically a code word for "thinking like I do". The trouble with common sense is that it tells us that the earth is flat, among other things. Common sense really is highly overrated.

Is it really worth all the time and effort spent criticizing one mere mortal? Surely we can put our energy and time towards a more useful endeavor. Just a thought...

If you go up and click on the Archives button you'll see plenty of criticism of others.

Or is it that you are not familiar with how blogs work? See each post has a topic. This post's topic is what a giant lying asshat Ken Ham is. If you'd prefer to read about other people or topics there are plenty of others out there and on this blog.

Perhaps a blog on Kittens?

This thread was essentially dead after 854 posts at the end of June. There have been over 260 posts since the zoo ticket controversy came out earlier this week. All because the creobots posting in this old thread instead of posting with the current stuff on the first page or two, which include a couple of Ken Ham threads. Someone must have done a cut/paste of the link to this old thread to give to his buddies.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

The real problem is the theory of evolution. And the proponents of it in these comments are certainly not leaving much doubt as to their utter lack of common decency. The absence of integrity that is required in a person to allow them to post such radically slanderous insults is shameful. How can a society operate in a meaningful, tolerant, and morally responsible manner when varied opinions, perhaps even heinous ones, are not responded to in a respectful and logical manner.
And the reason I say the theory of evolution is problematic comes from years of research in science and plenty of debate and discussion with both evolutionary and creationist scientists, all of whom are intelligent and thinking individuals, worthy of respect, though some of their theories, particularly evolution, I have eventually found to be generally lacking in sound logic.
You may disagree with Ken Ham, but his ideas absolutely do not warrant such disregard as they are being given above.
As for the idea of there being a God who created... it doesn't seem to me to be such a bad theory. It certainly has greater explanatory power than any other theory... and I mean ANY other theory. Therefore I would suggest it is at least worthy of consideration, and I'm not altogether convinced that anyone on this page has given it the time of day other than to needlessly bash it.
Perhaps consider the implications of how you live your life if a God exists and there is indeed a supernatural existence outside the natural.
The humanistic religious extremism flouted in the comments on this blog and in the blog itself strike me as a far greater danger to the stability and morality of our society than everything other than the deepest of Christian fundamental extremism, which I see as rare at best.
I plead with every one of you to peruse the necessary virtue of integrity as you openly examine the opinions you hold - are they based on truth or logic of any sort, or as the brazen vilification in the above comments suggests, are your opinions constructed by a mind bent on destroying truth regardless of the tactics it must resort to.

Ozzy, as a professional scientist of 30+ years I can say you don't show much understanding for scientific thought. There is no problem with evolution in science. There are over 100,000 papers supporting evolution, and no unrefuted papers backing any other theory, which is not even present in the literature. It doesn't get any better than that for scientific proof. Science has a lot of problems with idiots like Ken Ham who pretend to be scientific, but are just toadying the religious line for their own gain.

If you want to play, be prepared not to make vague accusations, but to cite the scientific literature.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

How can a society operate in a meaningful, tolerant, and morally responsible manner when varied opinions, perhaps even heinous ones, are not responded to in a respectful and logical manner.

What you fail to understand is that Ken Ham is a liar. A liar who pushes his lies as actual good science. He is corrupting the children that he pushes this on. When called on these lies, he lies even more. He deserves no respect for any he previously deserved he has pissed away.

And the reason I say the theory of evolution is problematic comes from years of research in science and plenty of debate and discussion with both evolutionary and creationist scientists, all of whom are intelligent and thinking individuals, worthy of respect, though some of their theories, particularly evolution, I have eventually found to be generally lacking in sound logic.

Yes and the entire sceintific community is wrong because of your singular research. Um no thanks. I'll take the tens or hundreds of thousands of publshed papers dealing with the various disciplines that are invovled with evolution that continue to support and build upon the theory.

If you are taking Ken Ham's word on anything as fact, youa re a fool.

As for the idea of there being a God who created... it doesn't seem to me to be such a bad theory. It certainly has greater explanatory power than any other theory... and I mean ANY other theory.

Yes, if you insert "god did it" into anything you then don't actually have to do the work finding out what really is going on. You can explain anything with God, you'd just be lazy and wrong.

Therefore I would suggest it is at least worthy of consideration, and I'm not altogether convinced that anyone on this page has given it the time of day other than to needlessly bash it.

And you have no idea what you are talking about.

The humanistic religious extremism

A meaningless phrase

flouted in the comments on this blog and in the blog itself strike me as a far greater danger to the stability and morality of our society than everything other than the deepest of Christian fundamental extremism, which I see as rare at best.

Yes it is dangerous to hold people's feet to the fire to be honest and to continue to ask that those who want to educate our children do so with the best tools available. Creationism not only not being a good educational tool but not being an educational tool at all. If you don't see religious extremism but rarely, you aren't looking. Ken Ham is a good example.

I plead with every one of you to peruse the necessary virtue of integrity as you openly examine the opinions you hold - are they based on truth or logic of any sort, or as the brazen vilification in the above comments suggests, are your opinions constructed by a mind bent on destroying truth regardless of the tactics it must resort to.

Projection defined.

The absence of integrity that is required in a person to allow them to post such radically slanderous insults is shameful.

Legal FAIL. Slander is spoken; it is libel that is written.

More to the point, though, is that it isn't libel if it is true.

And the reason I say the theory of evolution is problematic comes from years of research in science and plenty of debate and discussion with both evolutionary and creationist scientists, all of whom are intelligent and thinking individuals, worthy of respect, though some of their theories, particularly evolution, I have eventually found to be generally lacking in sound logic.

For example, if I were to call you a LIAR for writing the above, it would not be libel, because you have obviously not studied science or evolution at all; else you would not be writing that it was "lacking in sound logic".

You may disagree with Ken Ham, but his ideas absolutely do not warrant such disregard as they are being given above.

I'm afraid they do. Did you see the picture from the Creation Museum posted at #1116?

Ken Ham deserves far more disrespect and disregard than he currently receives.

As for the idea of there being a God who created... it doesn't seem to me to be such a bad theory. It certainly has greater explanatory power than any other theory

And again, you're pathetically wrong. A "scientific theory" must be in accord with the evidence. There is no evidence for a God or Gods.

Perhaps consider the implications of how you live your life if a God exists and there is indeed a supernatural existence outside the natural.

Again, a lie. I do no such thing.

Indeed, I could partially reverse the claim: It is you, and all your fellow believers, that live your lives as if God is imaginary.

The humanistic religious extremism flouted in the comments on this blog and in the blog itself strike me as a far greater danger to the stability and morality of our society than everything other than the deepest of Christian fundamental extremism, which I see as rare at best.

Your concern is so noted.

I plead with every one of you to peruse the necessary virtue of integrity as you openly examine the opinions you hold - are they based on truth or logic of any sort, or as the brazen vilification in the above comments suggests, are your opinions constructed by a mind bent on destroying truth regardless of the tactics it must resort to.

Right back at you.

Sheesh.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

"And the proponents of it in these comments are certainly not leaving much doubt as to their utter lack of common decency."

So you're a completely shallow thinker with no actual reasoning behind your position and thus you would rather attack our tone than our substance. Thanks for clearing that up from the outset. It sure explains why you think a god is actually a compelling explanation for anything.

"Perhaps consider the implications of how you live your life if a God exists and there is indeed a supernatural existence outside the natural."

You mean how the universe would look different if there was a god? Or how it would look if there wasn't? Frankly, I doubt you've really given any thought as to what the difference would be.

Or is this just another version of the Big Daddy threat? If we have a god watching over us, we should be watching our backs. Well once again, I must ask: What is it that you think we're doing that is so horrible that we don't want to be held accountable for it?

"The humanistic

Do you have a problem with humans?

" religious extremism flouted in the comments on this blog and in the blog itself strike me as a far greater danger to the stability and morality of our society than everything other than the deepest of Christian fundamental extremism, which I see as rare at best."

How? Again, what is it that we do that is so bad? Is it really that we're just not showing enough deference to some mellifluous being that hasn't given us reason to believe in it? You speak of integrity; well, we have the integrity not to fall in worship of a god that has not given us reason to believe he/she/it exists, let alone that he/she/it requires worship or deference.

ozzy,

As for the idea of there being a God who created... it doesn't seem to me to be such a bad theory. It certainly has greater explanatory power than any other theory... and I mean ANY other theory.

Unfortunately science isn't about "explanatory power", it's about predictability power. Of course saying "God did it" can "explain" everything, but what does it predict? If people pray for someone to get better and they do it's because God wanted it. If they don't God didn't want it. You can always twist things to say "God did it". The problem is there's not way to falsify the idea.

There's nothing particularly special about saying God. You can easily say that Yahweh, Allah, the Greek gods, Santa, the Easter bunny, etc. are responsible. Saying invisible being X did it isn't right, it isn't even wrong. It's unfalsifiable. Therefore it's not science.

As for creationism, it is falsifiable and is dead wrong.

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

After reading the comments on this blog I wondered why their seems to be so much anger and hate in the responses and then it came to me : "The things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man". Matthew 15:18

By Creationist by… (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

After reading the comments on this blog I wondered why their seems to be so much anger and hate in the responses and then it came to me : "The things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man". Matthew 15:18

Quoting scripture proves nothing more than your ability to read and type... and maybe turn on a computer.

yawn

Creationist by design, you are essentially repeating our last few clients. By the way quote the unholy man made scripture on an atheist blog is sure to garner you points--but in the negative direction.

Please cite the proper scientific literature to show that creationism is even mentioned in the scientific literature. Otherwise, there is a scientific theory with a huge volume of physical evidence behind it, versus a bad idea trying to force fit facts to fit a myth. Why do you believe the latter?

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

No, it's entirely to do with the fact that creationists commit the scientific equivalent of holocaust denial and do so without evidence.

"Theory" of evolution is exactly what it says: A THEORY!That means it is a guess. IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!! Science is when you can duplicate something in a controlled setting, and the result will be the same each time. If we evolved why has no one found even one piece of evidence of transitions when their should be millions? You know why people don't want to believe the truth? Because they are afraid they would have to give up the sinful lives they live. You can call me (a Bible Believing Baptist) a nut if you like but If I'm wrong no big deal, if you're wrong......

Cathie, a scientific theory is an idea backed by a substantial amount of facts. First lie. For example, do you wish to try to go against the theory of gravity? The theory of evolution is scientific, and this is shown by hundreds of thousands of scientific papers backing it up. Lie two. Transitions are found all the time. Lie three. You are a baptist and believe in an imaginary god. Lie four. You're out as just another Liar for JebusTM.

The IgnoranceRUsTM christian schools is definitely tag teaming us. PZ, it may be time to close this thread.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

Thanks for dropping by Cathie. you's displayed an incredible amount of ignorance and poor logic in that little rant of yours.

"Theory" of evolution is exactly what it says: A THEORY!That means it is a guess. IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!! Science is when you can duplicate something in a controlled setting, and the result will be the same each time.

you don't have even a shred of a clue about what a scientific theory is.

If we evolved why has no one found even one piece of evidence of transitions when their should be millions?

Again, not a clue.

You know why people don't want to believe the truth? Because they are afraid they would have to give up the sinful lives they live.

What is "the trurth"? and What is "sin"?

You can call me (a Bible Believing Baptist) a nut if you like but If I'm wrong no big deal, if you're wrong......

of course she's going to have Pascal's Wager

Awww. I think Cathie's kind of cute. Just a theory, no transitionals and a bonus Pascal's wager to boot. It's a winning combo!

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

I'd also like to go on record as calling Cathie (a Bible Believing Baptist) a nut.

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

man typos are flying tonight

I know the feeling. At least the Mac at home does an on-the-fly spellcheck.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

Oh, i just got a firefox mozilla, so maybe if i post through that, i wouldn't look like a person who is angrily poasting during electroshock thereapy (funny on multiple levels)?

"Theory" of evolution is exactly what it says: A THEORY!That means it is a guess. IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!!

Poe?

Just to play devils advocate. Gravity is a theory, therefore gravity is not scientific. It's just a guess. Germ theory is just a theory, it's not scientific to say germs cause illness, it's just a guess. Electromagnetism is a theory. It's not scientific to say electrical devices work, it's just a guess. I mean, electron flow? What are scientists smoking? Theories are the processes under which science works, they are not "guesses", they are hypothesises that have undergone rigorous testing and falsification. They have made predictions that have turned out to be true. Facts in science are the observations. For gravity: the apple falls to the ground is an observation. The attraction between the apple and the earth is the explanation for that observation - it's the theory of gravity. Likewise evolution has observed facts: fossil record, genetic variation, observed mutation, observed selection, observed speciation. These are the facts that are there to work with. The theory is what explains those facts together. Tiktaalik in the fossil record 375 million years ago is a fact. The emergence of life on land from lobed finned fish to amphibians then reptiles is the theory.

Tiktaalik in the fossil record 375 million years ago is a fact.

Not to mention they predicted where they would find a creature like Tiktaalik, and sure as shit they did.

let's test this thing out! success. Huzzah, i have reclaimed my scattered IQ points from the internets!

And yes, definitely poe.

You're also coming in to a tremendously long thread that began in June, and has been 'dead' for a while. But suddenly Christian creationists are popping over. I'm curious as to how you found out about it. Is there some new link on a creationist site?

I did some research and figured it out. On Ken Ham's blog,

After all, Myers is the ardent atheist who asked his supporters to call me names on his website (see his blog, but note that there is profanity)

Strange. He complains about "censorship" but doesn't allow comments on his blog. Then he links to a blog that does allow comments so that his followers can be heard.

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

Not to mention they predicted where they would find a creature like Tiktaalik, and sure as shit they did.

Yeah, the discovery of Tiktaalik is a triumph of the predictive nature of the scientific method across disciplines. Just think that nuclear physics, geology and palaeontology all combined to give the data of where to look, and the discovery fits not only with with the timeframe of the fossil record but the morphology of such a creature as predicted by evolutionary theory. This is the kind of form that Darwin predicted 150 years ago and it was exactly where it should be on a geological scale. Talk about the triumph of an idea!Then there are the intermediate forms that link terrestrial mammals to whales. Again just as Darwin had predicted. There are transitional forms between reptiles and mammals that there is disagreement over they are mammalian-like reptiles or reptilian-like mammals. There's transitional forms between apes and humans that some scientists wanted to put in the Australopithecus category and others wanted to put in the homo erectus category. There is a transition from small fox-like creatures to modern day horses, there's are transitional forms from dinosaurs to birds. All of these exist at the right time in the fossil record, yet none of them should even exist if creationism were true.

Why is it strange that Ken Ham is a hypocritical fucktard? Sorry, the sarcasm is lost on me since it is quite past now how much Stupid is present within the brains of losers such as Ham.
He isn't the only one that censors dissent, but the man i have in mind is far worse; he behaves as if he has done nothing and operates under a false reputation of intellectual honesty and openness. Lying by omission is lying, no two ways about it. Funny because he takes offense at precisely that he Does behave this way, apparently: http://johnshoreland.com/2008/12/02/from-a-john-tesh-nod-to-me-being-gn…

Oh nooooz children,are you playing in the basement again???

@ 1154,

Strange. He complains about "censorship" but doesn't allow comments on his blog. Then he links to a blog that does allow comments so that his followers can be heard.

I fail to see the surprise with that.

Cathie is one of the nicest,purest examples of a braindead christo-zombie Ive seen for a while,we should archive a few posts like this somewhere,and play them to new readers who come to Pharyngula never knowing what sort of Resident Evil-like place the USA really is.

Feynmaniac, thanks for finding the link to this thread. That explains all the drive-bys on this old thread.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

Well, i know one super-christo person who won't be coming back (despite having said she would): Nance! You guys remember her, don't ya!

She was so 'appalled' by our behavior that she says her kids will never accept being atheists because, and this is a quote:

"I was going to respond to the thread when I had a free moment last week, but my kids read the thread and were so disgusted with the intolerance and hate they displayed toward someone, for nothing more than holding an opposing view. I decided it was fruitless anyway. Dawkins has convinced them all that we are delusional anyway, right? Ultimately, it is not cleverly crafted arguments or "evidence" that convinces, it is the character of the man, or woman. Their character convinced my kids that they do NOT want to be Atheists."

"I try to remember that we all are naturally hateful murders at heart as Scripture says. Without the saving grace of Christ creating us anew you and I could very easily react in turn. If we really think about it, they cannot be faulted for behaving out of their nature. It is easy to be arogant, rude and intolerant."
------
Sad, then hilarious. Do feel free to spend some time there and spread some solstice cheer! http://womenintheword.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/cultivating-faithfulness/

RickrOll, interesting news about Nance. I think she just can't see herself as intolerant as she claims us to be. Of course, the imaginary deity is on her side. The pot calling the kettle black.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

Hm,a gem from that blog:

I don't believe in gravity, so I don't worry about falling.

Talk about brain fail.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousnes, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.Romans 1:18-22

That passage explains why so many reply with such anger and bitterness towards men like Ken Ham. It is because you have suppressed the truth and you're hearts are hard.

Science is the discovery of Gods handiwork which God has foretold even before man discovered it.
Examples: #1 "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7),(written over 3000 years ago.)Science didn't discover that until 1650. #2 "Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3 (written about 2000 years ago) Science only recently discovered the invisible atoms. #3 "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). written around 700 B.C. Up until the late 1400s science believed the world was flat. The Bible is not a book of fairytales and myths. In case you're thinking "yes it is", the Bible also talks about: The science of oceanography = Psalm 8:8, Radio waves = Job 38:35, Entropy = Isaiah 51:6, Psalm 102:25,26 and Hebrews 1:11, The water cycle = Ecclesiastes 1:7, The first law of thermodynamics = Genesis 2:1, The "Cycle" of air currents = Ecclesiastes 1:6, Air mass = Job 28:25.
These are just a few of the things the Bible mentions, written thousands of years before "science" discovered them.
We also have the issues of morality and personality and the Bible explains all of that logically, in a verifiable, historical context that coincides with reality.
That brings us back to what I mentioned at the beginning. Those who reject God do so because they do not want to be held accountable to their Creator,so they say "I don't believe in God" That is like saying "I don't believe in gravity and then jumping out of an airplane from 10,000 feet. Believe it or not, but the TRUTH is if you are reading this, you are "created in the image of God" Genesis 1:27 and you can be reconciled to Him through Repentance and Faith. to find out more about that go to www.repentanceandfaith.org In the end It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is what is true!
Jesus said:"I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6
May God open your heart.

A little added information: Newton,Faraday,Maxwell,Kelvin,Boyle,Dalton,Ramsay,Ray,Linnaeus,Mendel,Pasteur,Steno,
Woodward,Brewster,Agassiz,Kepler,Galileo,Herschel and Maunder,just to name a few of the great scientists of the past were creationists, not evolutionists.

By Creationist by… (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

creotard by design, argument from authority= fail.
*SNORE*

That passage explains why so many reply with such anger and bitterness towards men like Ken Ham. It is because you have suppressed the truth and you're hearts are hard.

No it does nothing of the sort. We reply to Ken Ham with outrage because he is a professional liar for Christ who distorts, denies and lies about the actual science being done that supports evolution.

you are but another fool in his flock.

Newton,Faraday,Maxwell,Kelvin,Boyle,Dalton,Ramsay,Ray,Linnaeus,Mendel,Pasteur,Steno,
Woodward,Brewster,Agassiz,Kepler,Galileo,Herschel and Maunder,just to name a few of the great scientists of the past were creationists, not evolutionists.

Meaning exactly zero when discussing Evolution.

Show the work of those men in "creation science" denying evolution.

That brings us back to what I mentioned at the beginning. Those who reject God do so because they do not want to be held accountable to their Creator,so they say "I don't believe in God" That is like saying "I don't believe in gravity and then jumping out of an airplane from 10,000 feet. Believe it or not, but the TRUTH is if you are reading this, you are "created in the image of God"

It's getting late but that is one of the DUMBEST things I've read all day.

We know gravity exists. We can demonstrate it working.

Show me god exists.

What is the TRUTH? Is it different than the Truth or the truth?

That passage explains why so many reply with such anger and bitterness towards men like Ken Ham.

Nope, it's purely because Ken Ham deliberately lies and misleads about science to people who don't know there, then we get a barrage of ignorant fools who think that "have you ever seen a cat turn into a dog?" or "were you there?" are adequate arguments to destroy 150 years of science.

I stumbled across a page in the SAB that deals explicitly with how science is presented in the bible. Paints a far better picture about how much (or, more accurately, how little) the judeo-christian god seemed to know about how the universe works.

Go here and be ready to laugh.

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 06 Dec 2008 #permalink

Hahahaha,

This site reads like it was written by a bunch of six year olds.
Far out.

I wish I could have the balls to bag some guy out for thinking something. (Which was just how Darwin thought, something different to many of other people)

'I hate you because I don't understand you'- the summary of all insults.

The religion of Evolution doesn't understand Creation because of they're foundations.
The religion of Creationist's doesn't agree with Evolution as it has different foundations.

Neither will wilt to the other unless something truly endangers them, and sometimes not even after this, i.e Martyrs. (But I've never heard of Evolutionist martyrs)

The movements will not change because of the other. Only the individuals experiences change their movements.

Science is Greek for 'knowledge'. So don't say science disagrees with either, only individual interpretations.

Laters

well at least jeremy is just a drive-by fucktard. As long as he doesn't stay, i don't think we even have to consider the fact that he even said anything at all.

braindead troll @ 1169,

Science is Greek for 'knowledge'

So idiot is Spanish for dimwit?

I see.

Jeremy @1169, your comment is a paradigm of incoherent ignorance.

The religion of Evolution doesn't understand Creation because of they're foundations.
The religion of Creationist's doesn't agree with Evolution as it has different foundations.

I take it you consider this uninformed, semi-literate claim to be profound.

BTW, "Science" comes from Latin, not Greek.
The rest of your post you got egregiously wrong.

By John Morales (not verified) on 07 Dec 2008 #permalink

I imagine you all sound just like the people many years ago, who felt nothing was wrong with slavery either. You say Ken Ham and "all the other brainwashed people" have no clue, yet it's all of you who are brainwashed and so closed minded that you are too scared to actually think outside of the box and to look at any other facts - even when they're staring you in the face. If our country was filled with people like all of you (pessimistic, and closed minded) hundreds of years ago, you would not have the freedoms you so flagrantly flaunt around today as one sided intelligence (which is really just arrogance, and blatant fear of your own limitations).
May God have mercy on all of you.

Again with the closed-minded insult? Can you people please learn the meanings of the words you type?

If you have facts against evolution, bring them to the table. For it's with facts that this battle is won or lost. It's nothing about belief, it's nothing about preconceived notions, the idea of evolution will be determined by empirical evidence to support it.

You say Ken Ham and "all the other brainwashed people" have no clue, yet it's all of you who are brainwashed and so closed minded that you are too scared to actually think outside of the box and to look at any other facts - even when they're staring you in the face.

Heh. Projection, once again.

Have you ever even opened a biology book?

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 07 Dec 2008 #permalink

Steve, fuck you too for your last sentence. That is all it says to atheists.

Now, what is your point? We aren't open minded? As a scientist I have to be open minded. Keep in mind though, the mind can't be so open it falls out, and I have a good BS meter. Ken Ham sets off my BS meter big time. I, also like the CSI shows, have to follow the evidence. There is a vast amount of physical evidence for evolution, but none for creationism. Not even proof for god. So, if you ever get physical proof for god or creationism, stop back as your second stop with the info. The first is to send it to a scientific journal for publication.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 07 Dec 2008 #permalink

I imagine you all sound just like the people many years ago, who felt nothing was wrong with slavery either. You say Ken Ham and "all the other brainwashed people" have no clue, yet it's all of you who are brainwashed and so closed minded that you are too scared to actually think outside of the box and to look at any other facts - even when they're staring you in the face.

Obvious nonsense. It is the Christians who are always prating on and on about how clean and pure their thoughts are. Obviously it is their brains which have been washed. Ever meet an atheist who didn't have a dirty mind? No of course not.

Steve the dangerously woo-addled wrote:

I imagine you all sound just like the people many years ago, who felt nothing was wrong with slavery either.

People who felt there was nothing wrong with slavery? Do you mean christians? Have you even read the bible? Or a history book?

Why don't you have a quick read of this Wikipedia section, helpfully titled Christian advocacy of slavery and get your ignorant self a little up-to-date with what your brothers-in-faith were about.

Unless you're a Quaker, 'cause those guys - hated by many mainstream christian sects, and persecuted by them in pilgirm times - actually did something about it.

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 07 Dec 2008 #permalink

FWIW I checked Creationist by Design's Bible science facts. I'm sure you will all be surprised to learn its one big ass FAIL. Example:
"The first law of thermodynamics = Genesis 2:1"
leads to:
"2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." SAB

Tresmal, Needless to say that scripture quote wasn't on the syllabus when I taught general chemistry many moons ago. Nor would the student find that as an answer on our multiple choice tests. You have to work hard to be that stupid.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 07 Dec 2008 #permalink

I am sure you do not have the guts to put this out as you are so tolerant. I am astonished with what kind of words you come up. As I always say, people who talk and act like this are usually in defense mode because they know they are wrong. If you have the right arguments you do not need to act like this.

I feel petty for you, Sir, but one day, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that he is Lord. Your bow will be hard but you will bow. Then you can talk about the scientific proof of your theory that does not uphold what you think it is.

I will pray for you and believe me, you need lots of prayers!

Then you can talk about the scientific proof of your theory that does not uphold what you think it is.

Nice sentence, dude.

I will pray for you and believe me, you need lots of prayers!

Damn straight.
I'll pray to that.
ominie bominie bibbidie bobbibie....

hold on

who are praying for again?

Jay, funny how you seem to think that all comments have to be approved by PZ. You come here condemning us yet you know nothing about us.

Oh! Wait! You have THE TRUTH to back up your babble. No need to know what we think. Boring and dull little praying troll. But I think this typo says everything we need to know about you.

I feel petty for you, Sir...

I am sure you feel very petty.

By Janine, Insult… (not verified) on 07 Dec 2008 #permalink

Jay @1181:

I am sure you do not have the guts to put this out as you are so tolerant.

Lemme guess, you're accustomed to blogs that censor comments, right?

This is PZ's blog. Free speech. Not like where you come from.

I feel petty for you, Sir

Truer words were never written.

By John Morales (not verified) on 07 Dec 2008 #permalink

Jay: I'm not sure what you mean by the first line. PZ doesn't screen the posts on here as far as I know and does not ban people very often (he keeps a list, for the number of readers and posters on here it is quite short). Compare that to most well known creationist/ID blogs and I think you will find the numbers very different and altogether less reasonable. So unless you start doing the behavior he lists in the dungeon I think you will find PZ to be quite open to allowing your posts.

That said, I am sure some people are going to be quite rough on this one. Statements about people being in defense mode, in being unfair and mean rarely are a good way of going about making a point. In your post you don't really give any reasoning as to why he was so wrong. Also, you don't give any information about why scientific evidence (I would use evidence not proof, proof in the sense of absolute proof does not really exist in science) does not uphold his theory, by which I assume you mean evolution. What evidence contradicts evolution? Thousands of scientists have been working in this area for a very long time, if such breakthrough research has been done they would love to know. I very much doubt anything you have heard as to why it is wrong holds up. People here and elsewhere have dealt with most arguments many, many times already and so far none have passed. A new argument could be fun at least.

Janine, :)

By John Morales (not verified) on 07 Dec 2008 #permalink

I am sure you do not have the guts to put this out as you are so tolerant.

AUTOFAIL

As I always say, people who talk and act like this are usually in defense mode because they know they are wrong.

Yes, you are WRONG.

I feel petty

Typo? Or inadvertent honesty?

but one day, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that he is Lord.

Who is "he"? Ken Ham?

You FAIL at either grammar or theology or both.

You are WRONG.

Your bow will be hard

Typo? Or Freudian slip?

Then you can talk about the scientific proof of your theory that does not uphold what you think it is.

Grammar FAIL.

I will pray for you and believe me, you need lots of prayers!

I will taunt you because you are so very tauntable, and believe me, you need lots of taunting.

Prayer is useless.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 07 Dec 2008 #permalink

Also, I think your issue with the strong language PZ uses in describing Ken Ham does not take into account that he has now earned those names. Nothing new and interesting has ever come out of him, he has had his chance and still decides to spread lies he either knows are lies or should know they are. If this was a first discussion of Ken Ham I think it would be unreasonable but this is far from the case.

I will pray for you and believe me, you need lots of prayers!

Indeed. You should pray for every post in this thread. For at least 10 minutes each. Don't be afraid. That's only about 8.25 days. You have tough knees. Your faith is strong.

Okay, I am not a great writer but at least I can construct a coherent sentence. That puts me ahead of all of Ham's followers who have come here. Honestly, I've seen better grammar and sentence structure on YouTube comments.

I thought Ken Ham didn't allow comments on his blog because he didn't want to hear dissenting opinions. Now I'm beginning to believe, in addition to that, Ken Ham just didn't want to be reminded that his followers were a bunch of semi-literate cretins.

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 08 Dec 2008 #permalink

I will pray for you and believe me, you need lots of prayers!

And I'll be yo-yoing for you. Essentially getting the same result, except I'll know how to yo-yo.

PZ Meyers, for you to think that Ken Ham fits this discription rather than yourself when you write "you are an airhead, an ass, a birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a charlatan, a cheat, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a con artist, a crackpot, a crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a dumb-ass, a dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fake, a fathead, a fraud, a fruitcake, a gonif, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a jackass, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a mountebank, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a numbnuts, a numbskull, a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a racketeer, a sap, a scam artist, a screwball, a sham, a simpleton, a snake oil salesman, a thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead, and much, much worse" for believing the propaganda promoted by the Elitests of the Religion of Evolution is amazing. Evolutionary Religion already owns the main stream media, promotes science fiction as science on the televison stations, and owns the Publc School Educators. The only reason I can think of is that for you to behave in such a manner is your Evolutionary priests are running scared.

Evolutionary Religion

Meaningless phrase concocted by projecting ignoramuses.

...already owns the main stream media,

How does a scientific theory own anything?

promotes good evidence based science fiction as science on the televison stations,

Fixed

and owns the Publc School Educators.

Again explain how a scientific theory "owns" anything.

The only reason I can think of is that for you to behave in such a manner is your Evolutionary priests are running scared.

What is an evolutionary priest? Or is it just more of your projection?

Janet. Please provide some research disproving evolution.

the propaganda promoted by the Elitests of the Religion of Evolution

The evolution religion comment is hoot. Sheer ignorance. Lets see, a religion needs a god, a holy book, some theology, a place to worship, and a way of collecting tithes.
Evolution is science, which means it ignores god, if god exists. Strike one. There is no holy book, not even the scientific literature. It can't be a holy book because the contents are constantly changing. Strike two. Since there is no holy book, there can't be a theology. Strike three, your out. Also no place to worship and no tithes. Time to trot back to the dugout as you fanned on three pitches.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 08 Dec 2008 #permalink

How does a scientific theory own anything?

Well, one might metaphorically say that a scientific theory owns the evidence, and the truth, as best we know it.

What is an evolutionary priest?

Fransisco Ayala?
(*badum-tish!*)

I also want to point out that using the term "religion" as an insult implies that the speaker has no respect for religion in general.

Nice foot-shooting going on there...

Since I named the overflow thread title last time, I just want to propose "Ken Ham whines in my general direction" this time around.

Or "Ken Ham obeys my every whim". Note the last paragraph of the original post. Heh.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 08 Dec 2008 #permalink

Myers must be in collusion with Ken Ham of the Creation Museum -- why else would PZM have gone to such lengths to generate such a massive amount of free publicity and sympathy for him and his cause?

Catgrrly, are you saying that if no one said anything about the Creation riding bareback on the Cincinnati Zoo's good name, that nothing would have come of it?

And, sorry, the only people who have sympathy for Ham are those deluded or dumb enough to already be his followers.

By Janine, Insult… (not verified) on 08 Dec 2008 #permalink

Myers must be in collusion with Ken Ham of the Creation Museum -- why else would PZM have gone to such lengths to generate such a massive amount of free publicity and sympathy for him and his cause?

the only sympathy being created is by the same people who were sympathetic before.

Boy, these creobots will say anything to try to appear the aggrieved party. It is very amusing watching them lie.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 08 Dec 2008 #permalink

Myers must be in collusion with Ken Ham of the Creation Museum -- why else would PZM have gone to such lengths to generate such a massive amount of free publicity and sympathy for him and his cause?

Actually, every time creationists come here and post about how PZ Myers is a bad, naughty, wicked man... A cash register goes "*ching-ching*", and PZ gets some money. A small amount of money, true, but that's web ad revenue for you.

So creationists are generating money for PZ!

Heh.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 08 Dec 2008 #permalink

Well, I hear your screaming and yelling. I see your way of talking to opponents. What if you are right? Well, you would return to be mush again, right, because, hey at the end of this life there is nothing. So live every day as if it would be your last.

What if I am right? Well I would go to heaven. Maybe we can talk then? Oh no, we can't!!! Sorry, you will be confined to another place where there is not much fun to enjoy! Sorry, about that bro. Well we will both find out! If you are right, you had a good life and I "wasted" mine with praying and worshipping the creator God.

If I am right, you will have ample lot of time to think about the trash you believe in. So create your own mud and then create life for me. When you are done, let me know but until then, use your brain to think about the crap you believe in.

Cheers!

There are OTHER RELIGIONS Jay. You are just as likely to be wrong as the rest of us! You GOING TO HELL BOY! And that is MUSLIM HELL, to be sure! you better be in this for the long haul.

Damn, there's nothing more hilarious than spotting a recent re-booting of a mostly-dead thread and then going there to find that it's a couple of woo-addled nitwits who have crawled out from under one of Jesus's sandals to spew barely-coherent drivel at us.

This is gold! Please, Jay, continue; you're a comic genius. And Janet - let's not forget Janet, she who called us the 'Elitests of the Religion of Evolution', demonstrating that she doesn't know the meaning of either 'religion' or evolution, or how to spell 'elitists'. But I guess only an elitist would know how to spell the word. That's how we can tell one of our own...

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 08 Dec 2008 #permalink

Ahh, pascal's wager. Because there are an infinite combinations of what the afterlife could be, chances are you've picked the wrong religion to begin with.

Religion is like lotto in that respect, but instead of a 1 in 423543120 of being right, you have a 1 in infinity shot. When you pick a religion, all you are doing is looking at what other people guessed and going along with them. You or anyone else doesn't really know, it's just hoping that someone else has the answer. So when that answer contradicts everything we know about reality, it's pretty much certain you've picked the wrong religion. Sorry Jay, the correct answer was Baal.

It was Baal? FUCK!!!! I had Juno!

What if I am right? Well I would go to heaven.

The HELL you would, Mr. Smug.

Read your damn bible.

You only get into heaven if God says you get into heaven.

If God decides, on a whim, to damn you to HELL, then to HELL with you.

If you are right, you had a good life and I "wasted" mine with praying and worshipping the creator God.If I am right, you will have ample lot of time to think about the trash you believe in.

What we believe in is based on the evidence of the universe itself. So what you're actually saying is that God created the universe as one big giant lie.

You might want to think real carefully about how much sense it makes to pray to and worship a God that you are absolutely certain is a liar.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 08 Dec 2008 #permalink

"I hear you aren't the only one to have Juno, but the girl decided not to abort."

That's why i wanted to say Krishna instead. But i thought it too obvious.
As an atheist, why wouldn't i say Kali? Now, There's an interesting choice!

Frankenstein used electricity to breathe life into his creation, but the creotards used stupidity to bring this thread back to life.

Look out creotards, this monster you created is going to stomp on you.

Run Janet, run.

Run Jay, run.

By CosmicTeapot (not verified) on 08 Dec 2008 #permalink

In response to "Tresmal" post# 1179. As for your comment that Genesis 2:1 is a fail. You should do a little bit more research before you conclude that the Bible is wrong, please let me clarify this for you.
The Scriptures say, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them"(Gen. 2:1) The original Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was "finished"-once and for all. That is what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. This law which often times referred to as the Law of the conservation of Energy and/or Mass states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. It was because of this law that Sir Fred Hoyle's "Steady-State"(or "Continuous Creation") Theory was discarded. Hoyle stated that at points in the universe called "irtrons," matter(or energy) was constantly being created. But, the First Law states just the opposite. Indeed, there is no "creation" ongoing today. It is "finished" and that is exactly what the Bible says.

God Bless.

By Creationist by… (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Last I heard, the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics had nothing to do with the Book of Genesis (or any other book of the Bible), and the Book of Genesis had nothing to say about Thermodynamics, either, contrary to what Creationists have been babbling about for decades.

Gee whiz, more illogic from someone who believes the bible has something to say about science. And of course, gets it all wrong. Then he quotes Fred Hoyle and the disproved steady state theory. What a way to be taken seriously. Just pile on the stupid. Works every time--not.

CBD, time to crawl back under your rock and let the big boys play. Maybe if you study for five years and finally learn some real science, they, including me, will listen to you.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

It is "finished" and that is exactly what the Bible says.

You could interpret that to mean many things. The bible says a lot of nonsense that can be interpreted to say anything you want it to. Quoting scripture is a waste of time. Show empirical evidence.

How long ago was creation?

God Bless.

yawn

I will pray for you and believe me, you need lots of prayers!

Appeal to consequences fail. If you actually had anything i the way of substantial evidence to offer in support of the claims of your religion, you wouldn't need to issue threats in a vain effort to convince us.

Oh . . . that's right. "Our hearts are hard." (FYI: that's an appeal to emotion fail.)

@1212

Last I heard, the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics had nothing to do with the Book of Genesis (or any other book of the Bible), and the Book of Genesis had nothing to say about Thermodynamics, either, contrary to what Creationists have been babbling about for decades.

But it does! If you tilt your head to the right angle and squint your eyes.

After repeatedly being shown the whole "the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution" argument is wrong "Creationist by design stupidity" has now moved on to the first law. I can't wait until I hear how the third law proves God. My guess, entropy approaches a minimum as temperature approach zero because hell is real hot and a place of disorder.

Creationist by design stupidity, YOU should do some read the bible. Leviticus 11:13-19 call bats birds. Leviticus 11:6 says "...and the hare, because he cheweth the cud." even though hares don't chew cud. Matthew 13:31-32: "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed... is the smallest of all seeds but when it is grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree." Mustard seeds aren't the smallest seeds, mustard plants aren't a shrub and mustard plants aren't a tree.

1 Kings 7:23 implies pi is exactly 3. Ahmes ca. 1650 BC got the estimate of pi to 3.16, The bible is behind 17th century BC mathematics! Hardly a source of modern science, the bible seems to be even behind the science of its day.

God could have easily stated explicitly the laws of thermodynamics. The people of the time wouldn't understand it you say? How can a god who's omnipotent not explain simple science?

You can play this game where you twist the meaning of the story to mean something it quite clearly doesn't with any old text. The Poetic Edda predicts global warming. The Iliad shows the Theory of Relativity. The The Upanishads is a text on quantum mechanics. Using the twisted reasoning you showed I could easily "prove" all those statements.

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

The Scriptures say, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them"(Gen. 2:1) The original Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was "finished"-once and for all. That is what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. This law which often times referred to as the Law of the conservation of Energy and/or Mass states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed.

But the bible verse implies a static and unchanging universe, while we in fact know that space itself is expanding, and continues to expand.

Your interpretation also ignores the very real finding in particle physics of virtual particles.

In order to conserve the total fermion number of the universe, a fermion cannot be created without also creating its antiparticle; thus many physical processes lead to pair creation. The need for the normal ordering of particle fields in the vacuum can be interpreted by the idea that a pair of virtual particles may briefly "pop into existence", and then annihilate each other a short while later.

Thus, virtual particles are often popularly described as coming in pairs, a particle and antiparticle, which can be of any kind. These pairs exist for an extremely short time, and mutually annihilate in short order. In some cases, however, it is possible to boost the pair apart using external energy so that they avoid annihilation and become real particles.

Finally, I note that the very next two verses in Genesis describe God resting and blessing the seventh day as the sabbath.

Do you honor the sabbath on the seventh day, as commanded by God? If not, then why do you hate God?

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Posted by: Creationist by design | December 9, 2008

In response...

Bored now.

By Janine, Insult… (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

I can not believe that people could be so ignorant that they believe in evolution, they are so closed minded and bigoted that it shows in the way they attack other people. Calling names I think that is a little childish and very unprofessional. If you want to believe you came from goo then do so. But I for one know the real truth and don't believe in the evolution fairy tales.

I can not believe that people could be so ignorant that they believe in evolution, they are so closed minded and bigoted that it shows in the way they attack other people. Calling names I think that is a little childish and very unprofessional. If you want to believe you came from goo then do so. But I for one know the real truth and don't believe in the evolution fairy tales.

Since you know, what is the real truth®?

What a load of tripe S Becker. You called us names. You called us closed minded. You called us childish. Boy, that makes you look mature.

As a professional scientist, my mind is open. But it is only open to evidence. Show me the evidence for your creationism by citing articles in the scientific literature supporting creationism. You won't be able to do so, because creationism is not scientific. Only science can be used to refute science. Religion is not refuted by science, nor science by religion. But your religious myths look silly if they don't represent the real world. And since the myths aren't changing, and science is advancing its knowldge daily, religious myths will be even sillier tomorrow.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

If you want to believe you came from goo then do so. But I for one know the real truth and don't believe in the evolution fairy tales.

Creationism is a fairy tale about how you came from goo. Do you morons not even read your own bible?

And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth:

(That's the Douay-Rheims translation, and the original Hebrew word (עפר) translates to "earth, dirt ; (literary) dust ; (biblical) ashes". But what's a little accuracy to a creationist?)

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

If you want to believe you came from goo then do so.

Do you even know what the theory of evolution is?

By the way, evolution doesn't state we came from goo, but the bible does. We are hand-crafted and animated goo. There's a word for that: a golem. In the biblical story of creation we are nothing but a golem, animated by a conjurer.The theory of evolution doesn't state anything about us being formed from goo. It states that over a long period of time, natural selection working on advantageous mutations change life. This view happens to fit perfectly with the fossil record, the distribution of life on this planet, the morphology of species, with genetics, but also fits in with geology, and astronomy. We see galaxies that are 13 billion light years away, we've seen a star in our own galaxy that is 13 billion years old. We've dated the earth through several techniques and on several samples to be around 4.55 billion years. We see the first life in the fossil record around 3.5 billion years ago, and we see a gradual progression of life from there. The facts support evolution, and contradict a literal genesis interpretation. So either your God is a deceptive one who made the universe look contradictory to Genesis, or that old book of mythology was not meant to be taken literally. Just think, the creationist accounts of the age of the earth are off by a factor of close to a million. So really anyone who believes in a young earth is relying on all geologists to be wrong by a factor of 1,000,000 and they are relying on cosmologists to be wrong by a factor of 2,500,000. All these scientists, all these people who have studied and worked for decades, some religious and some not, they all agree on the same age of the earth. And you know better than them how?

Sheesh, this thread is still alive? If you drive-by trolls are so desperate to be heard ask Ken Ham to add a comment section to his blog.

However, don't hold your breath. Answers in Genesis cares so much about you that even though the idea of a forum "is probably one of the most requested features from our supporters" they won't add it. Their excuse?

Moderating the number of comments that we would receive (both positive and negative)--as based on the number of visitors we have each day--would take considerable resources

Really? PZ manages to it. Hell, even Ray Comfort allows comments (albeit with silly moderation rules like 'Jesus' has to be capitalized).

Please appreciate the irony that in order to be heard about your outrage you had to go come here to comment.

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Can any of you evolutionists explain how life began(without saying: "on the backs of crystals" as in the documentary "Expelled") and provide an explanation that coincides with reality. I mean really give some details as to how life began, what the purpose of life is, where did personalities come from, why can humans build skyscrapers and airplanes and animals cannot. How about morality, how do we know right from wrong? give some scientific evidence to these questions that we experience in day to day life instead of hiding behind profane remarks that don't serve any purpose.

By Creationist by… (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

CBD, try googling abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with evolution. By the way, you haven't shown any physical evidence for your imaginary god, so presuming that there is a god is not allowed until this is done.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Can any of you evolutionists explain how life began(without saying: "on the backs of crystals" as in the documentary "Expelled") and provide an explanation that coincides with reality.

Check out CDK007's video on abiogenesis. It explains just how it could come about with hydrothermal events - which has been verified by experiment.

I mean really give some details as to how life began

How life began doesn't invalidate evolution any more than not knowing how the planet formed invalidates plate tectonics. Evolution happened regardless of the origin of life, evolution is a theory of the diversity of life, not how life came about. As for the rest of your questions, all you are doing is arguing from personal incredulity. i.e. "I don't see how could evolve, therefore God made the world 6,000 years ago". Quite quickly, morality exists in other animals, we see moral behaviour in most social animals. It can be explained through natural selection, I suggest you read Dr Michael Shermer's "The Science Of Good And Evil" if you want a more complete epxlanation. Personalities again exist in nature, just ask anyone who studies our simian cousins. Hell, even a pet owner will talk about the personalities of their animals. As for language, there's always Stephen Pinker's "The Language Instinct". Why is it we can design when other animals can't? Again other animals can design and problem solve. It's just that we do it better. Look at the tool-making of chimpanzees, the problem solving abilities of not only our ape cousins but of other animals too. Once we tried to hide a tennis ball from our dog by putting it in a drawer. He got under the desk, and pushed the drawer from behind and was able to get the tennis ball. We see crows that can solve complex puzzles by design in order to get food, we've seen the same thing with orang-utans. Indeed we see animal behaviour that ours is merely an extension of. Yet none of this changes the facts of the world - that the earth is almost 4.6 billion years old, that life began sometime in the first billion years and we are one branch on the evolutionary tree of life. The evidence is overwhelming, and looking for gaps in what we don't know is not going to change what we do. You won't find a precambrian bunny, all you do is show yoruself to be oblivious to the nature of science by arguing about what we don't know.

I see you're avoiding our questions and asking new ones...

Can any of you evolutionists explain how life began(without saying: "on the backs of crystals" as in the documentary "Expelled") and provide an explanation that coincides with reality.

All of life is made of cells; all cells are made of organic chemicals; the only explanation that coincides with reality is that life arose as a reaction of organic chemicals.

That chemical reaction may have involved crystals as a catalyst; it may have involved RNA-like chemicals in lipid bubbles; it may have involved RNA reactions in ice-water chambers.

All working hypotheses about the origins of life involve testable, falsifiable organic chemical reactions.

Where is your falsifiable hypothesis about the origins of life?

I mean really give some details as to how life began

No. First of all, the details of the hypotheses involve extremely complex organic chemistry; far too much information for one blog comment. Second of all, not all of the steps are known, which is why they are still hypothetical.

Where are your details as to how life began? And I mean the details of organic chemistry, not the stupid stories in the bible that contradict themselves and reality.

what the purpose of life is

What does that even mean?

According to Christianity, the whole point of living is to die and get into heaven. IS that what you think the "purpose of life" is?

where did personalities come from, why can humans build skyscrapers and airplanes and animals cannot. How about morality, how do we know right from wrong?

Intelligence and personality and the sense of morality are the emergent properties of a large and complex brain. Those things are beings studied by neuroscientists and psychologists right now.

Where is your falsifiable hypothesis about where personality and intelligence and morality come from?

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Creationist by design,

I'm not a scientist; I have only the most basic understanding of the concepts underlying evolutionary theory - so, while others can (and have), I can't answer your questions.

But even before I reached the low level of understanding I have now (mostly thanks to coming here and reading a lot) I did not consider my ignorance to be a justification for the existence of god/s.

My point is this: even if we didn't know as much as we know, and can admit that we don't know exactly how life began (which, as has been pointed out, is distinct from evolutionary theory), it doesn't mean that the answer to any of your questions must, by default, be god/s.

My own atheism is far more dependant on the weakness of religion than the strengths of science. I realised I didn't believe in the judeo-christian god well before I'd ever heard the word 'evolution'. Further contemplation of the topic, and research into the judeo-christian belief system, confirmed the unworthiness of even entertaining the notion that the being known as Yahweh has ever existed.

Could there be another kind of god? Maybe. But until I see a good reason (i.e. evidence) to believe in that hypothetical god I'll remain an atheist - and support the scientists.

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Creationist by design,

Can any of you evolutionists explain how life began(without saying: "on the backs of crystals" as in the documentary "Expelled") and provide an explanation that coincides with reality

First of all that movie was extremely dishonest. It misled PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins as to the purpose of their interview. Secondly, you believe that man was literally made from dust. You have no right to mock. Thirdly, the origin of life happened over a billion years ago. It's doubtful any evidence of how it arose survived. Now there are many conjectures of how this happened, but we don't know for sure. There are always going to be things in science we don't know. You creationist would rather just say "God did it" than investigate.

what the purpose of life is, where did personalities come from, why can humans build skyscrapers and airplanes and animals cannot

There is no inherent purpose to life. The only purpose is that which you create.

Personalities come from a complex mixture of environmental upbringing and genetic predisposition.

Humans were able to evolve big brains. This served well in enabling us to hunt and reproduce. This big brain enabled us to create many tools. Eventually these tools got more and more sophisticated.

Why can't animals do this? I'm not a biologist. I would guess that because big brains are very costly calorie wise so intelligence can't simply grow exponentially. There's also physiological constraints. Child birth is really painful for woman because our heads are so damn big. Also, humans beings ability to use tools were very dependent on many factors, such as the dexterity of the hand. So even if an animal was real smart they wouldn't necessarily be able to use tools. Finally, once one animal has the ability to use tools as effectively as we have they can a HUGE advantage over all other creature. If any animal had the potential to build skyscrapers we effectively ended by making them extinct, making them livestock, or putting them in a position where this is impossible. Our greatest potential rival, the Neanderthals, were driven to extinction by us (either through direct or indirect means).

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Owlmirror #1229 wrote:

Where is your falsifiable hypothesis about where personality and intelligence and morality come from?

Mr. Creationist by design would no doubt like us to answer his questions using the same level of scientific detail which he uses:

Life began because of a Life-Creating Force.

The Purpose of life is to recognize the Life Purpose Being.

Personalities come from a Source for Personalities.

Humans can build skyscrapers and airplanes because they got their skyscraper-and-airplane building skills from a Skyscraper and Airplane Building Intelligence Donator.

Morals come from a Moral Essence, where rightness is Right, and wrongness is Wrong.

There. You've got some common sense answers to the sort of questions we ask in our daily lives, and anyone can understand these explanations. You don't have to study or anything.

How can science possibility match the breadth, clarity, completeness, and simplicity of these answers?

It can't. We've lost, guys (which won't matter, because the Seagulls coming into this thread do nothing but squawk once, mess, and leave. I give credit to Creationist-by-design because it looks as if he bothered to stick around long enough to at least note that there was a response to him.)

How about morality, how do we know right from wrong?

We are not alone in this. Several other creatures show an ability for morality. There was an experiment where an ape was able to either take food or give it to the ape in the next cell. Couldn't do both. The first ape would take food and then let his neighbor have it. When both apes were deprived of food the ape still gave food to the other ape, even though it cost him.

It makes sense that social creatures would have some innate faculties in how to behave in social interactions. The everyone-for-themselves approach wouldn't lead to a very successful society.

Much research has been done into whether humans have an innate moral faculty, similar to an innate faculty for language. Surveys done in several different locations (including Western nations, Eastern nations, remote tribes) show people tend to share some moral convictions. Of course environment plays a huge role, much like in language. However, the similarities are just too great to attribute environment alone.

I wait your response, a response that Ken Ham wouldn't allow on his website. Again, I ask you to appreciate the irony that in order for your outrage to be heard you had to go come here.

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Feynmaniac @1231,

the origin of life happened over a billion years ago.

True, but extremely conservative. From Wikipedia:
"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules. Scientific research theorizes that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 and 3.5 billion years ago."
That life on Earth originated not long after the planet cooled and "stabilised" suggests that the genesis of life is not implausible elsewhere in the Cosmos, by the principle of mediocrity.

By John Morales (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Calling names I think that is a little childish and very unprofessional.

Hey! When did you guys go pro, and why didn't anyone tell me? Is it because you fear that with my rad new moniker I'll start raking in all the youthy endorsement deals?

Thus spake Creationist by design #1226

Can any of you evolutionists explain how life began(without saying: "on the backs of crystals" as in the documentary "Expelled") and provide an explanation that coincides with reality. I mean really give some details as to how life began,

Kel has already answered this.

what the purpose of life is

This question, vapid cliché that it is, is ambiguous, since "life" has many meanings. As a collective noun for "all living things" or as an attribute of certain objects (mice have it, rocks don't), it is an abstraction for which the notion of "purpose" is meaningless. Individual life forms have a purpose only as vehicles for the replication of their genes.

where did personalities come from

A "personality" is the label used for a vast collection of external manifestations of electrical and chemical activity in the brain that we consider characteristic of an individual. The abstract notion of a "personality" is itself built on layers of abstract concepts like "behaviour", "memory", "emotion", etc. A personality can be altered dramatically by any change to the underlying supporting substrate -- the brain -- be that change chemical (via drugs), electrical (via site stimulation, ECT), or mechanical (e.g. due to injury).

why can humans build skyscrapers and airplanes and animals cannot.

Because humans incrementally developed large brains as a result of generations of environmental survival pressures (natural selection) and simultaneously bodies with appendages suitable for manipulating objects in their environment.Ultimately, this culminated in the development by humans of a method to overcome certain evolved tendencies in thought, and create a method for reliably generating new knowledge -- the scientific method -- the successive application of this method over about 300 years, building steadily on knowledge generated by the same method, eventually led to a level of knowledge that enabled the construction of advanced technology such as skyscrapers and aircraft.

How about morality, how do we know right from wrong?

Basic morality appears to arise as a result of empathy. Empathy is well-attested to exist in humans and other ape species and has a neurological foundation in mirror neurons. It most likely evolved because it reduced competition between individuals in kin-related groups sharing the characteristic (who, out of empathy, helped or did not kill each other so much) over other groups who did not (and would not help each other or would kill each other in competition). We observe empathy, rudimentary morality and social order in humans and other ape species. Naturalist moral philosophers derive cross-cultural moral tenets from empathy and its axiomatic expression in "The Golden Rule".

give some scientific evidence to these questions that we experience in day to day life instead of hiding behind profane remarks that don't serve any purpose.

If you want to understand things, it's your own responsibility to learn about them, not anyone else's to spoon-feed their hard-earned knowledge to you.

How about morality, how do we know right from wrong?

We don't need god to determine right or wrong. In fact, god isn't needed for anything.

If you look at chimpanzees, they share food and have a nice sense of fair play. We, as their close cousins, inherited this sense, and have taken it a bit further. Groups of humans work together for common causes, and have a good sense of fair play. Game theory indicates that this is the best strategy for the long run. Other rights and wrongs, are purely derived by men. Usually men with a stick up their butt, but still fallible men. Most of the early laws were designed to keep the tribe from falling apart, but more recent laws use a different tack due to having to bridge various groups. Keep in mind that in the old days, the "political" leaders were mafia like thugs who received and gave tribute depending on various threats. Religion was the sociology of the day to keep society running. Nowadays, the state has taken over those functions, so religion is superfluous.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

why can humans build skyscrapers and airplanes and other animals cannot

We are animals. I repeat: We are animals. And once you accept that, you can start to learn amazing things about the unity of life.

Hey! When did you guys go pro, and why didn't anyone tell me? Is it because you fear that with my rad new moniker I'll start raking in all the youthy endorsement deals?

I'll give you the youth endorsements if I the old fart endorsements. Ever since I started eating OatsRUs every day......

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Now that you have an OM, I read your name as scom. Which in my head sounds like a Scottish person saying scum.

John Morales,

My remarks usually don't get called conservative! I was too lazy to look it up the exact figure so I was trying to give a lower bounds rather than an estimate. Creationist by design believes life occurred within about 6000 years so I didn't think the exact figure mattered. Thanks though. I didn't want to misled anyone into thinking the billion year figure was an estimate.
_ _ _ _ _

Also, I know realize my description of the ape experiment was sloppy. I blame it on lack of sleep. When I said "The first ape would take food and then let his neighbor have it." I meant that the first few times around that food was given the ape would take it. After seeing that his neighbor was suffering from hunger he would then abstain and let his neighbor have the food. Anyone interested in the idea of innate morality this Harvard professor guy explains it a hell of a lot better than I can.

give some scientific evidence to these questions that we experience in day to day life instead of hiding behind profane remarks that don't serve any purpose.

I'm going to put this down as a case of 'be careful what you ask for'. Ask pharyngulites to talk about science and you'll get back pages worth of material, lol!

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Now that you have an OM, I read your name as scom. Which in my head sounds like a Scottish person saying scum.

See what I mean? It's edgy and cool!

...Nah. Going pro would cheapen it and take too much of the spontaneity, joy, and meaning out of the sport, not to mention making me prey to the individualistic, win-at-all-costs mindset. I'll stay amateur. (Lessons learned from North Shore.)

Sastra @#1232:

Tautological teleology is teleologically tautological!

(Heh. Seagulls, indeed.)

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Not to mention that - albeit a simplied explanation - if god was responsible for 'showing' humans right and wrong, it would follow that those who accepted god's teachings would always do right, and those who didn't would always do wrong.

We know this doesn't happen - and, in certain places, is the exact opposite of what happens.

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Sastra @1232 has it spot on. When you think about it, the list of questions asked by CBD covers a rather wide range of human thought, and many of the answers are highly technical and under much debate as evidence comes in. Yet he/she expects us to answer them all at once.

Any organization that claims to have all the answers to all those questions is quite obviously selling bullshit, and this should be patently obvious to anyone with even a glimmer of awareness of how complex the universe is. Of course, religion feeds on this intellectual laziness, and thus real knowledge is anathema to it.

Creationist by Design's tactic is to try and brand evolution a theory of everything then upon finding a gap in knowledge concluding that it all must be wrong. Never mind that observations in astronomy and cosmology show an old universe, nevermind that geology and nuclear physics point to an old earth. Never mind the progressive fossil record, never mind the genetic similarities, if evolution can't explain then the world must be 6000 years old and Jesus is God.

Looking back over the thread, I note that CBD has 4 comments:

#1138: The bible says bad people say bad things!

#1163: Bible verse says you're bad. Bible verses are also science!

#1211: Longer (WRONG) explanation of why bible verse is science!

#1226: Oh yeah? Well, what do you know, evolutionists?

I count 3.5 seagull craps in there.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Kel, what we need to do is to keep hitting him to show physical evidence for god (positive evidence for his theory). Since there isn't any, he has no argument. The whole "if you aren't right, then I am" argument is for losers. Which does describe creobots. They have no positive evidence for their sheepish bleatings, or cawing by Owlmirror's description.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Nerd @1248,

what we need to do is to keep hitting him to show physical evidence for god (positive evidence for his theory).

Thing is, believers have heaps of evidence. That it's all vacuous or inapplicable or subjective is no impediment to their trotting it forth.

Crappy (or even imaginary) evidence is still evidence.

Not that I disapprove of your approach :)

By John Morales (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

I am impressed, since my last post there were a lot of responses and no profanity. That goes to show we can discuss our presuppositions without calling each other names. We all have a worldview and I was trying to show that we can discuss those without resorting to profane attacks on each other. Time to move on. Be sure to check out www.repentanceandfaith.org The Bible tells us to share the truth in love.

By Creationist by… (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Posted by: Creationist by design | December 9, 2008 9:01 PM

These people are utterly terrified. Sigh.

Creationist by design:

We all have a worldview and I was trying to show that we can discuss those without resorting to profane attacks on each other. Time to move on.

You mean, your claims are being addressed and you want to bug out?

Care to actually address the various retorts?

Care to show any evidence for your contentions?

C'mon, it's not everyday you get a forum which doesn't censor posters - take advantage :)

By John Morales (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

This is why we fucking swear at you, chicken shit. You were never really interested in a discussion. You were just angry that we didn't respect your sacred cow. Otherwise you'd provide evidence for your claims. Otherwise you would answer our points. You just came here and regurgitated the talking points they fed you.

Go back to AiG where different points of view are never considered, assertions never need to be proven and discussion never happens.

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

We all have a worldview and I was trying to show that we can discuss those without resorting to profane attacks on each other. Time to move on.

So when finally something that requires knowledge comes up, you scamper off? Quite simply you are allegding that almost all geologists, nuclear physicists, astronomers and cosmologists, geneticists, palaeontologists, biochemists, and biologists are completely and utterly wrong. And your complaint is the name calling? You are calling almost every scientist who has ever worked in the last century either a fraud, a liar or incompetent by taking the stance of creationism. Where's your ethic?

No physical evidence for god. Sigh, they just don't make trolls like they used to. A waste of effort for nothing.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Nerd,

A waste of effort for nothing

Nah, there's the satisfaction factor - sort of a SIWOTI balm.

I wonder if any bots who've come from Ham's site* even read comments here before posting. I'm pretty sure most (maybe none) haven't.

* since the time of zombification of this thread, that is.

By John Morales (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

If you want to know what stress of exams, lack of sleep, Red Bull withdrawal and a cowardly troll does to a person read comment #1253.

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

CbD was a perfect example of why we call people like Ken Ham a wackaloon. He's not interested in engaging in science, but he's more than ready to dismiss any of it that doesn't conform with the biblical stories. He's acting like a spoilt child then demanding he be respected. Where's his respect for the scientific process? Where's his respect for the scientists who have dedicated their lives towards finding evidence? Where's his respect for us? You don't get to act like a baby and be treated like an adult.If you want respect, be willing to engage in debate. Scampering off when your questions are answered then ignoring what people say is the opposite of respect. It's intellectual and personal cowardice.

We can also discuss your total lack of any evidence for gawd with completely profane and blasphemous attacks.

Where is your dickless gawd? Why doesn't he ever show up and stop a disaster? Why do little children die in agony with cancer? Because gawd is love?

Don't give me your mystery bullshit. The true mystery is: why are you so STUPID that you give a fraud your time and money? Fool. I deny the holy spirt, gawd, jezus and the virgin birth.

Feynmaniac @1257, that was a great comment @1253. Bullseye.

I might have to start drinking _Red Bull_, just to withdraw...

By John Morales (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

That should be Patricia, OM.

Grats!

By John Morales (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

We all have a worldview and I was trying to show that we can discuss those without resorting to profane attacks on each other.

Interesting. He demands that we try to answer specific questions, and then, when we do, he hides behind the postmodern-sort-of-idea that we all have our own "worldview" and "truths," and so the only kind of discussion we can have is one where we "share" what we believe, and then move on so the next person can share what they believe. It's so very tolerant and courteous and accepting, because nobody is 'judgmental.' I've been in groups like that. It's called a Unitarian Universalist Meeting.

Sorry, Ken Ham Creationists -- you don't get to pass for Unitarians. It won't work. And I have no idea why you'd want to -- unless you're trying to sneak out in disguise.

I am impressed, since my last post there were a lot of responses and no profanity.

And I'll bet any money that you didn't bother reading any of them, other than to scan them for insults that you could take offence at.

That goes to show we can discuss our presuppositions without calling each other names.

We can, but you illustrate that you're not interested in that. What you are interested in is fishing for insults in order that you can take offence at the tone of our replies. You have no interest in their content.

We all have a worldview

Some based on evidence, some on the creation myths of bronze-age nomadic goatherds.

and I was trying to show that we can discuss those without resorting to profane attacks on each other.

No, you were hoping for "profane attacks" so that you could sanctimoniously denounce us based on the tone of our replies, rather than engaging with the content of them.

Time to move on.

Yes, of course, since we're not supplying any insults to reinforce your persecution complex and allow you to feel santimonious and superior, only providing the kind of factual considered content that you have no interest in.

Be sure to check out www.repentanceandfaith.org The Bible tells us to share the truth in love.

And a hearty "Fuck You!" to you too.

SIWOTI! for CBD.

I repeat my question from above: Do you honor the sabbath on the seventh day, as commanded by God? If not, then why do you hate God?

Going back to #1163:

#1 "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7),(written over 3000 years ago.)Science didn't discover that until 1650.

Copying and pasting a response I made to this in a different thread:

People, even primitive people, can look up. They can see that the planets are distant, and the stars are even more distant. There is clearly space between the surface of the earth and the planets, and more space between the planets and the stars.

Hence, they can thus conceive that the earth is "suspended" in that empty space, on "nothing".

Primitive does not mean stupid, or unimaginative.

Neither does modern mean intelligent or imaginative, as you and your fellow believers so consistently demonstrate.

#2 "Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3 (written about 2000 years ago) Science only recently discovered the invisible atoms.

Theology FAIL.

Hebrews 11:3 is talking about the unseen God, and the chapter is all about faith in the unseen God.

Do you not even read your own bible?

#3 "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). written around 700 B.C. Up until the late 1400s science believed the world was flat.

Logic FAIL. The bible verse confirms a belief in a flat-earth!

Do you not even read the words you're writing as you write them?

the Bible also talks about: The science of oceanography = Psalm 8:8

Knowing that the ocean exists is not oceanography.

Do you wonder why people insult Creationists, when they write such stupid things?

Radio waves = Job 38:35

Theology and sanity FAIL. The verse is talking about controlling lightning.

Entropy = Isaiah 51:6, Psalm 102:25,26 and Hebrews 1:11, The water cycle = Ecclesiastes 1:7, The first law of thermodynamics = Genesis 2:1, The "Cycle" of air currents = Ecclesiastes 1:6, Air mass = Job 28:25. These are just a few of the things the Bible mentions, written thousands of years before "science" discovered them.

I'm getting tired of looking up the verses just to show how WRONG you are, so I'm going to summarize:

Those are all complete bullshit!

We also have the issues of morality and personality and the Bible explains all of that logically, in a verifiable, historical context that coincides with reality.

Bullshit!

Those who reject God do so because they do not want to be held accountable to their Creator,so they say "I don't believe in God" That is like saying "I don't believe in gravity and then jumping out of an airplane from 10,000 feet.

I just said "I don't believe in God", and did not experience a sudden terminal impact, or indeed, anything at all. So: Bullshit!

It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is what is true!

Right! What you believe does not matter. Only the truth matters. And the only verifiable method we have of determining what is true is falsifiable science, based on the evidence found in reality.

Jesus said:"I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6

SO WHAT. What Jesus said is not verifiably true.

I see that while I was composing this, CBD came back and crapped out:

I am impressed, since my last post there were a lot of responses and no profanity.

I guess I live to disappoint.

We all have a worldview and I was trying to show that we can discuss those without resorting to profane attacks on each other.

I am not attacking you, though. I am attacking your WRONGNESS.

The Bible tells us to share the truth in love.

The Bible is complete bullshit!

Creationists don't even care what "the truth" is.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

That goes to show we can discuss our presuppositions without calling each other names.

To which presuppositions do you refer? I was raised by neither scientists nor religious adherents; I've done my own research into the matter and found the most likely scenario is that there's no god. Can you claim such a neutral starting point?

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

None of us would make through a UU Meeting. Damn good thing, too...

Blush, thanks John M!

I truly never expected to win a Molly. My education level is so low, but I guess that just proves PZ has no prejudice.

Creationist By Design - trot out your gawd. Put up or shut up. I worshipped your gawd for 50 years. I've gotten nothing back in return. Nothing. Fuck you upside down, in Enumclaw.

A salaam for Owlmirror, salaam, salaam.

PZ, if you are watching, please close this thread (1267+ posts) with a link to a new one. Owlmirror #1196 had some title suggestions for a new thread.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

PZ, I second Nerd @1268. This zombie thread must end.

Patricia, I didn't vote for you but truly think you're deserving. (there're so many others!)

By John Morales (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

By Augustine of Hippo (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Someone back a bit did some research, and it seems that the only reason this old thread from June has been suddenly active is because Ken Ham linked to it recently (as an example of what Evolutionists are like), so all of a sudden we could see 'new folks' showing up in the 'Recent Posts' column -- and of course they were Young Earth Creationists. So of course SIWOTI, and we swarmed over here.

But if PZ closes the thread, they will trickle over here, notice that it's closed to comments, assume that's because we can't handle their self-righteous scolding and razor-sharp arguments, and leave. They're unlikely to come over to another thread: most of them have been Seagulls.

That's not an argument to keep this thread open, by the way. I think it's time to close it. The advantage of having fresh new minds to debate with is outweighed by the fact that virtually none of them seem to have any concept whatsoever of what's entailed in a debate. Or even a two-way conversation.

In the new thread PZ should also add the irony that Christians reading Ken Ham's blog cannot comment there so to be heard they have to come to an atheist blog.

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Christian = delusional fool, since neither god nor the bible has any physical evidence to back up the concepts of divine being and inerrant holy book. Lots of evidence for both concepts being false.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Dammit, I agree. Owlmirror is getting in some serious bible quoten' points.
So let me quote Diderot, from 1746 -

What cries! What shrieks! What groans! Who has imprisoned all these woeful corpses? What crimes have all these wretches committed? Some are beating their breasts with stones, others are tearing bodies with hooks of are beating their breasts with iron; remorse, pain and death lurk in their eyes...

Yep, part of that is hard reading, but that is an exact quote. The christians are SO kind. Gawd is love.

I'm to bed, but in the happy spirit of Owlmirror and Patricia, will first share this quotation gem:

"You are going to see again the child ... that was condemned to hell. See! It is a pitiful sight. The little child is in this red hot oven. Hear how it screams to come out.... It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor of the oven. ... You can see on the face of this little child what you see on the faces of all in hell - despair, desperate and horrible." --Rev. J. Furniss, in "Tracts for Spiritual Reading", a popular booklet for children (late 19th Century)

Night, night, children. Sweet dreams.

Sastra, I think the christian freaks show up here because they can.
My comments wouldn't get through on Ham or Comforts blogs, even if I kept the language to purely biblical language - which I am fully capable of doing.

This is a long, OLD thread. If PZ starts a new one for Ham & Comforts followers, good. ;o)

But if PZ closes the thread, they will trickle over here, notice that it's closed to comments, assume that's because we can't handle their self-righteous scolding and razor-sharp arguments, and leave.

Hopefully, even a Creationist can understand that a thread with ~1300 comments is far too big and follow the link to a new SIWOTI thread without making such an assumption.
Then again... maybe not. TBH, I don't think there's much choice: this one has to be closed.

I vote YES on new SIWOTI thread!

Besides, whenever PZ closes a thread he posts a message with a link to the new one, so it's not as if anyone can argue he's blocking or censoriing comments.

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

It didn't stop Teno Groppi from complaining about it despite the new thread made just for him. They aren't the most mentally balanced people on the planet...

Thank you Sastra. That is indeed a gem.
There is no end to christian cruelty.

Those that say jezus preached love and forgiveness are lying. Jesus said - "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-18

Oh goody, all forms of slavery, misogyny and genocide are just hunky dory with jezus.

I think Teno Groppi still hasn't figured out that the Entropy and Evolution thread is closed. I can just seem him typing away on the keyboard wondering why the text doesn't show up on his screen.

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Maybe Teno got sad because we left him and resorts to cutting himself. Maybe, maybe.... we can speculate forevermore on that poor old troll Teno until the Christ comes home, but luckily we will never find out :)

Good grief! I clicked onto this site (again, foolish me!) to find, to my astonishment, that this thread had reached 1278 postings! Don't you guys have lives? Do you just sit in front of your monitors 24/7 waiting for 'targets' to attack? It's ironic that you all point out typo's, bad grammar, spelling mistakes, capitalising as a means of stressing a point, poor writing skills, etc. - then do the same yourselves! I totally agree that your 'pastor' should close this thread - it's now almost threadbare and fraying more with each posting. Maybe I can give PZ a shove by reminding him how he began it. What follows is a list of descriptors of PZ (and his obedient flock - or should I say 'pack'?) which is absolutely TRUE - and I have checked the meanings here. PZ is: abashless, aberrant, an abettor, abhorrent, abject, an abnegator, an abolitionist, abominable, an abortionist, abrasive, abrupt, absonant, absorbed (with 'self'), abstruse, absurd, abusive, abysmal, an accidentalist, accountable (as are we all), and many other 'a's' (it's getting too boring, so I'll proceed with just one entry for each letter of the alphabet after one more 'a'), antichrist, belligerent, churlish, damnable, egotistic, false, a garbler, haughty, intolerant, judgmental, a knave, a liar (you people seem to be fixated with this word - one can only lie if they know for sure that they are doing so - so it's fair to rail back [get it?]), a megalomaniac, nasty, obnoxious, puerile, quazi-scientific, a reprobate, scurrilous, trite, vain, worthless (as in 'came from nothing, lives a purposeless life, and returns to nothing'), xenophobic, yellow (as in 'coward'), and a zoilist (you may need to look this one up - I did!). This cannot be construed as name-calling, as each is a correct descriptor. Now PLEASE close this thread!

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

@ Keith: But he is still right about evolution being true and creationism being a fairy tale.

I didn't say anything about another person's spelling. Mine is terrible.

I do love these people who come here and talk about PZ's followers. Sure, many people agree with him but you do not have to be here long to find out that lots of people have various disagreements about what he posts. Even long time contributors have differing points of view. Now, often it is overwhelmingly agreeing with PZ but is that surprising? People do read the blogs of people they agree with quite often. But I don't see people simply doing things because he has said them.

How is this different than any other blog? If Ken Ham allowed comments on his do you not think many of the people there would also agree with him? Would you call them a pack?

an abolitionist

This, at least, is true, and I am sure that he would claim the adjective with pride.

I suppose you don't actually know what it means. Or perhaps you are a foul and despicable pro-slavery advocate who thinks that the abolition of that practice is a bad thing.

This cannot be construed as name-calling, as each is a correct descriptor.

LIAR.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

welllll.....maybe PZ ought to wait until it hits 1313. Then we can stop HA ha ha.

Posted by: Keith Allen | December 10, 2008

What follows is a list of descriptors of PZ (and his obedient flock - or should I say 'pack'?) which is absolutely TRUE - and I have checked the meanings here. PZ is: abashless, aberrant, an abettor, abhorrent, abject, an abnegator, an abolitionist, abominable, an abortionist, abrasive, abrupt, absonant, absorbed (with 'self'), abstruse, absurd, abusive, abysmal, an accidentalist, accountable (as are we all), and many other 'a's' (it's getting too boring, so I'll proceed with just one entry for each letter of the alphabet after one more 'a'), antichrist, belligerent, churlish, damnable, egotistic, false, a garbler, haughty, intolerant, judgmental, a knave, a liar (you people seem to be fixated with this word - one can only lie if they know for sure that they are doing so - so it's fair to rail back [get it?]), a megalomaniac, nasty, obnoxious, puerile, quazi-scientific, a reprobate, scurrilous, trite, vain, worthless (as in 'came from nothing, lives a purposeless life, and returns to nothing'), xenophobic, yellow (as in 'coward'), and a zoilist (you may need to look this one up - I did!).

Let's see, dumbass accuses us of spending all of our time at this blog in order to be mean to all of the pious who show up here to bring us the light. But dumbass is too self absorbed to notice that that there are dozens of regulars here, no need for anyone to be here 24/7. Keith, I will let you in on an open secret, it is a tag team here. This blog has enough readers at any given time, all droppings from Cloudcuckooland are found and made fun of.

Also, it seems that dumbass spend time to come up with alphabetical list of "absolutely TRUE" adjectives that describes PZ. Err, who is wasting time here? Also, it seems that this is a list of words that you would throw at any atheist or secularist. It bares little resemblance to reality.

One last question, dumbass. If PZ follows your shouted order AND CLOSES THIS THREAD, will you promise to not come back?

By Janine, Insult… (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

"Cloudcuckooland"- Ah, a fan of Banjo-Kazooie are we, Janine?

RickrOll, I never heard of that game before.(I just googled it) Cloudcuckooland is the name of an album by The Lightning Seeds. To me, the word seems evocative of an imaginary place where absurd things come into existence.

By Janine, Insult… (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

"lives a purposeless life"

Once again I ask: What is YOUR purpose, that God supposedly gives you?

Cloudcuckooland was invented (or coined) by Aristophanes in the year 414 BCE.

/pedant

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Fowlmirror (an owl IS a fowl) - as per usual, the rail about LIAR! This is ALWAYS a 'loser's'(as in losing an 'argument', so I'm not name-calling) response. Abolitionist means "One who seeks to abolish ANYTHING - you clearly didn't get my drift as being 'abolishing religion'. Janine (by the way, is that your real name?), I see you had to 'paste' my list of descriptors (as if it were not already there for all to see - and then you call ME a d... a..!) - is this supposed to mean anything?

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Owlmirror, I am aware of that also but you have to keep in mind, just in case you have not noticed, I am a bit of a music geek. If I remember correctly, in Cloudcuckooland, philosophers spent their time talking about how far a flea can fly by farting. (Forgive me, it has been twenty years since I read it.)

By Janine, Insult… (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

PS. I forgot to close the quotation marks!

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

it's a busy little meme, i see. My mistake.

Posted by: Rey Fox at #1293:

Once again I ask: What is YOUR purpose, that God supposedly gives you?

NO no No, wrong question. ask, "What purpose does God serve then?"

Keith Allen=punkfaggot (i mean that in the belittling, comedic sense {Richard Jenni? it's been a while and)). Claims without evidence=fail DUMBASS. You're the loser. Play hide-and-go-fuck-yourself somewhere else would you?

Posted by: dumbass

I see you had to 'paste' my list of descriptors (as if it were not already there for all to see - and then you call ME a d... a..!) - is this supposed to mean anything?

I do that so that people do not have to scroll back to the original statement. Sometimes they get buried deep. Wow, the stuck up fuck cannot even spell out "dumbass"

Janine (by the way, is that your real name?)

I do not think "Keith Allen" is your real name. Wow! What does that prove? That you are a dumbass.

By Janine, Insult… (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

as per usual, the rail about LIAR! This is ALWAYS a 'loser's'(as in losing an 'argument', so I'm not name-calling) response.

Unless, of course, the one being argued with is a liar, LIAR.

And since you included "liar" in your screed, then by your own argument, you're the loser, LOSER.

Abolitionist means "One who seeks to abolish ANYTHING - you clearly didn't get my drift as being 'abolishing religion'.

Only if you concede that religion is slavery.

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Owlmirrow, just keep in mind that christianity is a religion fit for slaves.

By Janine, Insult… (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

I love how the best Keith can come up with is that Janine pasted his comment into hers. O noes! What a fucking dumbass.

Rickroll- Point and laugh

By Mr. Asshole (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Hey, Mr. Asshole - you forget to include your first name, 'Stupid'. RickrOll actually posted something at which we could point and laugh at. You did not.

Epic fail.

Oh, and good to see Keith Allen, Liar proved himself, once again, to indeed be a liar. From his post at #1053:

So, TTFG! Hurray, do I hear?

This, Keith, is what thinking people called 'evidence' - that which you don't have as a basis for your nonsensical belief system, and which we have plenty of in support of evolution.

So, we have evidence for evolution. We have evidence that you're a liar.

What do you have?

[crickets]

Yeah, I thought so.

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Well, well - the obedient flock on another liar rail (nice little palindrome)! Why am I not surprised? The word 'evidence' comes from the word 'evident', which means "that can be seen; clear to the mind; obvious". Wherever we look, we see OBVIOUS design - as I mentioned previously, Chaos Theory seeks to 'find' ORDER in 'apparent' chaos. In Mathematics, we do not need to prove the obvious - such 'things' are regarded as axiomatic. In any case, why would anyone play your game of "Prove it!"? You have already admitted that you cannot PROVE Evolution (and, yet again, I am not referring to natural selection - even Creationists accept that). I have also admitted to being an ex-atheist, but I NEVER accepted Evolution - I refused to acknowledge a dandelion as a 'relative'. I gave up atheism because it was a 'dead-end' - in EVERY sense. Hope is a wonderful driving force, encouraging us to extend our minds in every way possible - be aware that Christianity advanced science. There have been/are/will be many who profess to be 'Christians', but just because some have 'used' it in a despicable way, that doesn't mean that ALL can be tarred with the same brush. By the way Kel, the 1000 years of darkness only has another 850 years to go - I'm sure you can work that out!

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

It's obvious you are the one telling the truth here Keith, and all those millions of scientists from all walks of life who spent decades researching these natural phenomena who are all liars. Those Cosmologists, astronomers, geologists, palaeontologists, biologists, biochemists and nuclear physicists... all liars. Because you know better than all those people put together...

"Posted by: BobC | December 6, 2008 4:49 AM

"I will ignore you because all you are interested in is insulting me."

"I never heard of you until you started calling me a hatemonger, Mr. Asshole."- directed at me

Then Mr. Asshole:
"Hey, i resent being lumped with this para-christian fucktard!"

Notice anything yet Wowbagger? Also note that i Did misspell Keith as "Keth", and i felt bad about such an obvious blunder. Why not make it funny? Re-introduce Mr. Asshole. That's right.

Posted by: RickrOll #629
"kids, all of it. The best part is Mr. Asshole being created specifically for a post called 'Let's not play this game.'"

Wowbagger- double fail. Thanks though.

I never said that ANY scientist was a liar - don't you READ my 'offerings'? If they sincerely believe in Evolution, they cannot be called 'liars' - but can still be 'wrong' (they are not omniscient). By the way, not all scientists accept Evolution - are they not entitled to have your 'respect' also? I used the word 'liar' in my list in exactly the same sense that you use it. Before I forget, 'abiogenesis' means: "the origination of living by non-living matter; SPONTANEOUS generation" (emphasis mine). As a scientist, do you not accept that life can only come from life?

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

I refused to acknowledge a dandelion as a 'relative'

Then you refused to acknowledge the truth. A dandelion is, in demonstrable fact, your relative (not even any scare-quotes necessary), and you shared a common ancestor about a billion years ago or so. Not sure why that fact should rob you of "hope" or anything else other than delusion, but there it is.

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

If they sincerely believe in Evolution, they cannot be called 'liars' - but can still be 'wrong' (they are not omniscient).

All those scientists for the last 100 years are saying they have evidence that the world is old and that evolution happened. All these scientists who have actually studied the data. There are theists and non-theists alike, fundamentalists and moderates. All these people who have worked on evidence to support not only evolution, but the old earth and universe. Whether a galaxy is 13 billion light years away is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of evidence. Just as evolution is, just as everything in science is. You are dismissing the evidence they have all studied and come to the same conclusion with. You are either calling them all incompetent or misleading.

KA:

Before I forget, 'abiogenesis' means: "the origination of living by non-living matter; SPONTANEOUS generation" (emphasis mine).

a·bio·genesis; genesis=coming into being; bio=living; a=negation.

The term means life from non-life, it says nothing about agency. You're confusing the modern term abiogenesis with the historical concept of spontaneous generation.

By John Morales (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

RickrOll, #1309

You want to try explaining all of that again? I've got no idea what the hell you're trying to say - what I'm currently viewing it as is an unprovoked attack on someone who was taking your side.

And if that's a road you wish to go down, I wish you luck - you're going to need it.

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Keith Allen,

Good grief! I clicked onto this site (again, foolish me!)

Gee, I think I found at least one combination of TWO words that made some sense amongst all the inepsies that you have dropped on this thread !

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Posted by: RickrOll #629
"kids, all of it. The best part is Mr. Asshole *being created* [emphasis added] specifically for a post called 'Let's not play this game.'"- look there if you need a little more clarification. Sorry about the confusion, my infifnitely prolonged friend.

For Randy, should he ever return:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg&amp;

I'd say about 50% of Rickr0ll's posts make little or no sense to me. I keep wanting to give the guy a chance, but reading his spasmodically formatted stuff makes me crazy even when I understand it. He's one of the few "friendlies" I have considered killfiling.

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Why do you all use 'handles' - is it because it's 'cool'? Sven DiMilo, you sure play fast and loose with the word 'fact'! Did you realise that YOUR 'handle' is an anagram of 'devil simon'? Mine is an anagram of 'hell intake', so maybe we'll meet there! Maybe we could all play THIS game! Just remembered - someone said that the Bible gives the EXACT value of pi as 3. The wording does not indicate 'exactness' - in any case, there is not one instance of a decimal fraction ANYWHERE in the Bible. If you are interested, the Bible does mention a dinosaur: Job 40:15-24.

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

I don't know if it's just me, but it seems the quality of the creotrolls has been deteriorating lately. When you take examples such as Keith Allen or Robert Byers, it looks like only the ones with the highest level of ignorance and stupidity have the confidence to come and comment here.

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Ah yes, the "behemoth." Tail(?) like a cedar, massive stones. Ornithischian or saurischian?

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

RickrOll: fair enough; I'll put it down a combination of an itchy trigger-finger and an inability to recall obscure cross-thread references.

But I recommend you withhold calls of 'fail' (or its variants) for the truly deserving - that's what set me off. There are times when I do warrant it (earlier in this thread there's a good example, courtesy of David Marjanović; however, I learned something as a result) but I don't think I did in my response to the fictitious 'Mr Asshole'.

Keith Allan, Liar Extraordinaire:
...be aware that in spite of the intellectual stagnation caused by Christianity, scientists advanced science and will continue to do so, despite the best efforts of antiscientific christians like me.

There. Fixed that for you - Liar.

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

By the way, not all scientists accept Evolution - are they not entitled to have your 'respect' also? - Keith Allan

No, emphatically not. They are perversely rejecting overwhelming evidence. They are thus betraying their obligation to pursue an honest scientific search for the truth. They are also implicitly if not explicitly accusing the overwhelming majority of relevant experts of gross incompetence or lying.

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

you sure play fast and loose with the word 'fact'!

Maybe you're right. Fell free to substitute "only plausible conclusion if you know anything about biology" if it makes you feel better.

Did you realise that YOUR 'handle' is an anagram of 'devil simon'?

Gosh, no, I didn't! Should I be concerned that that makes no sense whatsoever?

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 09 Dec 2008 #permalink

Clueless Keith Allan, Liar, wrote:

The wording does not indicate 'exactness' - in any case, there is not one instance of a decimal fraction ANYWHERE in the Bible.

Okay, no decimal fractions - but you do know that pi can be expressed as a vulgar fraction - 22/7 - don't you? Wow, your god is really dumb. How embarrassing for you.

If you are interested, the Bible does mention a dinosaur: Job 40:15-24.

It also mentions unicorns, giants, cockatrices, dragons and satyrs - amongst other things. What ever happened to those, Keith?

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Wowbugger - you're a hoot - liar-railng again, I see! Why do you assume that all Christians are anti-science? That's the same as my assuming that all scientists are atheists - they are not (or is that another of my 'lies'?). You need to learn more about history, instead of theorising about the impossible - many, many monks were devoted not only to God, but to science, and the 'past' has seen some great work done by Bible-believing scientists. The main reason for so many scientists being atheists today is pride - they think THEY are gods.

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

We got another live one.
An abject cretin who, in #1307 and #1309, performs a veritable Gish Gallop in a five-horse Yankee of laziness, ignorance, dishonesty, stupidity, and hubris.

Wherever we look, we see OBVIOUS design

No, we don't, you do. It's called confirmation bias.

Chaos Theory seeks to 'find' ORDER in 'apparent' chaos.

No, chaos theory mathematically describes the behaviour of nonlinear dynamic systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions or perturbations.

In Mathematics, we do not need to prove the obvious

There is no mathematical definition of "obvious". What is regarded as obvious is subjective, as anyone who's ever muttered "not to me it's not" under his breath in a math class knows. If you regard 1+1=2 as obvious, it proves only your own mathematical shallowness -- the proof is anything but.

- such 'things' are regarded as axiomatic.

In mathematics, axioms are regarded as axiomatic; by definition, nothing else is or can be.

In any case, why would anyone play your game of "Prove it!"?

Only one person other than you said "Prove it" in this thread, and it was in a much different context. Nobody asked for "proof", they asked for empirical evidence, which you have not provided, from which we may conclude that you don't have it, and may infer that it doesn't exist.

You have already admitted that you cannot PROVE Evolution

Of course not, no scientific theory can be proven. Expecting a scientific theory to be proven is a shibboleth for the scientifically illiterate douchenozzle.

I have also admitted to being an ex-atheist, but I NEVER accepted Evolution

A rare combination, which usually only occurs in people who become atheists via a dogmatic rejection of god(s), rather than as a consequence of metaphysical naturalism.

I refused to acknowledge a dandelion as a 'relative'.

Why would you do that? You earlier distinguished between natural selection and evolution, and claimed to accept the latter. Evolution, in this sense, is simply the mountains of empirical evidence of common ancestry, but now you tell us you reject that. From your own mouth, you are a liar or a fraud. Your choice.

I gave up atheism because it was a 'dead-end' - in EVERY sense.

Vacuous drivel.

Hope is a wonderful driving force, encouraging us to extend our minds in every way possible

Vapid platitude.

be aware that Christianity advanced science.

Arrant nonsense. A belief system cannot advance a methodology and body of knowledge. Science was advanced by individuals, many of whom were Christian.

There have been/are/will be many who profess to be 'Christians', but just because some have 'used' it in a despicable way, that doesn't mean that ALL can be tarred with the same brush.

Nobody seeks to say that "all Christians" are anything, but the central tenets of Christianity are utterly and obviously morally corrupt, repugnant, and evil. If you choose to subscribe to such immoral doctrine, you must accept responsibility for that choice.

I never said that ANY scientist was a liar

PZ Myers is a scientist. You called him a liar.

By the way, not all scientists accept Evolution

All but a negligible minority of biologists fully accept that evolution (in the sense of fossil/genetic and other empirical evidence of common ancestry) is a fact, and that the modern synthesis of natural selection, kin selection, etc. represents the best theoretical explanation for that body of evidence.

are they not entitled to have your 'respect' also?

No, the dissent of a computer scientist or a physicist from standard biology is to be accorded no respect.

'abiogenesis' means: "the origination of living by non-living matter; SPONTANEOUS generation"

It hasn't meant that since the 19th century, the last time any of you creationist retards opened a book.

As a scientist, do you not accept that life can only come from life?

No.

PS. 22/7 is only an APPROXIMATION for pi, as is 3.
Mathematics = FAIL.

By Keith Allen (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

If you regard 1+1=2 as obvious, it proves only your own mathematical shallowness

*sheepishly raises hand*

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Keith Troll the stupid liar,

If you are interested, the Bible does mention a dinosaur: Job 40:15-24.

No, it mentions a behemoth. Nowhere a "Dinosaur".

Moreover, it mentions that said behemoth :

21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

Not exactly difficult to understand that said behemoth was an elephant !
Only a complete nutcase would think said description refers to a dinosaur.

Keith Allen, why do you chose to be so stupid ?

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Well Wowbagger, you may not have learned anything, but i have! NEVER make jokes at 3 in the morning. No one likes a smartass, especially an insomniac smart-ass. I can understand why Sven would killfile me.

The main reason for so many scientists being atheists today is pride - they think THEY are gods.

What is that even supposed to mean? Clueless from A to Y.

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Rickr0ll: You're not dead yet!

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Keith Allan, Liar, bravely defending his incompetent god, wrote:

PS. 22/7 is only an APPROXIMATION for pi, as is 3. Mathematics = FAIL

And yet my approximation is far closer to the actual value of pi than what your god thought it was; ergo, you're calling mathematics fail on your own god. Bravo!

You'd better hope the atheists are right, Keith. Between your refusal to follow the commandment about bearing false witness and your most recent faux pas of calling him out on a mathematics fail, you really aren't going to be popular with the sky-fairy. While I know you're very bright I'm going to assume you're familiar enough with the old testament to know what he does to people who displease his angry, monstrous ass.

Better watch your back, Keith. Is that brimstone I can smell?

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Er, correction on my post #1334 - I wrote 'While I know you're very bright...'; obviously, that's a mistake. It should say 'While I know you're not very bright...'

By Wowbagger (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Thanks, John. A fine example of my brain's apparent incompatibility with math. *shrug* I did instantly recognize the Star Trek reference though.

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Sven,

What is that even supposed to mean?

Well, the only logical conclusion I can think of is that Keith Troll thinks these Scientists don't believe in their own existence.

Not that it makes any sense whatsoever, but has Keith Troll said anythng so far that made sense ?

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Not that it makes any sense whatsoever, but has Keith Troll said anythng so far that made sense ?

Do you need to ask? Can you ever expect more from a creotroll than regurgitating a fetid chyme of vapid platitudes and vacuous tropes?

Not that it makes any sense whatsoever, but has Keith Troll said anythng so far that made sense ?

Those rare glimpses of coherence were met with utter falsehoods. Either he was talking shit or flinging it.

Bah, miss the fun. Keith presented nothing except ignorance, no facts/evidence whatsoever. He isn't going to convince us, since we don't take the words of liars to be true. By the way Keith, you aren't even a good mathematician. Fail all around. You might get somewhere when you quit forcing facts to fit beliefs, and start changing beliefs to fit facts. The former method is religion, the latter science.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Emmett,

An abject cretin who, in #1307 and #1309, performs a veritable Gish Gallop in a five-horse Yankee of laziness, ignorance, dishonesty, stupidity, and hubris.
...
Can you ever expect more from a creotroll than regurgitating a fetid chyme of vapid platitudes and vacuous tropes?

I must say I'm impressed. Every time, you manage to come up with a new one ;-)

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Hmmm....let's see.....Ken Hamm is a "Christian!"

That says all it has to say about his intellect.

By Bob Russell (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Damn it....god made my "M" key stickkkkkkk....Hamm should be Ham.....like pork...

By Bob Russell (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Toby Keith Allen at 1284,

It's ironic that you all point out typo's...

I'd be happy to oblige:
"It's" implies ownership. It should be "Its".
"you all" is not a valid form. It should be "all of you".
"typo's" - Same deal. Should be "typos".

It's funny's hows y'all redneck's wags yours broken's fingers.

By Ryan F Stello (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

Whoops,

Keith was right on the first one, by golly.

By Ryan F Stello (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink

You dont own me,by Dusty Springfield,is a nice song.

Keith was right on the first one, by golly.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

By Nerd of Redhead (not verified) on 10 Dec 2008 #permalink