Hovind's followers, however, are still treading the long and candy-sprinkled road of self-delusion. I've been sent a letter pleading for help in his case — they want to take it to the Supreme Court. I will be very surprised if this gets anywhere.
Greetings from Adrienne Gilbert in Kentucky...
An alarming situation with Dr. Kent Hovind of Creation Science Evangelism is putting every American's first amendment rights in jeopardy. I have been following this case since its beginning, so I wanted to share with you briefly what needs to be done and why.
Summary of situation: Dr. Kent Hovind is in prison for practicing his first amendment right of free religion, and his case needs to go to the Supreme Court. We need everyone united together to overcome the oppression we're facing.
Summary of needs:
$25,000-$35,000 in the next 2-3 weeks
lots of publicity about the problems with this case
Summary of action:
listen to conference call
spread the word
First, visit Dr. Hovind's website, drdino.com, for an explanation of the situation.
This explains the ministry, what has happened, and what the plans are so far. It also gives the conference call schedule, which will give you the opportunity to really dig deep into the issue and understand why Dr. Hovind is innocent and his case is full of lies. The most shocking to me is at the end of the trial when the judge changed the law saying "more than $10,000" to read "less than $10,000." Multiple horrors like that stack up to a case that needs to be heard and overturned by the Supreme Court.
Second, make the conference call. (Next call is Monday, March 16, 7:00 p.m. CST, check http://drdino.com/legalupdate.php for updates.)
Besides just learning this case and what we need to do, it will be an amazing time of digging into our government and our Constitution beyond anything you ever imagined.
Third, follow the Lord's leading.
We are up against spiritual oppression, so there is no textbook-format to follow to make this situation work out. God knows it and can tell each of us what to do.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me any time. I am a super-busy person already, but this project has to take priority because it is a 90-day window to save our freedom. So please pass this along to anyone else who can help as well!
Blessings, Peace, Freedom,
The entire sad defense story is built on lies. Hovind is not in jail for practicing his religion — he's in jail for tax evasion. If you read his legal update, you will discover that he has several feeble arguments that will not hold up. He claims that he was advised by legitimate lawyers that he did not have to pay taxes, and that he did not knowingly structure cash transactions to avoid reporting requirements. Unfortunately, he lives in a country where everyone knows of the 15 April deadline for filing their taxes, where tax cheats are publicly excoriated (especially by the right wing, of which he is a member), where it is well known that tax fraud is an avenue for arresting criminals — Al Capone, for instance — and where we have a prominent public institution, the IRS, which is inescapably well known, again especially among right-wingers, who love to shake their fists at it. When you get a lawyer who throws around terms like "subornation of false muster" and claims that taxation of any kind is unconstitutional, in complete defiance of the obvious operational reality surrounding him, you should know that you're not working rationally (although, of course, Hovind's entire professional life is wrapped up in denying reality, so perhaps this is no surprise.) And finally, Hovind and his wife made a whole series of bank withdrawals that were just slightly under the $10,000 limit that would trigger reporting of the activity. They knew. They knew very well what they were doing.
So sure, pray, pray, pray. It's a complete waste of time, and I encourage the Hovinds to engage in that activity all they want. That con artist has received the punishment he deserves; sadly, it looks like his son, Eric Hovind, is planning to follow in his footsteps — I suspect because he isn't smart enough to do anything productive with his life.
How come he wasn't featured in Expelled?
At least he really did suffer. If not for speech--well, none of the whining "persecuted" ever did.
Still, I like how the varying sects of creationism have competing martyr tales, which the other sects will not acknowledge.
Usually, when I need a lawyer, I pay out of my own pocket.
But, next time, I'm gonna see if the members of my church will pony up for it. Oh, wait. My "flock" is just 2 horses and 2 dogs. No rich deluded old people who fear death.
"spiritual oppression?' I thought us human beings put him in prison.
You mean they can't get the guy out with just praying?
I guess they need to prey on the ignorant and stupid for money even though it won't make any difference. I guess he needs to keep his slimeball shysters in their shark snin suits and eating caviar.
We'll pray and pray, and pray some more,
To open up his prison door;
We'll pray all day and pray all night
And not give up our prayerful fight;
We'll pray all night and pray all day
Till God hears what we have to say;
We'll pray on hill and pray in dale
For God to let him out of jail;
We'll pray in dale and pray on hill
That Hovind's freedom is God's will;
We'll pray until our throats are hoarse
For God to do the work, of course;
We'll pray--and if you think that's funny,
Look: it sure beats sending money.
Hey, I'm all for the enriching of legal experts at the expense of bigots and nutcases. If they didn't spend the money on a lost-cause legal defense, they'd be dropping the money on "Say No To Gh3ys" campaigns or sinking it into more press time for James Dobson and Tony Perkins.
If a few more fundie freedom fighters have to go unemployed at their "charities" when more donation money gets sopped up and they are required to integrate with the rest of society by getting real jobs, three cheers to that.
Dr. Kent Hovind's oppressors have to decide whether they want to live in fear or learn to live in love. If you don't agree with this I question your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
(please tell me I don't have to explain the references)
I think it's a waste of money to lock non-violent offenders up in jail. Make Hovind pay the taxes he owes plus a substantial penalty for late/non-payment. If he doesn't have the money to pay the original amount owed plus penalties, garnish any money he earns until his death or it's paid off. If at the time of his death, it's not paid in full -- feed 20 of the most annoying Christians to hungry lions on broadcast TV.
From the CSE website:
"This recent decision is a huge disappointment for those who realize the many questions of law involved in the case and who have prayed so fervently for the case to be overturned."
The last round of prayers didn't seem to have any effect on the Circuit Court judge. Pray more sinners, pray more!
I'll be praying along with Cuttlefish.
According to the update on his site, it was the Devil, rather than the IRS, who put him inside.
Aww - and him such a god-fearing and righteous man and all. How come this deity goes all powerless when one of his most loyal servants is so cruelly treated?
It's clearly a test of faith along Jobian lines. Hovind should bite the bullet and do his time without whining, so De Lawd will see his devotion in all its glory.
It's not a binary choice, they might actually spend it on something worthwhile. I'd rather the legal charlatans be put out of work; they're worse in some ways to the clowns of the religious circus.
I'm with NewEnglandBob. Why isn't praying the only thing on the list? You would think that ol' High-and-Mighty would be able to make some money poof from out of nowhere for Kent, and that he could use the little radio he has in every Xtian's brain to spread the word. Is God too busy to help his trusted minion Kent out or what?
Maybe his followers just need to be praying harder. Yeah, that's it. Stay inside. Don't go anywhere. Don't eat or drink anything. Just pray.
They're crazy. They're all batshit crazy. I've made up my mind. Anyone warping reality, even slightly, to fit their make-believe magic version is stone-cold crazy, and should be approached with caution.
They lie, cheat, and steal, to maintain their insane reality.
I suspect last years unsuccessful attempt at a jailbreak won't do him any favors.
We should all urge creationists of all stripes to pray, pray,pray . . . .
The more time they spend praying, the less time they have for mischief.
listen to conference call
I wonder what would happen if 3,000 pharyngula fans joined the call. Just to listen. It'd really suck if they were using one of those services that bills based on the number of call participants.
OT, but related in terms of criminal stupidity:
Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse
An excellent choice of wording. Chief among those lies is the claim that Hovind is innocent. Unfortunately for him, the government's case is built on solid facts and established law.
Hovind indeed consulted this lawyer.
He has a history of consorting with criminals.
Well, I suggest they put all their efforts into prayer.
OTOH, Hovind in jail is GOD SWILL! How dare they try to circumvent Teh Great Plan of the One True Lawd! It's HERESY, I says! Heresy and shenanigans!
I'd get my broom, but any omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent gawd has it all well in hand wink wink nudge nudge.
@9: Even if it's a waste of money, it's HILARIOUS. I'm willing to pay for good entertainment.
There are a lot of similarities between creation "science" and what we call "tax protester" arguments in the United States.
Both have been repeatedly shot down by the relevant experts (scientists, on the one hand, and the courts, on the other). And yet, people keep making the same frivolous arguments over and over again.
The tax protester-related articles at Wikipedia are an excellent source if you're interested in this particular brand of delusional thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_arguments
The editors there (particularly one going by the name Famspear) fend off the crazies in the talk pages like nobody's business. Reading those exchanges is a lot like reading a creationist getting stomped on here at Pharyngula.
Kent Hovind was an idiot. If he had just pleaded ignorant guilty and thrown himself on the mercy of the court, he would have just had a civil conviction plus payback and fines.
Instead he played the tax resistor card all the way down the line, obstructed justice, lied, and generally did everything possible to tick off the cops, the IRS, and the courts.
These are the actions of a sociopath who is genuinely not very bright.
I'll try again - this time with parentheses included in the html tag.
Hovind indeed consulted this lawyer.
He has a history of consorting with criminals
Since gawd is omnipotent, it appears he wanted Hovind in jail. Praise the Lawd!
@21: That's funny, I could've sworn he consulted this lawyer:
1. Send money.
3. Goto 1.
Ken is my sunshine, my only sunshine.
He makes me happy all night and day.
You'll never know, boys, how much I love him.
Please don't take my Kenny away.
Inmate #6000 (approximately) FCI Edgefield
"Practical steps to fight evolution..."
Kinda says it all, dunnit?
Does Dr. Dino still offer his $10,000 "challenge"? There's a good chunk of the "needed" money right there....
Why isn't praying the only thing on the list?
Because these people know that prayer doesn't do any good, but they cannot admit it to themselves. They also know that Hovind is a thief and a liar, but they can't admit to themselves that they let him con them, either.
Speaking of creationist kooks, take a look at this email I got just now:
"BEN STEIN EXPELLED AS COMMENCEMENT SPEAKER"
People who refuse to pay taxes are leeches on society. They refuse to pay while continuing to benefit from other people who pay their taxes. Maybe he's just to naive to realize how roads, schools, and police are paid for. Does he think that governments gets money for these things by just printing more of it?
This is kind of like Spiritual Monopoly(©) where, when you land on Go To Jail, instead of rolling the dice and making pairs to get out, you first pray to Jebus to smite the evildoers who unjustly landed you in jail, then roll the dice. If you make a pair, Jebus gets you out of jail.
If that doesn't work, you ask the other players for money to get you out.
PZ has posted this video before. But for those who are new to the party, here is A Tribute To Kent Hovind. NSFW
Except for the rape jokes, this is very well done.
Amazing, isn't it. The baby jesus needs more money. What happened to the concept of omnipotence - oh yeah, it's logically impossible!
I am sad that Dr Dino is in the slammer. He is one of my all time favorite TV nuts. If you have never seen Kent on Creation in the 21st Century with Dr Carl Baugh you have missed some top notch nuttiness. We need the voice of Kent top be heard.
FREE DOCTOR KENT HOVIND NOW!!!
The two cents worth of opinion I posted on this blog can be contributed to the lawyers fund to free Dr Dino.
Amazing, isn't it. The baby jesus needs more money. What happened to the concept of omnipotence - oh yeah, it's logically impossible!
I went to a couple of Kent Hovind talks while I was in college, taking notes and trying to pay serious attention to all that he said, implied and lied. My notes can be summed up by the place where I wrote "EVIL" in bold, all-caps, and underlined it three times.
I like how the letter calls him "Doctor" every time.
Um, yeah. The lawyers gave him bad advice about money, so now we are supposed to give the lawyers more money?
How about the people who support Brother Kent keep praying, the rational people give this mess more publicity, and the lawyers go whistle?
Taran, that is old news. But what is really funny is the deep discounts for the sale of his DVD that is on that page.
Well, we already know that Hovind and other IDiots like him will twist and turn and bend the facts completely back on themselves, so this is no surprise. Hopefully the US justice system will quickly realise that anything he says is a sham and ignore him.
It's always nice to be reminded about KH and this lovely song (Kent Hovind: Fucktard):
Flea, I beat you to it. See #37.
Hovind was actually convicted for failing to collect payroll taxes, not for failure to pay his own personal taxes.
Also, he's asking for about $200K in total for his appeal effort to SCOTUS, which far exceeds what it should actually cost, even if it goes to argument, which it won't.
If you go to that legal update site, you will find a link to the brief filed on behalf of Hovind with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. What a piece of crap. Here are some highlights:
Over Mr. Hovind’s objections, the district court made a finding of a tax loss of $604,874.87.
[The Court ordered] ... restitution in the amount of $604,874.87 to be paid to the IRS
Although Mr. Hovind had prior disputes with the IRS, it had to do only with his personal/individual income taxes.
Even the district court found that Mr. Hovind believed and told others “there was no law that required anyone to pay taxes in this country.”
Mr. Hovind has not disobeyed any law or duty that he knows of and does not know what the law required.
The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system. Cheek, 498 U.S. at 199. “The proliferation of statutes and regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the average citizen to know and comprehend the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws. Congress has accordingly softened the impact of the common law presumption by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses.
Defendant objects in that the Internal Revenue Service cannot be construed as a victim. …. “‘Victim’ means an individual.” CR 32(a)(2). The IRS cannot be a “victim.” It is well settled that the “Internal Revenue Service” has no capacity to sue or be sued, and the real party in interest in this proceeding is the “United States of America.” … Thus, the IRS cannot be a party to any court action. Only a party to an action can obtain a judgment which it can collect or later enforce. Since the IRS cannot be a party, it cannot obtain a judgment in its name, and therefore it cannot be a victim either. The ordering of restitution was legal error.
Appeal dismissed. Thanks for coming out. Anyone who donates money for further appeals is as crazy as a shithouse rat.
Wait. I thought religious/political conservatives were such high falutin' patriots. Seems to me then, the patriotic thing to do would be for Kent to serve his country by paying his fine and doing his time... like a man.
The funniest thing is not that prayer is not the only thing on the list of "to do's" , but, that it is actually second to "send money" !! That sends the message that money is more important and more effective than praying, not that I disagree, but then I'm not a christian.
Fuck Hovind, look at this: http://www.history.com/content/predatorx/predator-x-videos
and enjoy real reality!
Maybe someday Hovind will be joined at Club Fed by tax cheat Tim Geithner.
This is the one part of the case I disagree with. If there's a $10K limit, there should *be* a $10K limit.
I don't move that kind of money around often, but when I do I avoid moving more than $10K around just because it's none of the guvmint's business that I do.
One technical note on Dr Myers' otherwise-excellent summary:
The "structuring of transactions" charges did not involve failure to pay on 15 April, as his summary implies. Instead, it involves reporting of cash withdrawals. The IRS requires that banks report every cash withdrawal of $10k or larger within a 24-hour span from the same account to the IRS, as a means of helping track income. It is a crime to "structure" one's transactions to evade that $10k floor. Once or twice is ok, particularly if one actually only needed, say, $9,500 to buy a used car. A methodical series of transactions, though, such as the (if I recall correctly) 78 proved in the government's indictment -- all just short of that $10k limit -- is "structuring" and unlawful.
Since Hovind admitted that that's exactly what he did, he's screwed. These rules were initially established to try to track drug dealers (making that comparison to Capone even more appropriate!), and Hovind's habit of sending minions to each of several banks and withdrawing between $9k and $10k on payday to cover the payroll... well, that sure sounds like support for trafficking in illicit substances to me!
Keep in mind that the "structuring" charges are in addition to more-traditional tax fraud. Hovind also got nailed for three different varieties of that.
PZ, how did you end up getting a copy of this? Do you sign up for creo mailing lists just to get blog fodder, or do creos sign you up for them just to annoy you, or did someone actually think, "hey, I bet PZ Myers would be interested in helping Dr. Dino!"?
I prayed to Darwin's ghost to spring him. Does that count?
Yes, they were guilty of the exact same thing of course.
Eric @ 9--he apparently threatened IRS investigators.
Check out the sidebar.
To # 50. So what was that, some kind of pliosaur? in a separate but curiously coincidental discovery, it turns out that the smallest therapod dinosaur ever found turned up somewhere in Canada (weighed about 10 lbs.). It seems that AOL produces more interesting paleontological findings than Pharyngula which keeps wasting its time on such irrelevant historical figures as Kent Hovind and the pope.
Janine - Thanks for that link. Finally, I got that damned narwhal song out of my head.
As a bank teller, you are required to report people who are structuring deposits or withdrawals of just less than 10,000 dollars. Usually it is used to track down drug dealers and terrorists but Dr. Hovind will work just fine. And, structuring reveals guilt because one knows that if they conduct regular business and do not worry about the 10,000 marker than they will have to face the tax man.
"This is the one part of the case I disagree with. If there's a $10K limit, there should *be* a $10K limit."
Except that the Hovinds made multiple $10K withdrawals in a single day on multiple occasions specifically to circumnavigate this law. Plus the law anticipated such maneuvering and made that illegal too.
Yes, they were guilty of the exact same thing of course.
Called tax evasion
Is anyone else severely unnerved and annoyed by the use of the phrase "prison camp" on his "legal update" page and most of the documents his organization produces?
Don't invoke memories of Auschwitz, you asshole. You're in a minimum security prison with comfort and conveniences half the world doesn't enjoy.
And yet the wingnuts can't seem to explain how they plan to pay for their wars, if not with taxes.
You're an idiot if you think the cases are even remotely the same.
You're an idiot if you think the cases are even remotely the same.
I don't think they are the same. Geithner is supposed to be a financial whiz-kid, knowledgeable about the tax code, and should therefore be held to a higher standard. After all, if he's qualified to head the IRS, shouldn't he know what the rest of us are expected to know?
And he was convicted of Tax Evasion when?
Does anyone else think that Hovind really wanted to go to jail so he could get butt-fucked every night and come out of it saying that he was forced to, and really isn't gay?
C.E. Petit @#53 (and others)
Thank you for the explanation. I'll have to reconsider my position.
And he was convicted of Tax Evasion when?
Around the same time OJ Simpleton was convicted of murder. I guess that means you believe OJ was innocent! Come to think of it, Adolf Hitler was never convicted of anything either.
Geithner, on the other hand, like his fellow-traveler Tom Daschle, paid up when his "mistake" was discovered. Would he have done so if not in the running for Treasury Secretary? I doubt it.
Hovind: Okay guys! I'm on my belly, chewin' my pillow and I haven't got all night y'know!
It does seem rather fitting that pseudoscientist "Dr" Hovind would hire a pseudolawyer to defend him.
I guess his attempts to "debate" with the judge didn't go over so well, though. Odd, that.
How come Hovind and his followers can't accept that jail time is just part of god's mysterious plan, and that by trying to get him out, they are doing the work of the devil? It's so obvious.
But no you are just asserting intent here without knowing a damn thing about it. Hovind we know for a fact was intentionally trying to skirt the tax laws by illegal means.
You've made a strong case. Good job.
Sure, I'll pray for Hovind!
Of course, I'm an Orthodox Nelsonmuntzist. Our form of prayer is to point and laugh at people determined to make public fools of themselves.
But no you are just asserting intent here without knowing a damn thing about it. Hovind we know for a fact was intentionally trying to skirt the tax laws by illegal means.
How do we know this for a fact? Telepathy? An intent-o-meter?
You've made a strong case. Good job.
Agreed. Good job avoiding responding to me pointing out your "he wasn't convicted, therefore he's innocent" gambit.
well, *now* i do. thanks for that =)
So Kent Hovind's appeal rests in part on being gullible enough to take advice from an 'expert' promoting a tax fraud scheme.
This is the same Kent Hovind who testifies: "Modern science textbooks are wrong about the age of the earth and the place dinosaurs hold in history. Dinosaurs were created with man and were on the ark with Noah."
My irony meter has now imploded with a sweet little 'foop!' and formed a microscopic singularity.
And you still haven't satisfied the three pronged test for willful tax evasion instead of bumbling omission.
Found guilty by a jury of his peers after a sober analysis of evidence and given a chance to defend his actions. It's the legal system. Deal with it.
Or arrested. Or charged with a crime. Merely asked to pay the money back, which was done. Of course, law-and-order conservatives can't stand the merest whiff of wrongdoing (in a Democrat) even if they don't arise to the level of criminal activity.
Meanwhile, outing an undercover CIA agent is an entirely understandable action when looked at in the broader context of keeping the nation safe. For example.
And you still haven't satisfied the three pronged test for willful tax evasion instead of bumbling omission.
So someone who commits "bumbling omission" should be in charge of the IRS? And what the hell "three-pronged test" is that? Does it have anything to do with a ground pin?
By the way, I'm not a court of law, and therefore not bound by any requirement to presume innocence.
Found guilty by a jury of his peers after a sober analysis of evidence and given a chance to defend his actions. It's the legal system. Deal with it.
And of course, juries are NEVER, EVER, EVER wrong, right DY? Does that mean you, like the esteemed Rev, believe OJ to be innocent?
Or arrested. Or charged with a crime.
Yep, just like Adolf Hitler. He must have been innocent too, right DY?
Merely asked to pay the money back, which was done.
Demonstrate that it would have been done had Mr. Geithner not been under consideration for Treasury Secretary. Do the same for Tom Daschle wrt HHS Secretary.
Of course, law-and-order conservatives can't stand the merest whiff of wrongdoing (in a Democrat) even if they don't arise to the level of criminal activity.
Who says I'm a "law and order conservative"? Talking out of your ass again DY? BTW I do watch Law & Order fairly frequently, though I'm not a conservative.
Meanwhile, outing an undercover CIA agent is an entirely understandable action when looked at in the broader context of keeping the nation safe.
Bzzzzzzzzzt. Try again. Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. You might know this if you got your information from somewhere other than Daily Kos or DU.
The CIA confirmed that she was covert at the time. Or are you disputing that too?
following up from my post at #83:
I can't help blogwhoring a bit. Back in the days, I wrote a blog post about Kent Hovind's far-right connections - they are the ones where he got his tax evasion schemes from.
Ah, yes, murder, genocide, and tax evasion. Always an apt comparison.
BTW, Godwin, you jackass. Look it up.
The fact that "dr. dino" is in prison might actually be the best single piece of evidence I've ever seen for the existence of a personal god. Of course it can't be true or Ham, Robertson, Haggard, Phelps and the rest of the bunch would be there with him...or we have one hell of a slacker god.
Something's awry here: isn't the new troll supposed to pop up after an existing one gets whacked?
Although I've been an avowed atheist for over 20 years I've only recently begun following miscreant blogs such as this :)
Hovind was a small blip in my atheist web indoctrination but with this post I did some searching. Being the type that prefers media (YouTube and the like) as opposed to sorting through blog posts I searched for audio video examples of Hovind and pretty much the only debate I found was Hovind vs Shermer. Two things struck me, he's one hell of good evangelist and Shermer is one hell of a poor debater. If I understand it correctly the horsemen refuse to debate people such as Hovind and that to me is sad. It's precisely this type of sanctimony that needs a Dawkins to sort out his nonsense or a Hitchens to bring him bloodied to his knees. Why do our standard bearers avoid this? I'm concerned only because the Hovinds of the world hold sway over people whom I truly believe could be brought to sensibility and understanding.
isn't the new troll supposed to pop up after an existing one gets whacked?
It's come up killfiled for me, so it must be an established troll that I'd got bored with earlier. Unless, that is, the latest edition does the killing in advance ... Now that would be a useful feature.
I love the fact that they ask for MONEY first , and prayer second.
Shows where their faith lies.
I can't be the only one to feel sorry for them here. It is indeed a great shame that they have no book to provide them with basic instruction in the ways of the world.
jeeze, you could have warned use earlier. these conference calls would have been fun to be a part of.
Who said anything about his qualifications for Sec of treasury? Are you ignoring the actual argument to make a political point? Show his actions satisfy the test for the legal definition guilt in the case of Tax Evasion.
And the IRS audit that brought the issue to light was in 2006.
Was he in consideration for Treasury sec then (you don't "run" for treasury sec despite your statement in #70)?
Awww. That's cute.
Mr. Hovind believed and told others “there was no law that required anyone to pay taxes in this country.”
"Whether or not you believe in it, it believes in you!"
PZ, how great that would have been for you repeat the conference call crash. The note did seem to leave open the possibility of future conference calls, though.
For what it's worth, I will offer up prayer...
Hovind was an idiot and is a sociopath.
If he had just paid the money back and not alienated the IRS, the police, the courts, and everyone else, he most likely would have gotten a civil fine and no jail time.
When he stonewalled and threw in with the tax resistors crowd, he made everything a lot worse.
I knew someone running a new business who didn't pay payroll taxes. It wasn't even his fault, his accountant forgot to pay them. The IRS set up a payment schedule and told him if he missed any payments they were going to shut him down.
personal addendum to #95:
"Reality is that which, if you stop believing in it, does not go away."
"The only things certain in life are death and taxes."
You really should check out the free Hovind site. (www.freehovind.com) There is even a forum (http://forum.freehovind.com/browse). There are a few that truly can't accept Hovind is lying.
The only bad thing about Hovind's conviction and jail sentence was timing - it happened just weeks before his planned trip to South Africa, where a few of us had been waiting for _years_ for the opportunity to heckle him, or at least throw fruit. Or monkeys.
Did Young Hovind not pull his weight and cover for "Dr." Dad?
Mewonders if said YYEC upheld the remainder of the alleged 700+ speech/yr schedule.
Apologies for blogwhoring, but with Hovind, there's so much more krazy to enjoy. I mean, he's not just your common-or-garden god-bothering evangelist, as I discovered when I researched him a while back: http://www.unattributable.com/2009/01/render-unto-caesar-reverend-crazy…
In fact, Kent Hovind subscribes to a grab-bag of conspiracy theories. There seems to be nary a one he doesn’t believe in, from chemtrails to 9/11, and many of them are centered around the U.S. government. For example, Hovind believes that the cyanide-releasing compound Laetrile is a cure for cancer and argues that the US government is conspiring to suppress the cure.
On his radio program, Truth Radio, he has said that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks, and that a “lot of folks were told not to come to work.” Naturally, he also believes the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by the government, stating that, “Did you know the Federal Government blew up their own building to blame it on the militias and to get rid of some people that weren’t cooperating with the system?”
Hovind is also a self-described cryptozoologist, which is just the posh name for people who believe in, and hunt for, creatures such as the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, the Yeti, and, my personal favorite, the Mongolian Death Worm.
"Come to think of it, Adolf Hitler was never convicted of anything either".
Perhaps because he was dead at the time!
Godwin and strawman at the same time.
Or is it the mind boggles?
Clearly, not posted by PZ.
This security hole should be fixed.
Nice try. No typekey, failbot.
Did you forget the 9th Commandment? (or 8th, if you're Catholic. Funny how God can't even number things consistently.)
Hm,surprised we still have that security problem.
SB needs to get off their asses.
Kneel before Zod!
Poor Hovind. Unlike the dirtbags who go to prison and then "find jesus" and get a getoutofjail free card. Hovind doesn't have that possibility. You can't claim to be a reformed sinner when you went in the can as already "reformed". The wanker will have to do his full sentence.
Come to think of it, Adolf Hitler was never convicted of anything either. - ???
I have no knowledge of Geithner's activities, but if you're going to make stupid comparisons, make some effort to get them right. Hitler was convicted of treason in 1924, for his part in the "Beer Hall Putsch" of 1923; he served 8 months of his 5-year sentence, and wrote Mein Kampf while in his (very comfortable) prison. Nor was this his first conviction: in 1921 he served a month in prison as a result of disrupting a rival political meeting.
Mongolian Death Worm?!
Holy crap, that's awesome!
A metre long worm that spews sulfuric acid and kills by electrocution? Count me in!
There are some great pictures online of these things.
Hey, if an earthquake doesn't collapse his prison walls, then obviously he's no St Paul and God wants him to stay in jail.
What does god need with a starship?
He was practicing his religion...
It's just that one of the tenets involved tax evasion.
Because God wants money.
Lots and lots of money for His favored servant(s) to hoard and spend for Him as they saw fit...
have no knowledge of Geithner's activities, but if you're going to make stupid comparisons, make some effort to get them right. Hitler was convicted of treason in 1924, for his part in the "Beer Hall Putsch" of 1923; he served 8 months of his 5-year sentence, and wrote Mein Kampf while in his (very comfortable) prison. Nor was this his first conviction: in 1921 he served a month in prison as a result of disrupting a rival political meeting.
Was he convicted of anything related to WWII? You know---those death camps/genocide/bombing of foreign countries? I was going to include that last clause because I thought some of you would be intelligent enough to understand that was what I meant (as opposed to being wilfully obtuse). Evidently, I over-estimated your intelligence.
You're a liar; and not a very good one.
Show his actions satisfy the test for the legal definition guilt in the case of Tax Evasion.
You don't get to claim ignorance of the tax code (or lapse of memory) while simultaneously presenting yourself as an expert qualified to head up the federal government department in charge of tax collection and enforcement. To do so reveals either dishonesty or gross incompetence, especially after he signed a document acknowledging that he was responsible for paying his own Medicare and SocSec taxes.
Of course, he tried the time-honored tactic of throwing his accountant under the bus, implying that Geithner himself is unaware of who should pay what taxes.
Any way you slice it, he isn't qualified for the job.
you don't "run" for treasury sec despite your statement in #70
I never claimed he "ran" for Treasury Secretary, only that he was "in the running". In the language known as English, this means "under consideration for". Got reading comprehension?
You're a liar; and not a very good one.
Evidence? Or is name-calling all you've got?
Upon first glance at #105, I was thinking that PZ had pulled off another conference call crash; but a second glance dashed my hopes like a baby against a rock. Methinks that should be added to the list of High Crimes and Misdemeanors as god-morphing/god-puppetry (if not God-morphing/God-puppetry).
There's ample evidence, in the existence of the Nuremburg trials, that he would in fact have been tried for such crimes, and presumably convicted, if he hadn't committed suicide in order to evade capture. So your example doesn't work, does it?
...b/c of who was morphed/puppetted, that is, not necessarily b/c of what was typed.
There's ample evidence, in the existence of the Nuremburg trials, that he would in fact have been tried for such crimes, and presumably convicted, if he hadn't committed suicide in order to evade capture. So your example doesn't work, does it?
The original argument was:
Found guilty by a jury of his peers after a sober analysis of evidence and given a chance to defend his actions.
I don't see any woulds, coulds, ifs or presumablys in there anywhere. The argument was that guilt = found guilty. Therefore, by modus tollens, not found guilty = no guilt.
By the way, there was also "ample evidence" that OJ Simpleton killed his ex-wife. Tell me how that worked out.
I don't think anybody is arguing anything about his qualifications; this just has nothing to do with Hovind.
There's a big difference between getting the numbers wrong when filing your taxes and explicitly claiming that the law doesn't apply to you and refusing to change your mind when brought to your attention. It's not like he wasn't told; he was told but continued to assert that the law didn't apply to him anyway. An argument of ignorance of the law fails at this point.
Hovind's repeated structuring of transactions (which is illegal) in order to avoid reporting makes it difficult for him to argue that he didn't know what he was doing. If he really was in ignorance of the law, why would he go to such lengths to avoid his actual income from being reported?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? AH was only not brought to trial because he committed suicide. Are you really trying to argue that, had he been alive, he wouldn't have been brought up in front of the Nuremburg trials and/or would have been acquitted? These two situations are not the same.
But you already knew that.
Are you really trying to argue that, had he been alive, he wouldn't have been brought up in front of the Nuremburg trials and/or would have been acquitted?
Are you really trying to argue that OJ is innocent, that he "caused Nicole's death" but didn't kill her? Are you being wilfilly obtuse?
And are you saying that if OJ had killed himself before being brought to trial that would make him guilty?
How old are you? Repeating the other person's words back to them isn't an argument, it's the behavior of a child.
Since you're obviously just a childish troll, I'm not going to continue responding to you.
my bet is that Charlie Wagner is behind the "security" hole (which really isn't).
Charlie is just petty enough (and stupid enough) to do that.
If this really is you, charlie, please, go and take your meds, eh?
you need help, and none of us here are qualified to treat your psychoses.
Well, obviously PZ has undergone a road to Damascus conversion. Obviously.
Ichthyic, I did weigh the term before using it, but you're quite right.
No, it's not a security hole, but to allow any poster to post as the host is certainly a flaw in the software.
It's not a bug, but I think it's an oversight that needs correction. How hard can it be? The system already responds to the name by using special formatting for the comment, so there's a hook there already.
How old are you?
Repeating the other person's words back to them isn't an argument,
Where did I "repeat another person's words"?
it's the behavior of a child.
Unlike, say, name-calling.
Since you're obviously just a childish troll, I'm not going to continue responding to you.
The imitator has been deleted, and his IP address blacklisted.
I can't believe no one has mentioned the most horrifying aspect of this scenario: that you were sent a letter in comics sans.
Betty, PZ will translate letters from kooks into Comic Sans. It is just one of his endearing quirks.
I'm a very good fan of Dr. Kent Hovind. I've been hearing and vieweing all his debates and the day when i started viewing and hearing these i really admired his zeal standing for the truth and to honor the Almighty God.
Really i'm ought to pray for him and i'm passing this as a prayer request to all my friends in India and the other countries.
One song which would comfort Dr. Hovind is
"If God be for us, who can be against us?"
Franklin, your prayers are worthless here. Find a better forum, like the closet of your soul. Oh, and your god exists only between your ears as a delusion.
I'm a very good fan of Dr. Kent Hovind. - Franklin
OK, but why do you feel the need to come here and tell us you're a complete moron?
Really i'm ought to pray for him and i'm passing this as a prayer request to all my friends in India and the other countries.
What makes you think that your friends are regular readers of this blog? And what makes you think that the regular readers of this blog would want to pray for Hovind, let alone pray?
You will all face the One True God, the One who created you, on Judgment Day.
Nah, god doesn't exist, so it won't be a problem Both you and I will be dust by then anyway.
You will all face the One True God, the One who created you, on Judgment Day.
blah blah blah blah blah
Thor? Nahhh--he and I get along fine. I fear not his mighty hammer.
And I look forward to that day, where I can drink mead and eat boar dining with Odin in the hall of Valhalla, where scantily-clad valkyrie warrior maidens will tend to my every whim and desire - until it comes to the end of time where I go into battle against a giant cyclops. Yep, Odin is the one true God, the one who created us and died for our sins.
Christians have their threat of hell, but are they worried about the threat of reincarnation? The desire to be with God / Jesus is the polar opposite to freeing yourself from desires, and that suffering will mean that Christians come back in the next life born with degenerative neural diseases that will mean the next life will be nothing but agony. Maybe that'll teach them for not believing in the One True Karmic Wheel...Wait, what's that? Christians aren't afraid of reincarnation? Why is that? If they aren't afraid of a non-existent threat, what makes them think that atheists are going to be any different with the non-existent threat of Hell?
Hello to all my Christian and Atheist friends. Yes, I count many of both persuasions as friends. I am, myself, a Christian, having been convinced of the utter reasonableness of the claims of Christ and of Christianity. You see, I used to be an Atheist. I grew up in a home ruled by vulgar, lying, selfish nominal (in name only) Christians. When I left for college, I left behind that "faith." I spent years examining the claims of the world's major religions (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity,Taoism, and Naturalism - the faith that all people arose from natural processes at work in the world today, without any supernatural or preternatural intervention or assistance). I didn't find any of them to be all that reasonable, to be honest. So, I decided to be an Atheist, because at least that one let me do whatever I wanted to do whenever I wanted to do it, without any guilt trips or threats of Hell, Hell-Fire, or reincarnation as a garden slug. I really enjoyed the freedom of having no authority beyond the temporal authorities. Then, one day, happened to hear a guy talking to a crowd of students on campus, primarily undergraduates. His name was Cliff Knectle. He said something very simple and yet amazingly profound: "It isn't all about you." He was responding to a student who asked him what is life all about. That rattled my chains ... rattled them so that they fell off. I was no longer a prisoner to my pride and self-justification. I was no longer a prisoner to my ignorance and vanity. When I re-examined the claims of Christianity and compared them with the claims of the other religions, I saw that only Christ's words could be true.
Now, I'm sure everyone has a different experience of Christianity. That isn't the point. The entirety of this series of posts has been criticizing Kent Hovind and those who have similar beliefs. Most of these posts are given by awoved Atheists. To them, I ask this question. You believe, as I once did, that this life is all there is. There is nothing after this life - no heaven or hell. You simply return to the dust and whatever animating spark you now have is extinguished forever. Therefore, shouldn't you make every day of your life and everyone else's life as pleasant and wonderful as possible? Even if there is nothing beyond this world, would your unkind words make your life or anyone else's life better? The Atheist, above all, should believe in kindness, generosity, FORGIVENESS, honesty, respect, selflessness, honor, simplicity and beauty. That isn't at all what I have seen here.
Rebuke concluded, I would humbly ask that you not equate Mr. Hovind with the majority of Christians. I would ask that you consider the work of Hugh Ross, a respected Astrophysicist and Creationist, rather than the exaggerated stories of a man who lies and cheats on his taxes and brags that the government is after him. Mr. Hovind is a man of extreme arrogance. Satan (yeah, I believe in him, too) uses ranting people like Mr. Hovind and the eventual downfall that comes to all who lie, cheat and steal to direct the attention of people away from the beauty of the Gospel of Christ. Christians polarize over issues such as the creation of the universe. Atheists and others walking in the darkness of ignorance toward oblivion (hey, would you respect me at all if I didn't tell you exactly what I believe will happen and instead sugar-coated it for you?), see all this in-fighting and want nothing to do with a religion that preaches peace and practices division, hatred, ignorance, and bigotry.
The last bit of truth before I sign off for the night -Jesus loves you. He loves you so much that before the world was made, He knew mankind would fall into sin and need a savior, so he volunteered to die for you and for me. His death was the most horrific ever suffered by any man. And His resurrection proves that Satan is defeated forever. FOREVER. It's a DONE DEAL. God loves you wants you so badly to be His forever that He spared you another day (this one) - please don't take the sun rising tomorrow for granted - and listens to the interceding of Jesus on your behalf. One day, it will be too late. One day, your SAVIOR will be your JUDGE. You will face Him and he will say to you either, "Come to me, my friend, and enjoy happiness like you have never known. I have prepared a place for you," or,"Go away from me. You never wanted to be near me before when all it meant was sacrifice. Now that you can see the goodness I have prepared for those who have loved me, you want it. It's too late. You will now know suffering like you have never known. I have prepared a place for you. I AM the way, the truth, and the life. Where you are going there is NO WAY, NO TRUTH, and NO LIFE, for I am not there." It will be a horrific day for those who do not call Him friend.
Nope, Jesus is fictional. Just like your god, just like the bible. Existing as true only between your ears.
And to complete the atheist salute to godbots, fuck you too.
Ryan Baggett, each and every one of us have heard this kind of testifying hundreds of times before. You have said nothing new. But thank you for taking the time to compose a screed that will convince no one.
Also, no matter what you believe, the fact remains that Kent Hovind is a thief and a liar. You are so self centered and so sure to show off your righteousness, you ignore the point of the thread. Just remember, it is not all about you.
This response is addressed specifically to "Janine, OMnivore," though I think it might apply to many who have posted here as well. First of all, Janine, "OMnivore?" - that means one who consumes everything. I wonder why you should pick such a screen name, since you are obviously very particular in the doctrines you choose to accept and consume. And I give this humble suggestion that you change your name, since a diet of equal portions of humanist ramble and honest, sincere Christian doctrine seems as utterly repugnant to you as ravioli seems to be to my 2-yr-old. Get that! The kid positively LOVES asparagus, spinach, collard greens, broccoli, carrots, raw tomatoes, and -yes, even Brussel Spouts, BUT HE HATES RAVIOLI AND LOATHES SWISS CHEESE!!!!
Janine, did you read more than the first line or two of my post, or did you make up your mind that I'm a Christo-fascist (So far as I know, I made that one up when I was an Atheist) and dismissed the rest? Please note I said that I was converted after hearing a much more rational and knowledgeable man, Cliff Knectle, speaking to a crowd of students at the University of Texas. His heart-piercing words were, "It isn't all about you." He was responding to a student who asked him what is life all about. He wasn't talking to me; I didn't ask the question. However, God used this man's words and got my attention. I have found the Holy Spirit is sometimes very subtle in the way he draws people to Christ, just not with me. With me, He's as subtle as a flying hammer. - This one is not original; attributed to Steve Wuertz, a friend and fellow Mac enthusiast.
I also completely agree with you about Kent Hovind, the nature of his thought processes and call the man's words an embarrassment to Christianity. (HOW DO YOU BOLD AND ITALICIZE IN A BLOG??) I've seen the "Doctor Dino" video tapes. In them, Mr. Hovind is trying to be funny, one might suppose, but his humor is cruel and demeaning to a lot of people who have honest questions about the basics: 1) Who am I? 2) How did I get here? 3)What is the Universe and how did it get here? 4) What am I SUPPOSED TO BE DOING?
People who are not Christians and hear themselves being mocked are not likely to have positive feelings about Christianity or Christians - and, unfortunately, that spills back onto Christ himself. You know, Christ warned those he preached to, "Woe for the person who makes one of these little ones fall away [from me]. It would be better for that man if a large millstone were tied around his neck and that he were thrown into the depths of the sea." That, Janine, is a pretty stern warning. It applies to us all, and, yes, even to Kent Hovind. In my honest opinion I think Kent had become too proud and God needed to reign in his pride before Kent hurt people - both Christians and unbelievers. He allowed Kent to lie, cheat, and steal so that the proper authorities would punish him accordingly. It is my sincere hope that Kent Hovind and his wife will emerge from this experience humbled and more powerful in their ministry to a lost and hurting world than ever.
This reminds me of a guy in the Bible named Jonah. The LORD God commanded Jonah to go and preach to the people of Nineveh (the capital of Syria - a dreaded and cruel enemy of Israel) a message of repentance or destruction. Jonah would all too gladly have seen the people of Nineveh - even the women and children - perish and die. He didn't want to see them spared, so he took off in the opposite direction, commissioning a ship from Joppa to take him to Tarshish (thought to be by some in Spain, and by others in Western Britain). God will not be mocked. He will not be refused, even by stubborn Atheists like I used to be. Those familiar with the story will remember that God caused a great storm to arise on the sea. The other men on board the ship all began to cast lots to see which of them was responsible for angering his god and causing the storm. The lots all fell to Jonah, who 'fessed up and told them to throw him into the sea. The Bible then says that the storm IMMEDIATELY departed and the waves and winds were calmed. You have to know that the other men on the ship saw this and when they returned sought out a priest of the Jews to find out about the God with the power to calm the sea. Maybe some of them read the scriptures and discovered the prophesies of the Messiah. I might just run into one of them in Heaven! ....sorry, getting off topic! That's not the end of the story. The Bible recounts that God caused a giant fish to swallow Jonah and for three days he was in the stomach of the fish - with all the gastric digestive juices. After Jonah's prayer for deliverance, the fish vomited Jonah up on the shore and Jonah departed for Nineveh to preach the message God had commanded him to preach. So, stop here and think about what Jonah looked like when he got to Nineveh after marinating in a fish's stomach juices for three days. There probably was little left of his clothes. He was more than likely hairless and bleached white. Maybe pieces of his skin were worn thin so that you could see his insides...ggggrosss!! Now think about how effective his message of "repent or perish" was compared to what t might have been if he had gone in looking normal. It sure will make you think.
Now, we ought to start off by saying just how cruel it is of some of the posters on this forum to have made YouTube links to a really mean-spirited video, calling Kent an F***Tard" and speculating on what kind of treatment he is getting inside a federal prison. I do not know what experiences Mr. Hovind has had in prison, but I think it's safe to say it has been and may continue to be a humbling experience for him.
Lastly, I ask you, Janine, to consider the scholarly works of Hugh Ross, a respected Astrophysicist and Creationist who happens to believe that both science (man's limited groping about in the dark to discover answers to only a few of the big questions - the four I listed above for sure, but there are lots of others) and Scripture (the revealed word of God to man concerning creation which answers all the questions man can ask) point to a universe that is 15 to 17 billion years old and that God brought about creation in several bursts over the course of eons. Dr. Ross is what you might call an "Old-Earth Creationist." These "bursts" are what Dr. Ross calls "Days of Creation." You and other readers of this post can learn more about Dr. Ross on his website, Reasons to Believe (http://www.reasons.org/). I'm reading a great book right now by Dr. Ross, "Why the Universe is the Way it is."
Other respected scientists., such as those of the Institute for Creation research (http://www.icr.org/) believe the universe is only a few thousand years old and that God created it all in just seven 24-hour days. That, too, is a plausible theory. On the one hand there's the evidence from the Hubble space telescope that the universe is expanding and the present "scientific" assumption that the speed of light is constant, giving us a universe approximately 34 billion light years in diameter, or 17 billion light years from the OBSERVABLE edge to the center. The reasonable assumption, then, is that the universe is billions of years old. On the other hand, I perform a thought experiment in which I place myself int he position of the creator for just a day. I have absolute power to create everything from nothing. I'm told to create a TREE. Would I create an ACORN? NO! I would create a HUGE, MAMMOTH OAK TREE, towering into the sky, the branches of which spread from one horizon to the other. the next day *Poof!* and I'm just a normal, limited human again. All I have retained from the previous day is the memory of creating the tree. Observers, including scientists more vastly learned than I, all say that the tree is Thousands or tens of thousands of years old. Only I know that the tree is, in fact, just one day old. It could be that God made the universe just the way he wanted it to be in a very short period of time and mankind, blinded and hardened by sin, sees it and proclaims that the universe is BILLIONS of years old and it all arose from cosmic singularity - a concept, now acknowledged by most physicists and mathematicians to be an ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY (echo...echo...echo [for effect]).
I'm just not sure which I think is right. The good thing is that I don't have to know why the universe is the way it is to know that I have a loving Savior who lived and died for me and for all mankind. It's great to know that He had to die for only me, He would have done so willingly. That is the love of Jesus Christ... a love beyond compare.
Hey, thanks for letting me share the love of Jesus with others on your blog, PZ Myers, you "godless liberal." Keep up the "random biological ejaculations" and continued hate-filled pieces on "Evolution, development" and other musings.
Blah Blah Blah.
Damn you're boring and content free.
Dumbass, you criticize me for not fully considering your words and then make wild speculations about my moniker.
I will be honest with you, I do not care about your bit of evangelizing. My eyes rolled up with my pupils trying to look through my brain to see the roof of my skull. I did not and will not read it. I have better works of fiction to read.
Ray Baggett, either present some physical evidence for your imaginary god, evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin, or shut the fuck up. That is called put up or shut up. Those who can't put or shut up are liars and bullshitters. Without physical evidence for your god, your bible is fiction and you are a whack job who should be locked up for the good of humanity.
Ryan, there is still time to repent. Come to the one true faith. Follow Odin. He will lead you. You don't have to be afraid anymore. He'll accept you.
You got some of the details wrong. And it's not an assumption, but rather a reasonable conclusion is that the universe is about 13.73 ± .12 billion years old.
Going by your "tree" analogy, it looks like you're saying "it could be" that God is a fraud, a liar, a forger, a counterfeiter, a faker.
Except that the conclusion that the universe is billions of years old is based on the evidence from multiple sources, not "sin".
And that is simply false. From suggesting a God who is a liar, you go to flat-out repeating lies about science.
Because you don't actually care about what facts are and what truth is?
Why do Christians not realize that their entire theology is nonsense from beginning to end?
You either mistyped that sentence, or wrote something really disgustingly creepy and selfish, there.
You mean, you imagine that there is such a thing. Well, good for you. You are free to imagine whatever you want, from a lying God to a damning God to a loving God. Go nuts.
I think most of us will stick to science for finding things out about the universe and how it works. You can keep your religion. But don't pretend that your imagination has anything to do with the real universe.
I think I'm just going to ignore the comments of Steve_C, Janine, OMnivore Nerd of Redhead, and OMJosh, the entirety of which are rude, ungracious, plagued by profanity, and in the case of Josh, just plain silly. Josh, I can't be taunted that easily. I know I should not expect anything more of you as nothing more could be expected of me when I was a child under God's wrath. In the Bible (Ephesians 2:2-4) it says, "Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest."
But you can't stop me from praying for you. Ultimately, it is God's choice and not man's who will be saved. I can pray and I will pray that God will change your hearts.
But I am interested in the comments of Owl Mirror.
So, here we go. Can it be a "reasonable conclusion" that the universe is about 13.73 ± .12 billion years old when we continually find objects that are farther out than 13.89 billion years and it is by no means certain that the speed of light is in fact a constant. You certainly do not think I'm lying or twisting science to mention the REALITY of EINSTEIN BOSE CONDENSATES and the effect such have on a beam of light fired through them? Light SLOWS DOWN. That's EMPIRICAL FACT, not a lie. It is reproducible in a laboratory. It is a reasonable assumption that in the near absolute zero temperatures of deep space such states of matter exist and might, in fact, be quite extensive. So, light might be traveling and indeed might have traveled in the past at different speeds in different regions of the universe, depending on the medium and conditions through which it has had to travel.
Also, there's the effect of gravitational lensing. You'll need to look this up, Owl. But, in essence, you must acknowledge that what you see is the result of light traveling from the emitting source or from an object off which that light has been reflected. The shape, speed and constancy of that light and it's image is much affected by the distance from an observer and, again, the medium and conditions through which it has had to travel.
Next, let's examine my "tree" analogy. Without resorting to childish name calling, let's examine the facts, as scientists who show each other mutual respect. If we can agree on those terms, I'll continue to view you as a legitimate skeptic with whom I would engage in a logical argument. You say "it looks like you're saying "it could be" that God is a fraud, a liar, a forger, a counterfeiter, a faker." Would it be fraudulent to create something and for a man to come along and say it has the appearance of great age. It seem more logical to assert that the error is in the INTERPRETATION of the man rather than to assert fraudulent intentions on behalf of the creator. Also, keep in mind that in my tree analogy, I was the creator. Please read carefully. I know you're not taught to analyze arguments critically in the public schools these days; it is a disadvantage I'm willing to help you through, if you will but allow me. I'm sorry, Owl. That sounded a bit overbearing and even made the assumption that you are the product of a public education. If such is the case, you are an unfortunate victim.
Next, Owl, I must insist that you legitimize your assessment of me as a liar. It is absolutely true that a majority of astrophysicists have rejected the notion of the universe arising from a "cosmic singularity." It is likewise true that a growing number of mathematicians are increasingly uncomfortable with a theory that requires dependence on the unconfirmed and furthermore unprovable existence of "dark matter" and "dark energy" to account for the 97% of the mass of the universe that must be there so that a really shaky theory holds up mathematically. Ask a mathematician. Ask me, since I am one. As a scientist, I can't support a theory that requires more faith than religion requires. The essence of science is that you pursue a theory until the evidence uncovered fails to support the hypotheses underlying the theory, and then you abandon it and come up with a new set of hypotheses that better explain the observed phenomena and present evidences.
Science, in these days has little to do with epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge - or how we know that we know a thing. Rather, it has become more a religion in its own right. Present assumptions must be supported at all costs, regardless of the mounting evidence to the contrary. After all, the Theory is so important!!
Next, when I say "I'm just not sure which I think is right" I am expressing that there are two basic camps in the theories of creation. One of these states that the universe is young, some 7,000 - 10,000 years old. The other states that the universe is some 15 - 17 Billion years old. There appears to be much good evidence in support of both sets of theories. Any true scientist interested in finding out the "What," the "Where," the "How," and the "Why" first examines available evidence and them comes to a reasoned set of suppositions. At this point in our discoveries no evidence has been found to positively exclude the theory of a young universe. I do care about the facts. For instance, I take the fact that no transitional fossils have been found and none are in the very extensive collection (some 60,000 fossils) in the British Museum of Science and History to be a fairly good piece of evidence suggesting that there are none and there have, therefore, never been any transitional lifeforms. This, then, points me to the conclusion that a prolonged evolution over time has not happened and does not explain how life on earth came to be in the first place, nor how it has come to be so varied.
I would like to present this piece of evidence for a creative intelligence behind the obvious design of the universe, Owl. I'll ask you these three questions: "Do you love anyone?" "Do you hate anything?" and "Does anything frighten you?" Why? How did such complex things as love, hatred and fear evolve from some speculative pre-biotic soup of chemicals?
In conclusion, Owl, you might not want my religion. That's fine; you don't have to take it. No one is forcing you. But you seem very disturbed at having anyone share with you. I don't blame you, though. You're where I was about fifteen years ago. None of the world's religions made any sense to me, and I hated the notion of Christianity, because that is what I grew up in...at least that was what was presented as Christianity. I now know better.
You might have seen the bumper sticker, "Christians aren't perfect...just forgiven." It's funny, but theologically incorrect. Christ gives all whom he chooses to save a free gift of salvation, but he expects our devotion and obedience in return. We can't give this obedience all the time. It isn't possible to do alone. For this reason, we have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside to help us choose to obey Him. That Presence is why I don't respond to some of the hateful things people say on this board with the same hate-filled responses I once would have given. No. Christians are called to be holy, like God. And one day, when He has re-made me, though I am far short of it today, I will be perfectly conformed to His will. So, here's the bumber sticker I propose: "Christians aren't perfect... BUT we are called to be Holy. HOW'S MY DRIVING?"
A blessed day to you all, especially Owl.
Will you ignore me when I lament for the electrons abused in your tl;dr pile of crap?
The Jesus myth is simply that: a myth. Don't waste your life on myth. The world's too damn cool to devote your life to a dead 2000 year old jew tarted up in borrowed miracle and resurrection stories.
Mithras is where it's at.
Posted by: Ryan Baggett | May 11, 2009
I think I'm just going to ignore the comments of Steve_C, Janine, OMnivore Nerd of Redhead, and OMJosh, the entirety of which are rude, ungracious, plagued by profanity, and in the case of Josh, just plain silly. Josh, I can't be taunted that easily. I know I should not expect anything more of you as nothing more could be expected of me when I was a child under God's wrath.
So the asshole got unset at me for calling him a dumbass. Let's just say you are not going to convince people you have something worthwhile to say when you compare that person to a toddler. So FUCK YOU, Ryan Baggett.
The simple fact that you dismiss Josh in such an off hand manner shows that you have no idea with whom you are dealing with. The fact that you will face up against Owlmirrow also shows you have no idea with whom you are dealing with. Also, telling people you you not deal with them is no guarantee that they will be quiet. It will be so much fun to watch you being pulled apart, organ by organ.
One last bit of advise, you arrogant pile of shit. You can get banned from this site for violating these two terms.
GodbottingMaking an argument based only on the premise that your holy book is sufficient authority; citing lots of bible verses as if they were persuasive.
InsipidityA great crime. Being tedious, repetitive, and completely boring; putting the blogger to sleep by going on and on about the same thing all the time.
You will neither be missed nor mourned.
Light slows down if it goes through any medium. There's a phenomenon called Čerenkov Radiation caused when a particle goes faster than the speed of light in a medium. So if light was slowed down by Einstein-Bose condensates there would be some type of Čerenkov Radiation. Since this Čerenkov Radiation is not detected, then light is most likely continuing to move at 2.99 x 106 m/sec.
Besides, light would have to be moving at a snail's pace (literally) if a galaxy apparently 500 million light years away was only 6,000 light years away. This drastic decrease in the speed of light would be detectable.
Your hand waving, tap dancing, and writing stupid shit just prove that you're a ignorant dumbass. If this description doesn't meet with your approval, that's too bad. But it's difficult to call you anything but a dumbass if you believe that stupid shit. You're even more of a dumbass if you think you can push it on people who actually know some physics.
There's ZERO evidence in support of creationism. Wishful thinking, GODDIDIT, and lying are not evidence. In your post #156 you've done all three. Your sentence I quote in this post is an example of a lie.
And on this reveiling note Im off to watch "Star Trek".
Don't post such long boring diatribes. Pick a point and go with one at a time.
Seriously. Your distortion of accepted science is disgusting enough point by point. Please spare us the large posts where you attempt the gish gallop.
And here I was lamenting on another thread that there were no decent christians showing up on the blog, and you Ilk had one collared here. *sigh*
You call the Bose-Einstein-both-sides-are-valid clown a decent christian? Gee,the standards arent very high,are they.
Ryan, I only had to read a paragraph to realize you are a delusion godbot. You have no real idea of science except a few bullet points, that are meaningless to real practitioners like myself.
If your imaginary god exists, show us the physical evidence for the alleged god. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. Failure to show the evidence, but continuing to talk about god, is prove positive you are a delusional fool. It's like a poker hand. I have called your bluff and exposed my cards. Your god doesn't exist as no physical evidence is there for one. You either show better cards, or let me have the pot. Show the physical evidence for your deity.
Rorschach, How dare you! Of course the standards are NOT high. Gawd loves the sinner.
And you are teetering at the edge of the abyss - He that doubtith is damned (Romans:something) you naughty boy.
Now go forth and sin so that gawd may love thee.
This Ryan Bagget is an idiot if he can't tell the difference between Syria and Assyria.
And right away you demonstrate that you have no understanding of cosmology. Objects can be farther than 13 billion light years because space itself is expanding.
As far as I know, the only way that the speed of light might not be constant is only in what is currently known as the inflationary period -- and it is currently entirely theoretical. We'll see what happens if the theorists find evidence.
It is not a reasonable assumption. It's a completely stupid and false assumption, with no evidence to support it.
And it is indeed twisting science; twisting it so much that it is indeed very nearly a lie. Maybe it's not your lie, but it is certainly someone's lie, and you are repeating it. You have no understanding of the underlying physics.
Just because space is cold DOES NOT MEAN THAT MOST OF SPACE IS A BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATE.
Do you understand that the slowing of light is not dependent on the temperature, but from the properties of the Bose-Einstein condensate? Do you not understand that most of space is not a Bose-Einstein condensate?
Of course it did. But most of space is vacuum. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that the speed of light mostly is and was at the speed of light in a vacuum.
So what? Really, so what? Gravitational lensing is evidence in support of the current understanding of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum.
Even if the current estimates are off by a bit, there is no way that the universe can possibly be 6000 years old because of changes in the speed of light. It's absurd. It's like saying that because there are uncertainties in calendars and records of birth, an ancient decrepit old man might be a twelve-month-old baby. It's complete garbage and nonsense.
We have the error bars in the estimate of the universe's age. The error is pretty damn small. You are not going to change that with silly, pathetic handwaving about physics and cosmology that you don't even understand.
You've done nothing to deserve respect. You show great lack of respect by lying repeatedly and propagating lies.
As fraudulent as a counterfeiter creating bogus currency, and a man coming along and saying that it looks real.
Or another example: If someone goes to a great deal of effort to create a fake antique, and deliberately fails to tell people who see the fake antique that it is entirely fake, and how it was faked, then that faker is indeed fraudulent.
Garbage. The man is making the interpretation based on everything he knows about the world and how things actually age. He's doing the best he can with the knowledge he has and the tools he has. The creator has the responsibility to communicate honestly and completely, else he is a fraud.
Right. You were the fraud, the faker, the liar.
Given that you are completely incapable of understanding science and critical analysis, we will see who needs teaching. Really, do think you're impressive with your condescending attitude and your confused bluster about variable speeds of light, Bose-Einstein condensates and gravitational lensing? Your nonsense might impress the ignorant, but you certainly fail at impressing me, and anyone else with genuine knowledge.
Why? You're doing your best to continue with the defense of your earlier lies, and your new and current lies.
And again you propagate a lie.
Garbage. Dark matter and dark energy are not unconfirmed and are not unprovable. And the discomfort of mathematicians demonstrates nothing whatsoever about the nature of the universe.
Now this looks like a direct lie, rather than merely a propagated one. I just searched for "Ryan Baggett" in scholar.google.com. Not one single published math paper comes up with your name. Or are you using a pseudonym? What's your Erdős number? Do you even know what an Erdős number is?
You're not a scientist. No scientist would write such a nonsensical statement. You're a spreader of lies and confused nonsense who has no idea how science even works. You're a pathetically transparent propagandist.
"Epistemology"-- you know nothing at all about epistemology, you pretentious buffoon.
Again: No scientist would write such utter tripe; such garbage; such nonsense; such a complete sequence of lies. Heck, no one who knows anything about science would spew such sewage.
Right. The liars; the fakers; the frauds.
There is no good evidence in support of a universe younger than 13 billion years. There is no evidence at all.
Except for all of the numerous lines of evidence that are consistent only with a billions-of-years old universe.
You have no idea what a transitional fossil is, and you don't care either. You simply repeat the pathetic false nonsense about palaeontology that you don't understand.
Because you don't know or care about the simple fact that in addition to the well-supported multiple lines of palaeontological evidence, we have multiple lines of supporting evidence from anatomy, molecular biology and genetics.
Do you really think that just because you are utterly ignorant of the evidence that supports the scientific theory of evolution that it does not exist?
Are you really so mind-numbingly ignorant that you do not realize that questions are not evidence?
I do find liars disturbing, yes. Come back with an awareness of how wrong and deceptive you have been and maybe I will be less disturbed.
I am sorry that you have chosen a cheap and easy answer that feels good and encourages you to lie rather than pursuing knowledge and truth honestly.
And I am also sorry that for you, "devotion and obedience" include lying repeatedly. Not all Christians feel that way, and I do respect scientists who are Christians -- as long as they avoid lies and nonsense.
Are they called to lie? Because that's all I've seen from you. If that's your standard of being holy, then holiness itself is a fraud and a lie. If it's not, then you're guilty of deep hypocrisy.
You're not driving. You're sitting in a chair, holding your hands in front of you, and making "vroom-vroom" noises -- and telling me that you're a great driver.
It's pretty pathetic.
Thank you, Owlmirror! You did not disappoint.
Oh, and another point, which demonstrates Ryan Baggett's stupidity, and emphasizes that he must have been lying about himself being a mathematician.
If the speed of light was somehow lower, then the time that it took for that light to travel must have been higher. Thus, even if there were magical Bose-Einstein condensates magically slowing down light (what, exactly the same everywhere?) all through the universe, the only conclusion that could be reached scientifically must be that the universe is far, far, older than its apparent ~13 billion years!
Hello, Sports fans! NOTE: All of you with paralyzed attention spans the product of too much exposure to popular media and long hours spent wasting time on video games, just check out now. Catch the flurry at the end.
Here we go again....
To: Stanton, RE: comment about Syria vs. Assyria and his assessment of my mental abilities for not being able to distinguish the two. (chuckle) Both Syria and Assyria were enemies of Israel. Assyria was the later and far more powerful of the two. I suggest you read a little before you call anyone an idiot. I forgive you.
To: Janine Omnivore. Who am I dealing with, Janine? Clearly, in you I am dealing with someone whose lack of creativity is paralleled only by an equal lack of intelligence and inability to use the English language effectively. Profanity and slander are crutches. You should know better. As for Josh, his assertion that Odin is anything like a loving and accepting god is utter nonsense. I think he intended it to be. His humor, though puerile, was easily detected as such: Humor. If you want a better picture of Odin, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin. Given that in passages "found in the Sagas where, for example, at one time he is thrown out of Asgard by the other gods," I'd say he more closely approximates Lucifer. Enough said with that. There, I quoted Wikipedia, and not just The Word of the Divine Creator God (I can practically feel you writhing as the fumes pour from your ears. And, no, I'm not going to buy you a new keyboard after your done abusing this one), so you can't threaten me with banishment from the site. I don't think you're the site administrator and can't do anything of the sort. If you could, a simple perusal of the post history would show to anyone that you have been much more abusive than any person you qualify as a "godbot." In making such a threat you demonstrate your utter naivete regarding how blog sites are paid for: advertisements. Though this site seems only to have drawn an ad for ScienceBlogs and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, I'm actually doing the blog site a service by creating controversy by exciting people like you to make a wild, ranting profanity-spewing fool of yourself - simply by telling the TRUTH. Controversy draws attention and readership from people who like to see you get so upset and launch one after another fruitless attack and begin spewing expletives. That increased readership leads to commercial ad banners. Mr. Myers has much, then, for which to thank me. Final note to you, Janine "Selectively Feeds Exclusively On Her Own Tripe" (hardly an OMnivore): I'm not offended by you as you "watch you being pulled apart, organ by organ" (giggle .. oh, what the heck GUFFAW!!); I'm amused by you.
And lastly, to my dear friend Mr. Owl: How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop? That's a reference to a old commercial probably well before your time. You are as likely to answer that one as you are to intelligently answer any of the very sound arguments I put forth, preferring instead to call me a liar and a fraud. That's okay, Owl. I'm not bothered by name calling. It proves only that you are capable of being rude and childish. We all are. However, I think you, unlike many of those posting on this board, are capable of reasoning well. That is why I choose to conduct a dialogue with you and give a sentence or two to the others. Luther wrote, "The Devil cannot stand to be mocked." But here I stand, mocking you. No. Rather, enticing you, drawing you out of your prejudices to reason. Are you up to it, or will this post just result in an unreasoned slur of profanity and excerpted passages taken out of context, left unanswered, and exposed to slander? We shall see.
As for lies, the Devil is the father of lies. He has been a liar since the beginning. Truth is not his nature and he cannot tell the truth except in cases where he may twist and pervert it. It's why rat poison works. The rat doesn't know it's poison, because only .0009% is poison; the rest is good food. The rat eats it and dies.
Now, I'm sure you're going to excerpt just a little of that phrase above as you have done to most the posts I have made, so you can construct straw-man arguments and answer them. C'mon, Owl, you're better than that. I believe in you.
Let's look at your dissections, though, for they are amusing, if inaccurate.
What is my Erdős number? I guess it's infinity, since I personally know of no correlation between myself and Paul Erdős, nor any of his collaborators or any of their collaborators. An Erdős number is a joke, Owl. Such a number has become well-known in scientific circles as a "tongue-in-cheek measurement of mathematical prominence." It's nothing of the sort. Now, to the issue of being published. I'm not published, yet. But that somehow prohibits one from having an understanding of mathematics...in your eyes only. I'm working on my PhD. Perhaps that isn't enough for you. You are pretty arrogant yourself, Mr. Owl, if you think you are better. I'll ask you to present links to YOUR published works for my review, if you don't mind... if you have any, and you MIGHT (maybe).
You entirely missed the point I was making about light's speed being affected by Einstein-Bose condensates. I didn't say that all of space is filled with condensates. I said, "It is a reasonable assumption that in the near absolute zero temperatures of deep space such states of matter exist and MIGHT, in fact, be quite extensive." Most of what occupies space and even the very nature of space is entirely unknown. It is filled with a lot of things that we do not know the first thing about. We are discovering more and more every day and we're adding to the fields of cosmology and astrophysics every day. Many things we learn disprove prior assertions. Either these findings are observed and catalogued and we employ true science, revising our theories, or they are ignored (if these findings refute the "accepted" theory supporting a pre-negotiated understanding of a billions-year-old universe). That's not science. It is GARBAGE. Some of the -ahem- "scientists" (I use the term loosely) practice outright demagoguery and know they are lying. Others are simply brain-washed. I pray for the opening of the minds of the latter and the former parties.
Now, let's address the speed of light. You, to your credit, mention the theoretical "inflationary period" Again, let's note the terms: "cosmological inflation or just inflation is the THEORIZED exponential expansion of the universe at the end of the grand unification epoch, 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density. The term "inflation" is also used to refer to the HYPOTHESIS [which is an educated GUESS] that inflation occurred, to the theory of inflation, or to the inflationary epoch." -Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_inflation. But, for the kiddies, let's assume that there was such a thing as a Big Bang. I'm not saying that the universe didn't form that way. I'm between two opinions - that of noted astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross who asserts that the universe is billions of years old (www.reasons.org)- and Dr. John D. Morris who is a "Young Earth Scientist" (www.icr.org). THANKS VERY MUCH, BY THE WAY, FOR ALLOWING ME TO MAKE SUCH OBVIOUS NAME DROPS OF NOTED CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS AND THEIR CREDITABLE WEBSITES. EVEN IF YOU ARE NEVER PERSUADED TO STEP OUT OF YOUR SHALLOW NATURALISTIC-EXPLANATIONS-ONLY EPISTEMOLOGY, THERE ARE OTHERS WHO READ POSTS ON THIS SITE AND MAY BE PERSUADED BY A SINCERE AND REASONED APPROACH THAT GOD DOES EXIST AND HAS NOT ONLY CREATED THIS UNIVERSE BUT GOVERNS ITS EVERY INTERACTION, WHO MAY THEN BE DRAWN BY THE LOVE OF CHRIST INTO SALVATION AND SATAN WILL LOSE ANOTHER VICTIM. Back to the Big Bang: In a commonly held theory about the creation of the universe, there is speculated to have been a cosmological inflationary period. This theory essentially states that the universe got really big, really fast and expended most of its energy within the first picoseconds of its existence. In all cosmological time since 10^-36 seconds following the initiation of the Big Bang, light has been either slowing down consistently and gradually, or it slowed down dramatically with the concurrent slowing of the expansion of space in its infancy. Either way, your assertion that "there is no way that the universe can possibly be 6000 years old because of changes in the speed of light" is easily disproved. There is, in fact, no way to prove one way or the other what happened before there were scientists or instruments around to directly observe it. And please do not insult the intelligence of everyone reading this board by giving the standard line that we're observing the distant past by observing light we are receiving from those allegedly distant objects. Had you bothered to inquire into the nature of gravitational lensing, a person of your indubitable intelligence would have noted that such an effect can accelerate or decelerate light, making objects appear farther or closer than they actually are. It's rather like your reflection in a fun-house mirror. You know from your experience of having seen your own reflection in a normal mirror that you don't actually look like what appears in a concave, convex, or laterally elongated mirror. The problem is, we don't know what the surface of space looks like. Man has been observing this with, pardon me, but rather crude implementation for not even a century. Theories postulating a "surface of space, " "dark energy," and "dark matter" have only been around for less than half that time.
Let's move on. You state, "There is no good evidence in support of a universe younger than 13 billion years. There is no evidence at all." What about comets and that embarrassingly elusive (for evolutionists) Oort Cloud?
Comets are an example of a natural clock within our solar system. With each orbit around the sun, comets lose considerable mass. They cannot be very old because they cannot survive many orbits.
To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all.
Each year our knowledge of astronomy increases with new evidence concerning the origin of our solar system, our galaxy, and our universe. While it is possible to make assumptions beyond what can be observed and verified, the heavens continue to bear witness to recent creation. (http://www.icr.org/recent-universe/).
Next, what about the powerful nature of the universe's creation and the fine-tuned balance of the laws of physics that enable life to exist?
A star is a continuous explosion of awesome power. The power to create a universe with a billion galaxies, each with a billion stars, is beyond imagination. To create matter and energy can only be done by a Creator who is outside of nature.
The creation of the laws of nature themselves demonstrates a even greater power. These laws are balanced so that our sun provides the energy to us day by day. These laws are balanced so the molecules within us can use that energy.
The laws of nature are fine-tuned so our sun can burn and provide us with the energy we need.
Light from stars and the sun begins with hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. The sun is a large ball of very hot hydrogen. The sun's mass is 332,950 times the mass of the Earth (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_mass).
The energy of the sun comes from explosions of hydrogen. These are nuclear explosions, which are much more powerful than chemical explosions.
Gravity draws all the sun's hydrogen together creating intense pressure. In the core of the sun, the huge forces cause nuclear fusion reactions. Hydrogen atoms fuse together into helium and release huge amounts of energy.
These explosions do not cause the sun to suddenly blow up and then go cold. The balanced laws of physics hold our sun together. Gravity pulls the atoms back as each explosion pushes them away. This balance keeps the billions of stars in billions of galaxies burning.
If the laws of nature were just slightly different, the delicate balance would not exist between hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Without this balance thousands of critical molecular interactions would not happen. There are only a few elements that can sustain life through their unique properties. Any change would make life impossible (http://www.icr.org/universe-power/).
The number of fine tunings of physical laws required to make life possible is 1 x 10^442. This is well more than can possibly be allowed to random chance, no matter how many Billions - or Trillions of years you throw at it.
You asked for evidence, Owlie ol' pal. There's evidence. Enough? Nope... I think you're hungry for more. So, here goes...
Our galaxy is called the Milky Way. It is shaped in a spiral, like a spinning octopus. The spiral arms and center of our galaxy are bright because there are many stars close together. Our galaxy is different from many other galaxies. Older, smaller, elliptical, and irregular galaxies do not contain the right amounts of elements necessary to form the proper balance of stars and planets needed to support life.
Some stars explode into supernovas. Deadly radiation flows through nearby stars and planets. The center and arms of galaxies are flooded with high amounts of radiation. Most stars are located in places with too much harmful energy for life.
Our solar system is located in the outer regions of the Milky Way. Most of the stars in our galaxy are in the larger spiral arms or in the center. There are few stars near us. Because of this, there is a low amount of radiation surrounding our solar system, and we can observe the rest of the universe and our own galaxy much better. (http://www.icr.org/creation-galaxy/)
So, let's talk about causation.
Everything Has a Cause
In ordinary experience, one knows intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or, more incisively, "Why did this happen?"
When we try to trace the event to its cause, or causes, we find that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back.
Police investigators on an accident scene, for instance, use the principles of cause and effect every day to determine who was ultimately responsible and how it happened.
Eventually, we must face the question of the original cause—and uncaused First Cause.
A scientific experiment specifically tries to relate effects to causes, in the form of quantitative equations if possible. Thus, if one repeats the same experiment with exactly the same factors, then exactly the same results will be reproduced. The very basis of the highly reputed "scientific method" is this very law of causality—that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science in the modern sense would be altogether impossible if cause and effect should cease.
This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives: (1) an infinite chain of non-primary causes (nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects); or (2) an uncaused primary Cause of all causes
(http://www.icr.org/causality/). This Cause is best explained by a force outside the natural and observable laws of nature.
Ordered systems or structures do not happen spontaneously. We never observe orderliness occurring by accident, without an intelligent cause to direct the order. No amount of power or energy is enough to bring order out of chaos. Try shooting a wristwatch with a bullet; the watch's order does not increase! (The only order in a watch is that which the watchmaker INTELLIGENTLY puts into it at the beginning.)
Likewise, if we drop a plain glass bottle of spoiled milk on bricks, it quite naturally shatters into a more disorderly arrangement: chaotic glass fragments mixed with spilled spoiled milk. It could never reform itself into a more exquisitely-sculpted glass container containing fresh milk!
The mere addition of "lots of energy" is not enough, either. A tired human eats to gain food energy, but eating hot coals is not an adequate energy source, because it fails to match and cooperate with the orderly design of human digestive systems.
Everyday experiences, such as broken watches and spilled milk, remind us that order does not happen by itself. In fact, our entire universe teaches us that same truth. The earth's rotation, the moon cycle, and the changing seasons are just a few of the ordered processes observable in nature. These processes don't happen randomly but are divinely caused by God.
Louis Pasteur disproved the false notion of spontaneous generation centuries ago.
Enough EVIDENCE for you, Owlie? Well, whether it is or not, I'm tired of bullying you intellectually. You're pretty bruised and bloodied by now, but it's all for your own good.... your ETERNAL GOOD.
You called me a liar, said I was lying, told me I was perpetrating lies or propagating those of others (I hope I counted this right, since it's hard to navigate your vicious attacks) 17 times. You stated that I am "completely incapable of understanding science and critical analysis" You resorted to childish name calling ("propagandist," "pretentious buffoon", etc.). You said I have "no understanding," that I "twist the truth." These are your unfounded opinions and NOW I AM GOING TO TAKE YOU TO TASK.
You answered my assertion, "For instance, I take the fact that no transitional fossils have been found and none are in the very extensive collection (some 60,000 fossils) in the British Museum of Science and History to be a fairly good piece of evidence suggesting that there are none and there have, therefore, never been any transitional lifeforms" with "You have no idea what a transitional fossil is, and you don't care either. You simply repeat the pathetic false nonsense about palaeontology that you don't understand." So, I ask you, Wise Old Owl, what do you believe is a transitional fossil? I'm providing you plenty of wiggle room, since I asked you for "what you believe is a transitional fossil." Hopefully you can come up with something more that "Nebraska Man." Discovered in 1922, a tooth was joined to an imaginary jawbone, attached to an imaginary skull, attached to an imaginary skeleton, given imaginary facial features. An identical tooth was found in the same region in 1927. It was removed from the skeleton of a recently deceased NEBRASKA PIG. Yes, you heard that right, Owlie (and all my other faithful readers)... a pig. There was no transitional fossil there. So, where is one example of a transitional fossil: I amen one that clearly demonstrates a transitional leap from one species to another. I'm going to rip your argument apart if you give me stupid Archaeopterix Lizard-Bird, so if you have that one in your quiver, brace yourself.
Here's a great resource for anyone reading this who would like to see just how many FRAUDS HAVE BEEN PERPETRATED BY EVOLUTIONISTS MASQUERADING AS REAL SCIENTISTS: http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
I'm waiting for that transitional fossil, Owlie. Any time you're ready.
Lastly, I introduced a bit of humor in my last post. It was about a proposed BUMPER STICKER. "Christians aren't perfect... BUT we are called to be Holy. HOW'S MY DRIVING?" Do bother to read before criticizing, this time. It would make tearing apart your arguments (what arguments? All you gave were one-or-two-line accusations!) so much more enjoyable....all for your good. You responded, "You're not driving. You're sitting in a chair, holding your hands in front of you, and making "vroom-vroom" noises -- and telling me that you're a great driver. It's pretty pathetic." Once more with emphasis, it's a proposed BUMPER STICKER. I think it would be a good idea for all the people who slap a Jesus Fish or other Christian-mottoed bumper sticker on their car to drive with the courtesy and respect for others that are the marks of holiness. If you drive with an utter disregard for the safety of others and have such a device on the back of your car, you bring dishonor to the Name of Christ. It was intended to be funny to non-believers and convicting to Christians. What's truly pathetic, Owl, is that you don't bother to read before assuming you know something and launch into your diatribe. If you're not going to be honest, at least be fair.
But you have dishonored the name of the God I worship and adore, calling Him a liar, a fake, a fraud, and a counterfeiter, among other things. That's not fair at all, since all he has on this post is me to defend Him. He (probably) won't answer you as He answered the prayer of Elijah on Mount Carmel. Read 1 Kings 18:20-40 to see how God has showed His power in the past. It wasn't beyond His power then and it is not beyond His power today. There are many people far more capable of defending the creation and intelligent design position, but you get me. I'm adequate to answer your assaults.
I do have to ask you, in parting, the meaning of your moniker, "Owlmirror." Owls are equated in our culture with wisdom and mirrors are reflective devices used for viewing oneself. This would seem to indicate that you look at yourself in the mirror and see someone who is wise. God's prophet Isaiah wrote a warning to people in his day,
"Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
and clever in their own sight." Isaiah 5:20-21
You might look at yourself in the mirror and see someone who is wise. The rest of us see a bird-brain.
God is the Author and Organizer of orderliness. His design and construction of our own bodies, through the complexity of biogenesis, is a proper reason for glorifying and thanking Him for making us.
Congratulations, Owlmirror and Janice Omnivore. I posted a response to Owl's diatribe and it has been held for review by the site owner. Nice. If the site owner has the courage to allow thoughtful dialogue here, he'll permit it. If not, you get a lot of Atheists all navel-gazing and congratulating each other on how profound their thoughts are. That's what I call thought provoking. YAWN!
RB, your links are already refuted by TalkOrigins. We don't even have to look. You have nothing, just like all believers in imaginary deities and fictional bibles. You will gain wisdom when you give up childishness such as belief in deities. Until then, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
All comments containing more that two URLs are held for review, regardless of whether they are posted by Richard Dawkins or Eric Hovind. It is done automatically.
*snort* We've just recently had a couple of YECs yammering on and on for months with lies and garbage science about the age of the Earth and the supposed global flud.
I'm sorry that thinking is so hard that it tires you out.
RB, do you know who exposed those "frauds"
Scientists. Not creationists.
Do a bit of research and you'll see it very plainly.
Piltdown man - exposed by scientists. The originator of the hoax is not 100% known
Nebraska man was merely a misclassification
Java man was supported by other finds and is not a fraud in any way. Is there some difference in opinion on the find, sure. But it is not fraud.
Orce man - there was never a consensus on the identification of this fragment and calling it a fraud is a leap. A leap that Creationists are more than happy to make, frequently.
Neanderthal - the info that link provides is so distortions that it's laughable. Oft repeated creationist canards used to handwave away what they don't like.
"so full of distortions"
And RB if you think that is some sort of rebuttal, you need to lay off the whippets.
Owl Mirror, I pity you. You levy attacks that you can in no way support. You call everyone who doesn't agree with you a liar, fraud, etc. and you call into question credentials of people you don't even know. You will not even answer questions posed to you, as you prefer to attack with diatribes and false assessments of character based only on your own poor judgment. You asserted blindly that I am no mathematician and rightly identified that as yet I am unpublished in any "scholarly" journals your search pulled up. You cannot produce one, single transitional fossil and you know it. You and all evolutionists are intentionally blind to facts.
It is indeed clear that uneducated atheists senselessly rambling and positing their own opinions are all that post to this blog. I gave you much more time than your ramblings are indeed worth.
I did want to question the meaning of your moniker, Owl Mirror. Our culture has attributed wisdom in a symbolic sense to the owl. A mirror is a reflective device one uses to observe oneself. Is it therefore your assertion that you look at yourself and observe wisdom? If so, in departing, you have my hearty laughter. All I see in you is a bird-brain without the faculty of reason.
And I pity you. So we can have a pity party with pity parity.
I've levied attacks which I have not bothered to support, not that I cannot support. It would take effort to do the research and point out exactly where you were propagating lies and/or distortions. If I were to do it, though, would you be willing to honestly admit that you, or your sources of information, were wrong?
If someone claims in all seriousness that colorless green ideas sleep furiously, or that chalk is cheese, do I need to know the person to know that they are lying and/or insane, or propagating the lie, fraud, or insanity of someone else? Because that's exactly the sort of nonsense and lies that you were spouting, only dressed up in fancier language.
You mean the questions posed about love, hate, and fear? I did not bother to answer them because the questions are completely irrelevant non-sequiturs.
Are you willing to answer any of my questions? Are you even capable of realizing that your entire argument was utterly absurd in more ways than one from start to finish?
My judgment is excellent and my assessment of character was and is absolutely correct: You are, at the very least, incompetent to recognize distortions of science and fallacious reasoning, and propagate them vigorously. You may very well be utterly indifferent to honest understanding of science and correct reasoning -- I don't know that for certain, but you are not making a good argument now, preferring to whine rather than address any of the actual salient points I raised.
Don't forget that I also pointed out a failure in your basic math in your pathetic excuse for a cosmological "hypothesis".
So in other words, my "blind" assertion certainly appears to be correct.
Wrong. I know exactly what I can produce, because I've actually bothered to educate myself on what a transitional fossil is:
Wrong. You have shown no facts whatsoever. Creationists have no facts.
Back at you, ignorant wool-brained blowhard that you are.
And I gave you much more time than you are worth. So we both agree that we're wasting our time: You don't care about science and reason, and I do.
Because you aren't actually competent to address anything of substance. You are indeed deserving of pity. Is the pity party over?
No, it's just that you are too stupid or blind to see the ones given to you.
Easy read the link he gave you, I read yours and subsequently showed the idiocy of it.
Care to give Tiktaalik a swing?
And you must be holding a mirror up to yourself. Anybody who believes in the bible and imagainary deities has no claim to the faculty of reason. Those beliefs are unreasonable, since there is no physical evidence for god, and without god, the bible is only a work of fiction. So, take your attitude with you when you leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
[Comment #171 was being held and has only just now appeared]
[Don't read this unless you're really bored. It's just standard creationist crap; you've seen it a thousand times already. I suspect that Ryan is bipolar, and types up these long screeds in his manic phase.]
[ S I W O T I ! ! ]
Way to FAIL at basic Middle Eastern history. Come on, this should have been a no-brainer.
[skip several paragraphs, of 393+191+66+44=694 words of pathetic godbot word salad ]
[And his entire comment was 3969 words, I see. Ryan has obviously never heard the proverb "Brevity is the soul of wit"]
Finally, a true statement. Took you long enough.
And you follow it up with a reasonable summary, and then you contradict it -- because?
Where? Liberty University? What fields are you concentrating on? What degrees do you have now?
I'm not the one claiming that a book of ancient myths is an accurate description of the history of the universe.
And you were, of course, wrong. Because if there were, light passing through it would generate Čerenkov Radiation, as noted @#159 above. No Čerenkov Radiation, no Bose-Einstein condensates. QED. How hard is that?
And we do know what it's not filled with, because if it were, there would be evidence of it. Sheesh.
Liar. There are no findings that refute the reasoned, evidence-based conclusion of a billions-year-old universe. None.
Creationism is GARBAGE, indeed.
And again, you well describe Creationist "scientists"; they are indeed lying demagogues or brainwashed idiots.
Because you're too stupid to figure out that they're mutually exclusive -- and the "Young Earth" lie is simply false?
Man, get over yourself. Stick to the point. And do not type entire paragraphs in capitals; it MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A SCREAMING FUCKING LOONY CRAZY PERSON.
It's quite obvious that you are in desperate need of pharmacological medication. Are you capable of any self control at all?
Um, no. Wrong. Completely bogus from start to finish. So, are you just lying, or are you just a brainwashed idiot transmitting the lies of others?
By arguing from false premises, you reach a false conclusion.
Had you bothered to inquire into the nature of gravitational lensing... No, actually, a person as stupid as you could not possibly understand how that ridiculous summary is completely wrong. Never mind.
Ah, perhaps now I can guess where you're studying: Clown College! *Honk!* You've been joking all along, haven't you? Good one! Where's the custard pie?
Er, except for the comets themselves. Sheesh.
And that's bearing false witness. Plain and simple falsehood, not by the heavens, but by Creationists, who have a psychological and financial investment in propagating lies.
Sez you. You have no evidence that that's true, so you just proclaim it.
Actually, I've just recently seen that challenged by a physicist who calculated that even if life as we knew it could not arise, life in other forms would still be possible.
More to the point, though, no one has shown that any such change is physically possible. We only have one universe to study, right now.
A garbage number that means nothing.
Dude, this was dumb when Aquinas did it, and you're no better than he was.
If there's a violation of the "law" in order for the law to work in the first place, then obviously the law isn't a completely universal law.
Either way, you break logic. And you have nothing to show that the "Cause" is the God of the bible, or even a God not of the bible.
Actually, we do. Crystallization, and evolution itself, of course.
Sez you. You have no evidence that that's true, so you just proclaim it.
And modern chemical abiogenesis is not the primitive notion of spontaneous generation. Sheesh.
Well, it's certainly evidence that you only have garbage science and fallacious logic, just like every other Creationist moron.
And you have provided even more evidence that this statement was absolutely true.
And you provide ever more evidence that this statement was absolutely true.
Answered below, comment #180.
Aw, poor widdle God. All he has is a weak, foolish human for a mouthpiece. How sad. How utterly pathetic.
So, why can't he speak for himself? You've claimed this this supposed spook can create universes and keep the solar system ticking merrily along. Supposedly he can do all these wonderful, incredibly hard things all the time, and he can't speak like an ordinary human being?
How stupid is the God you believe in? How weak? How evil?
Then bring him out and let him do it.
All you've done is make Creationists look like liars and/or fools and/or crazy people. Good job.
Owl Mirror: "Then bring him out and let him do it." I certainly wouldn't provoke God to respond as He did on Mount Carmel. It is unwise in the extreme.
RB, you still haven't shown any physical evidence for your imaginary deity, and no physical evidence that your holy book isn't fiction. Still total failure on your part, so you must just be another Liar for Jebus™, who has no idea how logic and reason is really done. Don't let the door hit you on the way out...
Oh, nonsense. If God exists, and has all knowledge and all power, then God is reading these very words as I type them, and is perfectly capable of responding in a normal human voice, demonstrating that existence, knowledge and power.
Of course, there's nothing. There never is anything, because the God you claim exists does not exist outside of your imagination.
It should only be a problem if you're a follower of Baal.
Maybe I'm shy. Bet you didn't think of that one!
Maybe you're grumpy?
How dare you accuse me of being grumpy! I haven't killed a whole lot of people with no mercy since.... hm, well...
Oh, I know! It's all Your fault!
My fault? I beg Your pardon? Am I stopping You from doing anything at all?
Of course not. You can't stop Me from doing anything.
But if something is wrong, then it's all Your fault. Because I say so.
I suppose that makes as much sense as it ever does.
Say, would You like to wager on whether a righteous man losing everything will curse You or not? That always seems to cheer You up.
I certainly wouldn't provoke God to respond as He did on Mount Carmel. It is unwise in the extreme.
Aren't they cute when their eyes get all big and wide and they gasp and take a step back because they don't want to get hit by a thunderbolt?
(And aren’t they creepy when their eyes get all big and wide and gleam because they’re imagining the evil atheist getting hit by a thunderbolt?)
Okay, Owl, you didn't surprise me, though you did disappoint me. I half expected you would answer reasonable questions put before you; I didn't think you could resist the challenge. The more realistic expectation, though, is exactly what you fulfilled: you excerpted fragments and proceeded in your usual fashion to either construct straw man arguments and dissect them in a very tired way or you just ignored them, pulled out your "liar, liar ... pants on fire megaphone" and began shouting down reasonable questions.
You did present a website concerning transitional fossils which presently I am examining. I did look up Rev. BigDumbChimp's "Tiktaalik." I do not see any complete skeleton that resembles anything close to the elaborate pictures drawn that are supposed to convince me of the existence of this creature. What fossil fragments I doo see look, honestly, like the front part of the mouth and perhaps the digits of a squashed crocodile or alligator. It's hard to tell from the photographs. There are probably a good many fossilized squashed crocodiles out there waiting to be discovered since Noah didn't get them all on board the ark - just two.
You are very insulting and immature to suggest that anyone whom you do not know is bi-polar, in need of medication (all of which is pharmacological, by the way - however you do get some big-boy points for using a big word. Please note that I am impressed with you), or writes long-winded essays in a manic phase. But, as I stated earlier, I was once an angry young man not unlike yourself. Thus, I understand your need to make such assessments of people who reason well beyond your capability. You feel intimidated and you lash out with personal epithets. If you could incite in me some sort of emotional response (and you cannot), I'd leave. But I am here for your greater good. So, I'll be hanging around for a while.
I do have this favor to ask, and hopefully you will not ignore it. Please answer the following questions (numbered)
(1) I'll ask you to present links to YOUR published works for my review, if you don't mind.
Myself, I have Baccalaureate degrees of Science in Biology and Chemistry. I have a Masters degree in Biology, thesis in Immunohistology. My doctoral work is in Diagnostic Pathology Techniques.
(2) Please respond to the assertion below, citing your references.
"There is, in fact, no way to prove one way or the other what happened in the cosmos before there were scientists or instruments around to directly observe it. We can only speculate."
(3) Please respond to the assertion below, citing your references.
"This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all." Please take into account the recent discovery of astronomer Jane Greaves of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland of a newly forming protoplanet around the star HL Tau. Dr. Greaves claims to have used an "unusual configuration of radio telescopes to detect particles the size of pebbles," and to have found "a dense clump in the disk of gas and dust surrounding the star." DISCOVER MAGAZINE, Jan 2009, titled, "THE YEAR IN SCIENCE 2008."
Please account for the fact that this or any other technique (other than the existence of comets that you cited) has failed to report the existence of the Oort cloud. Any rational person might think that if we can discover pebble sized particles around a star 520 light-years from Earth we could just point the Hubble Space Telescope out where we suspect the Oort cloud exist, take a few pictures and call the matter closed. No, instead all pictures reveal is another few planetoids out beyond the orbit of Pluto/Charon. Nothing like an Oort cloud can be confirmed positively by any empirical method. Without that empirical confirmation, all you have is consensus that isn't worth a lot.
Just take these three examples and answer them cogently and with REFERENCES. Don't take the easy way out that you have in all your past posts by jumping up and down and screaming "Liar, Fraud, Fake, Liar! Liar! Liar!" Please do not respond with profanity or vulgar insinuations. I beleive in you, Owl, I think you can do it.
I'm indeed tempted to ask you to attempt the following experiment:
Take a gun and shoot a wristwatch with a bullet and give me a report of your findings about the orderliness of the watch both before and after the shooting. Now, put as many of the obliterated components as you can find, put them in a jar and shake them until you once again have a fully assembled, fully functional watch. Take whatever measures you deem appropriate (put it under water, introduce an array of pre-biotic amino acids, subject it to electric shock *Please be careful not to electrocute yourself*). Tell me when you once again have a fully assembled, fully functional watch. If you pull this one off, Owlie, you will have produced empirical evidence of the self-organizing nature of the universe (well maybe not, because after all there will have been an INTELLIGENCE, of sorts *you* shaking, immersing, and shocking the watch pieces).
Owlie??? ..... Where are you pal? Maybe when someone imposes a few ground rules to engage in an intelligent discussion (i.e. no jumping up and down and screaming "Liar, Fraud, Fake, Liar! Liar! Liar!" ) you're not up to the challenge?
On the other hand, it is a Saturday morning. You probably had a late night alcohol binge and aren't feeling very well right now. Well do I remember the mornings after, when I had no comfort from a loving God. Bless you, Owl. I eagerly await your response.
RB, still no physical evidence for you imaginary deity, or any physical evidence that your bible isn't a work of fiction. We are terribly disappointed in you. No godbot has ever supplied the proper evidence to show they aren't delusional fools. We were hoping you would be first. Sigh.
Take a gun and shoot a wristwatch with a bullet and give me a report of your findings about the orderliness of the watch both before and after the shooting. Now, put as many of the obliterated components as you can find, put them in a jar and shake them until you once again have a fully assembled, fully functional watch.
You don't wish to be called a fake and liar, and yet you purposely employ a complete non sequitur of an argument with your bullet-riddled wrist-watch-in-a-jar Gedanken that has nothing whatsoever to do with “decent with heritable modification.” The watch—as even liars and fakes know—is not capable of such a thing.
Now, why would you do this? Is it because you are a truth-seeker, actively engaged in the process of discovery and wishing to cultivate knowledge in yourself and others?
Hmmmm . . . noooooooooooo. . . .
Is it, perhaps, that you’re just a smarmy Christian asswipe who wants to sabotage science with supernaturalism and mythical, mystical bullshit and turn the world’s population into drooling idiots for Jesus? Yes, that makes a great deal more sense. That would be the reason that you do such a thing.
I have a thought-experiment for you. Take your wristwatch—before or after shooting it with your holy hand gun of Antioch *Please be careful not to shoot yourself*—and time how long it takes for it to produce a copy of itself. You can even use the watch itself to time the process! How convenient is that? If you get tired of waiting, try putting a second watch next to it, or on it, or bang them together good and hard, or titillate them with Timex porn, as is your wont, and time how long it takes before a fully functional, separate third watch (or hell, any kind of watch) is produced as a result of the conjoining of the two.
If you pull this one off, Rynie, you will have produced empirical evidence of the self-replicating nature of wristwatches, and you will be famous. (It still, however, will not be evidence that life on earth could not have been originally produced by natural, UNINTELLIGENT processes.)
You can do this, Ryan. You just need the faith of a grain of mustard seed.
Ready . . . go!
I appear to have missed a bit by ignoring this thread for a few days.
Oh Ryan, seriously, bring it. I eagerly await the intellectual prowess of this "rip apart," especially as you cannot seem to spell the genus name correctly, think that the transition is between a lizard and bird, and appear to think that we actually hunt for transitional forms rather than transitional features. This should be rich.
Oh goody! I've got a feeling I'm about to learn a whole bunch of stuff!
Ooh, Josh, look, he claims he has a PhD. I'm not very impressed, are you?
hey, want to hear my Ryan Baggett impression?
Ticktalick looks like a squished alligator to me. That's the best you can do for a transitional fossil? Archeopterix looks like a regular bird to me. The teeth and tail are just what birds were like before The Flud. And its a haox anyway (REFERENCE esteemed and prestigious astronomer Sir Hoyle). Take that, atheist evolutionist riff-raff!
yeah, not quite smarmy enough, I know. Work in progress.
Nope, not really, although I think his actual claim (#171) was that of candidate.
You have accused me of being rude, childish, ungracious, and of directing profanity your way.
I'll accept the accusations of being rude and childish, since my comment was both. I don't feel the need to apologize for it as I don't find a particular need to be "all serious" when discussing mythology of any sort, Christian or other. Since by ungracious I suspect you mean rude, I don't know why you would add it to the list given that rude is already there. So I'll ignore that one. As to the charge of directing profanity your way: please point out to me exactly where in this thread I have been profane at all, let alone toward you.
Hmmm...and yet you responded.
Asserting something doesn't make the statement accurate. Can you offer up any evidence that you have personally observed the entirety of the collections of this institution? I doubt you can point me to a single natural history collection on earth that has been completely described in the literature, so unless you have personally examined each and every fossil therein, how exactly can you make the assertion that there are no transitional fossils held within those collections? You wouldn't just be making shit up now, would you?
But okay, let's bite. Please present one of the specimens in the collections of this institution for discussion and demonstrate how this fossil possesses no transitional features. Can we start with something that actually has been described in the literature so there is an impartial descriptive record to begin from? Along those lines, just exactly what museum is this? "British Museum of Science and History" doesn't correlate with any specific institution that I know of or could easily find. Are you talking about the Natural History Museum? The museum in Kensington? What museum? And where are you getting the 60,000 specimen figure from? Links, please.
Sven, that was quite nice...
Huh? You think that mineral crystallization from a melt is directed by an intelligent cause?
Oh goodie...a delusionist on top of everything. Okay Ryan, perhaps you have a better answer than the last several delusionists that have wandered in here:
Why did your god, after the flood, erase all evidence of the event and replace it with a rock record that screams with one unified voice, echoed by every weathering clay mineral, every grain of sand, every caliche nodule, and every mudcrack, that there was no global flood? What was the point?
I'm going to take a wild swing at his answer
Oooh! It looks like another under-educated, arrogant ideologue who is armed to the teeth with AIG cites. I can't wait.
On second thought, maybe I'll go listen to the Pussycat Dolls while I walk on fresh-cut glass and pour vinegar in my eyes.
RB, keep in mind AIG and the references cited therein are refuted by talk origins, so you need to go to the original peer reviewed primary scientific literature for your examples. This might be interesting.
YOU don't observe that, because YOU have had your eyes sewn shut. (Figuratively speaking, of course.)
Sedimentary layers aren't orderly? Crystals aren't orderly? What about the orbit of Jupiter around the sun? Would that be orderly, or chaotic?
Put random mixture of different-sized marbles into a jar. Shake the jar up and down repeatedly. Eventually, the marbles will be sorted into layers, with the largest on bottom and the smallest on top. What "intelligent cause" directed that order?
And just what makes you better equipped to make such a judgment call over the people who have spent their entire adult life educating themselves?
Not only that but predicting they would find a fossil just like this in this very place, and then backing that up by
Wait, hold on. You aren't even suggesting that this isn't a transitional fossil. You are claiming it is a fraud?
Are you actually calling Shubin et al and every single scientist who has looked at this fossil since it's unearthing a liar? That's a bold statement coming from some one with no evidence of such a cover up or even a hint of one and the fact that it has been verified consistently.
Which is exactly why you aren't out there making scientific discoveries. You suffer from an acute case of Dunning-Kruger along with a nice helping of gullibility as demonstrated by your links above I easily shredded.
You can see the actual fossil yourself if you'd like. Like thousands have already done.
That's the dumbest things I've read all month.
There is pretty much nothing about you that doesn't absolutely fucking rock.
Do you need some balm for your backside, because the only one getting ripped here is you.
I can think of other things to do on Saturday night.
get in line, Josh.
I think I might have asked her to marry me a couple of times.
Bet your ass. Let's go. The original is probably still at the Canadian Museum of Nature, but there's also a cast at the Academy in Philadelphia. Rev. you can come on up too and we can take a road trip.
And I this might make me kind of a dickhead, but I think that if you're going to look at this fossil:
and say that the head looks like the head of croc, then you should probably leave the anatomy to the anatomists, because, well...wow.
That is because you, my friend, have excellent taste.
I'd love to. Now if my wife will sell a few more houses then...
Well, I do still owe you that drink. I don't remember what it was for, but...well it might have mostly been because I wanted to owe you a drink...but...
Well, I do still owe you that drink.
I like drinks
Speaking of it's time for a beer.
OOOOPS RB might think we're drunks. What does that mean when drunks easily demolish his nonsense?
Already have a glass of wine in hand. I did some science today; I've earned a glass of wine.
Well, when the standard is "there were two crocs on the arrrk"...
*hoists a cold Saranac IPA*
Bells Oberon Ale here
*raises glass in salute*
Creationists who can't even cite the scientific literature? *Turns and looks at whiteboard marking refuted creationists, and those that refute evolution. No marks in refuted evolution column, the other column a myriad of marks.* Shouldn't be a problem...
Hoists a screwdriver "Prosit".
Bet your ass. Let's go. The original is probably still at the Canadian Museum of Nature, but there's also a cast at the Academy in Philadelphia. Rev. you can come on up too and we can take a road trip.
"I think I might have asked her to marry me a couple of times."
It's crossed my mind too. But I don't really like the idea of long-distance relationships. I just wish I knew where and how to meet girls like her around where I actually live.
##%%^&&** TypePad exired. #225 was me.
That's not only a mighty impressive demonstration of both 'tl:dr' and 'SIWOTI', it's also a clear and presentation case of LOGIC: DOIN IT RONG.
And by wrong, let us be clear, I mean 'two plus two equals seventeen and a half' wrong.
Owl, Josh, 'Tis, Janine...I doff my hat in all due deference to your patience and restraint in dealing with this particularly obnoxious demonstration of a potentially fine mind ruined by fairy tales.
Where do they come from, and why must they feed our confirmation bias about believers with such depressing and predictable regularity?
The MadPanda, FCD
That reminds me of a long serious of "conversations" a sociology professor "had with us" when I was an undergrad about the kids who grow up in small towns and end up meeting 15 possible mates of dating age and narrowing that 15 down to three that they can stand talking to for more than 10 minutes and then finding a connection with one of those three and then running around crowing for the rest of their life about how they found the one girl in the world for them. I have recounted this discussion terribly, perhaps you can understand what the professor was going on about. Those lectures have always stayed with me.
Anybody who has spent time in a small town can understand the professor. If there are only 50 people in your graduating class (and the year before and after), maybe 75 possible candidates for marriage due to being the opposite sex, with about 20-50 leaving town for a real job...
light slowed significantly?
Even the mainstream creationists have moved to table that particular non-argument:
as bad as it is (and the "creationist cosmology" section requires major asbestos protection to keep from being burned by the stupid), even they don't think light has changed speeds.
Problems with comets?
Seriously, Ryan isn't even trying.
you excerpted fragments and proceeded in your usual fashion to either construct straw man arguments and dissect them in a very tired way
yet another classic example of projection.
Seriously, Ryan isn't even trying.
Oh, I think he’s trying. He's trying very, very hard to escape reality and turn the universe into a petting zoo for humans, and if we all behave sheep-like enough we’ll get treats.
I’m wondering whether I should have called his argument on “orderliness” a non sequitur, as he was talking about orderliness in general and not just in regards to evolution (I think). But it is, however, the standard creationist response to evolution, and it’s pretty obvious that that was where he was headed with it. And given that the watch-in-a-blender argument is a purposeful misrepresentation of the theory of evolution, of what the science actually says, I think I’ll just stand by my statement. Next he’ll try to tell us how the second law of thermodynamics makes evolution, and any order from disorder, impossible. Apparently, every snow flake is hand-crafted by an angel in Ryan’s world.
That might explain why there is some history of rebellion within the Angel Corps--I suspect the task would get awfully dull after a while.
I've tended to notice that those who demand politeness, like Ryan, are typically the ones who are out there on their claims, and they know it, but they don't want to get called on it. So how the argument is carried out is more important to them than the information being exchanged. Ass-backwards of what is really important.
That might explain why there is some history of rebellion within the Angel Corps--I suspect the task would get awfully dull after a while.
So that's the reason Hell is hot! Interesting...
That made my day. Woot! Back to writing!
Good find Josh, I liked the analysis. And it did remind me of a few open ended P-Chem questions.
I'm not sure which of these goodies to answer first! This is like a candy store!
First to Kseniya:
You state,"YOU don't observe that, because YOU have had your eyes sewn shut. (Figuratively speaking, of course.)
Sedimentary layers aren't orderly? Crystals aren't orderly? What about the orbit of Jupiter around the sun? Would that be orderly, or chaotic?"
To wit, I'm wondering if you aren't a closet creationist because of course sedimentary layers are orderly, as are crystallization patterns. It is true that they exhibit a far lower order of design than, say, a human epithelial cell or a neuron or a city electric grid. But the order is undeniable in all of these. I especially like the example of God's orderly design in creation you graciously provided me in crystals. Something as simple as a single oxygen atom bonded with two atoms of hydrogen formed at an angle of 109.47° serves as one of the worlds best solvents precisely because of it's shape and forms beautiful and almost completely unique crystals when water freezes, such as may be found at http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/primer/primer.htm/ God is, indeed, an artist unparalled.
You progress to an argument I find rather interesting: "Put random mixture of different-sized marbles into a jar. Shake the jar up and down repeatedly. Eventually, the marbles will be sorted into layers, with the largest on bottom and the smallest on top. What "intelligent cause" directed that order?" The answer, obvious even to one such as myself with my eyes sewn (figuratively) shut, is YOU DID. You are the intelligent cause that shook up the jar of marbles and observed the result, shaking them up until they had, under the direction of gravity taken on the pattern of striation -largest to smallest- that you desired. Once you have achieved the pattern you (the intelligent cause) desired, you stop shaking the jar and then tell me the cause of the striation is not intelligent. I disagree wholeheartedly with your qualification of yourself as unintelligent.
Next... and this one is telling...from my favorite scholar on the board, The auspicious (and suspicious) Rev BigDumbChimp, who writes," Not only that but predicting they would find a fossil just like this in this very place, and then backing that up by FINDING IT."
Eeesh! Is this what science is all about? Predicting what you will find FIRST and then going out and FINDING IT?
I think not.
No, you Big Dumb Chimp, to the contrary science is about discovery and the proper order of paleontology is:
1) Go mucking about in a field, by the ocean, in a creek bed, etc.
2) Find something that your pattern-seeking brain recognizes as different from the other things around it.
3) Precisely mark off the surrounding area and record where it is you found the strange item.
4) Carefully excavate the area, being especially careful to record all findings (other similar-looking stuff that you dig up)
5) Take the strange things you dug up back to a lab and carefully catalog them, comparing them to other finds in the same region or nearby areas.
6)7)8)9) etc...etc.. etc.. etc..
You don't start out one day and say to yourself and some of your colleagues, "Dudes, we've got a pretty weak theory about all of life evolving from mud that we need to support to get a good grade... let's go find some fossil evidence of transitional lifeforms" and then go out and "find" what you were looking for!
As for the few photographs taken, I do not in any way apologize for saying that something that looks like the front eight inches of a squashed alligator or crocodile head and a few things that might be segmented digits bears no resemblance to the elaborate pictures presented as a Tiktaalik "fish-ibian." That's a Tik-Tak-Tall-Tale, Big Dumb Chimp!
Next in line for his bit of humiliation: the often imitated (though one wonders why) and never replicated (thank you, Jesus) JOSH:
You wrote,"Why did your god, after the flood, erase all evidence of the event and replace it with a rock record that screams with one unified voice, echoed by every weathering clay mineral, every grain of sand, every caliche nodule, and every mudcrack, that there was no global flood? What was the point?"
I call the Uniformitarian idea of geological formation absolutely absurd. There, indeed, was a catastrophic world-wide flood and it occurred some 4,400 - 5,000 years ago. Now, I'll give you my reasons for believing that a world-wide flood is absolutely sustainable by only the geologic record.
I'll, then, go on the produce other evidence from a field of science just as respected as Geology: Anthropology.
Noted geologists in the 19th century pointed to the Falls on the Niagara River as rock solid evidence that the processes of erosion had formed this spectacle over the course of hundreds of thousands of years. Then, man erected a dam upstream (did you know we can actually, in effect, turn the Niagara falls off?) and geologists collected rock specimens from the dry river bed. What they noted was that, indeed, the Niagara River had been chewing away at the dolomite for some time. Then, the river hit a section of sandstone and silt and the Falls receded upstream several miles in just a few days. Here's the quote:
"Around 4,200 years ago, the Falls reached a dramatic point in its journey. It uncovered massive a pre-glacial gorge−an ancient river valley gouged 300 feet into the bedrock. Glacial activity buried this gorge with silt, sand, and stone −loosely packed by geological standards. When the Falls hit the junction where the Niagara River crossed Saint David's Buried Gorge it began tearing through the loosely packed fill at an alarming rate [NO DOUBT VERY ALARMING TO THE NATIVE AMERICANS LIVING IN THE PATH OF THE SUDDEN EROSION]. At this time the Falls probably wasn't a waterfall at all, but rather a muddy mess of rapids as it excavated the filled gorge. The 90 degree turn at the present-day Whirlpool marks where the Falls met the ancient gorge, turned and began tearing it apart."
I do have to wonder why it is supposed that the area of sandstone and loosely packed material had to have washed there to fill in the cut left by a glacier thousands of years before.
This act of nature, dramatic and sudden as it was, cannot be taken to be the only example of sudden cataclysmic upheavals in the earth's history? Even evolutionists, observing the supposed sudden disappearance of the large saurians at the Cretaceous-Tertian (K-T) boundary leave room for dramatic events.
The geologic record practically bursts at the seams with evidence of a global flood event.
In addition, I have observed the fossilized remains of sea creatures on the tops of mountains where only a great deluge could have carried them.
I'm sure you see the same evidence and come to the very different conclusion that these sea creatures' remains were buried at the bottom of shallow seas hundreds of millions of years ago, fossilized there, and then were lifted up through an eons-long geographic upheaval to the tops of mountains. Nice theory, I'll give you. But, what about lithic metamorphism? The immense heat generated by the pressure of one billion-ton plate of rock pressing into and grinding over another billion-ton plate of rock would surely disfigure fossilized remains...heyyyyy..that's where your fossilized transitional lifeforms went...Look! I found what I was looking for, kiddies! IT'S SCIENCE!! Sorry, DumbChimp. That was too good to possibly resist.
I have to say, Josh, your arguments are much more fun to rip than anyone else's on the boards. It's just too easy, no matter how many friends you bring to the party!
Ah! But I promised more compelling evidence, and that from Anthropology. Anthropology is the study of man in his various cultures, throughout the world. This study includes the stories, both oral and written that convey man's understanding of the universe he occupies and how it came to be that way. Anthropology also investigates ancient civilizations and the records they have left behind. Interestingly, ancient civilizations such as those from China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia all have their own versions of a giant flood.
Flood Legends from Around the World
Ark - Perched Island LandingNative global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.
These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that parallel the Biblical account including the warning of the coming flood, the construction of a boat in advance, the storage of animals, the inclusion of family, and the release of birds to determine if the water level had subsided. The overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin (the Bible's record), but oral transcription has changed the details through time.
Perhaps the second most important historical account of a global flood can be found in a Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. When the Biblical and Babylonian accounts are compared, a number of outstanding similarities are found that leave no doubt these stories are rooted in the same event or oral tradition.
Take the seed of all creatures aboard the ship Gen. 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring.
I boarded the ship and closed the door. Gen. 7:1 Come into the Ark
Gen. 7:16 The Lord shut him in.
I sent out a dove . . . The dove went, then came back, no resting-place appeared for it, so it returned. Gen. 8:8 He sent out a dove...But the dove found no resting-place . . . and she returned.
Then I sent out a raven . .it was the waters receding, it ate, it flew about to and fro, it did not return. Gen. 8:7 He sent out a raven, which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the Earth.
I made a libation on the peak of the mountain. Gen. 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord (on the mountain) and offered burnt offerings.
D = Destruction by Water
. G = (God) Divine Cause
. W = Warning Given
. H = Humans Spared
. A = Animals Spared
. V = Preserved in a Vessel
D . . H A V 01 Australia- Kurnai
D . W H A V 02 Babylon- Berossus' account
D G W H A V 03 Babylon- Gilgamesh epic
D G W H . V 04 Bolivia- Chiriguano
D . . H A V 05 Borneo- Sea Dayak
D . . H A V 06 Burma- Singpho
D G . H A V 07 Canada- Cree
D G W H A V 08 Canada- Montagnais
D G . H A V 09 China- Lolo
D . W H A V 10 Cuba- original natives
D G W H A V 11 East Africa- Masai
D G W H . V 12 Egypt- Book of the Dead
D G . H . V 13 Fiji- Walavu-levu tradition
D G W H A . 14 French Polynesia- Raiatea
D . . H A V 15 Greece- Lucian's account
D G . H A V 16 Guyana- Macushi
D G . H . V 17 Iceland- Eddas
D G . H . V 18 India- Andaman Islands
D . W H A V 19 India- Bhil
D G W H . V 20 India-Kamar
D . W H A . 21 Iran- Zend-Avesta
D G . H . V 22 Italy- Ovid's poetry
D G . H . V 23 Malay Peninsula- Jekun
D . W H . V 24 Mexico- Codex Chimalpopoca
D . W H A V 25 Mexico- Huichol
D G . H . V 26 New Zealand- Maori
D . W H A . 27 Peru- Indians of Huarochiri
D . W H . V 28 X . Russia- Vogul
D . W H A V 29 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Kolusches
D G . H A V 30 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Tlingit
D . W H A V 31 U.S.A. (Arizona)- Papago
D G . H A V 32 U.S.A. (Hawaii)- legend of Nu-u
D . . H A V 33 Vanualu- Melanesians
D . . H A V 34 Vietnam- Bahnar
D . . H A V 35 Wales- Dwyfan/Dwyfan legend
35 18 17 35 24 32 Total Occurrences out of 35
Flood Legends from Around the World
Once upon a time the rivers began to flood. The god told two people to get into a ship. He told them to take lots of seed and to take lots of animals. The water of the flood eventually covered the mountains. Finally the flood stopped. Then one of the men, wanting to know if the water had dried up let a dove loose. The dove returned. Later he let loose a hawk which did not return. Then the men left the boat and took the animals and the seeds with them.
The Chinese classic called the Hihking tells about "the family of Fuhi," that was saved from a great flood. This ancient story tells that the entire land was flooded; the mountains and everything, however one family survived in a boat. The Chinese consider this man the father of their civilization. This record indicates that Fuhi, his wife, three sons, and three daughters were the only people that escaped the great flood. It is claimed, that he and his family were the only people alive on earth, and repopulated the world.
Gilgamesh met an old man named Utnapishtim, who told him the following story. The gods came to Utnapishtim to warn him about a terrible flood that was coming. They instructed Utnapishtim to destroy his house and build a large ship. The ship was to be 10 dozen cubits high, wide and long. Utnapishtim was to cover the ship with pitch. He was supposed to take male and female animals of all kinds, his wife and family, provisions, etc. into the ship. Once ship was completed the rain began falling intensely. The rain fell for six days and nights. Finally things calmed and the ship settled on the top of Mount Nisir. After the ship had rested for seven days Utnapishtim let loose a dove. Since the land had not dried the dove returned. Next he sent a swallow which also returned. Later he let loose a raven which never returned since the ground had dried. Utnapishtim then left the ship.
There was a man by the name of Xisuthrus. The god Chronos warned Xisuthrus of a coming flood and told him to build a boat. The boat was to be 5 stadia by 2 stadia. In this boat Xisuthrus was to put his family, friends and two of each animal (male and female). The flood came. When the waters started to recede he let some birds loose. They came back and he noticed they had mud on their feet. He tried again with the same results. When he tried the third time the birds did not return. Assuming the water had dried up the people got out of the boat and offered sacrifices to the gods.
A long time ago lived a man named Manu. Manu, while washing himself, saved a small fish from the jaws of a large fish. The fish told Manu, "If you care for me until I am full grown I will save you from terrible things to come". Manu asked what kind of terrible things. The fish told Manu that a great flood would soon come and destroy everything on the earth. The fish told Manu to put him in a clay jar for protection. The fish grew and each time he outgrew the clay jar Manu gave him a larger one. Finally the fish became a ghasha, one of the largest fish in the world. The fish instructed Manu to build a large ship since the flood was going to happen very soon. As the rains started Manu tied a rope from the ship to the ghasha. The fish guided the ship as the waters rose. The whole earth was covered by water. When the waters began subsiding the ghasha led Manu's ship to a mountaintop.
There is a legend of a flood called the Dreamtime flood. Riding on this flood was the woramba, or the Ark Gumana. In this ark was Noah, Aborigines, and various animals. This ark eventually came to rest in the plain of Djilinbadu where it can still be found. They claim that the white mans story about the ark landing in the middle east is a lie that was started to keep the aborigines in subservience. This legend is undoubtedly the product of aboriginal legends merging with those of visiting missionaries, and there does not appear to be any native flood stories from Australia.
A long time ago, perhaps before the golden age was over, humans became proud. This bothered Zeus as they kept getting worse. Finally Zeus decided that he would destroy all humans. Before he did this Prometheus, the creator of humans, warned his human son Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha. Prometheus then placed this couple in a large wooden chest. The rains started and lasted nine days and nights until the whole world was flooded. The only thing that was not flooded was the peaks of Mount Parnassus and Mount Olympus. Mount Olympus is the home of the gods. The wooden chest came to rest on Mount Parnassus. Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha got out and saw that everything was flooded. The lived on provisions from the chest until the waters subsided. At Zeus' instruction they re-populated the earth.
The Toltec natives have a legend telling that the original creation lasted for 1716 years, and was destroyed by a flood and only one family survived.
Aztec- A man named Tapi lived a long time ago. Tapi was a very pious man. The creator told Tapi to build a boat that he would live in. He was told that he should take his wife, a pair of every animal that was alive into this boat. Naturally everyone thought he was crazy. Then the rain started and the flood came. The men and animals tried to climb the mountains but the mountains became flooded as well. Finally the rain ended. Tapi decided that the water had dried up when he let a dove loose that did not return.
The Ojibwe natives who have lived in Minnesota USA since approximately 1400AD also have a creation and flood story that closely parallels the Biblical account. "There came a time when the harmonious way of life did not continue. Men and women disrespected each other, families quarreled and soon villages began arguing back and forth. This saddened Gitchie Manido [the Creator] greatly, but he waited. Finally, when it seemed there was no hope left, Creator decided to purify Mother Earth through the use of water. The water came, flooding the Earth, catching all of creation off guard. All but a few of each living thing survived." Then it tells how Waynaboozhoo survived by floating on a log in the water with various animals.
Ojibwe - Ancient native American creation story tells of world wide flood.
Delaware Indians - In the pristine age, the world lived at peace; but an evil spirit came and caused a great flood. The earth was submerged. A few persons had taken refuge on the back of a turtle, so old that his shell had collected moss. A loon flew over their heads and was entreated to dive beneath the water and bring up land. It found only a bottomless sea. Then the bird flew far away, came back with a small portion of earth in its bill, and guided the tortoise to a place where there was a spot of dry land.
During the period of time called the Pachachama people became very evil. They got so busy coming up with and performing evil deeds they neglected the gods. Only those in the high Andes remained uncorrupted. Two brothers who lived in the highlands noticed their llamas acting strangely. They asked the llamas why and were told that the stars had told the llamas that a great flood was coming. This flood would destroy all the life on earth. The brothers took their families and flocks into a cave on the high mountains. It started to rain and continued for four months. As the water rose the mountain grew keeping its top above the water. Eventually the rain stopped and the waters receded. The mountain returned to its original height. The shepherds repopulated the earth. The llamas remembered the flood and that is why they prefer to live in the highland areas.
Flood Legends from Around the World
Offsite Flood Legend References from Creationists
* Ark In Water With Dove A Comparison of Narrative Elements in Ancient Mesopotamian Creation-Flood Stories with Genesis 1-9 by William H. Shea
* A Statistical Analysis of Flood Legends by James E. Strickling CRSQ Abstracts, Volume 9, Number 3
* Aboriginal Flood Legend by Answers in Genesis
* Australian Aboriginal Flood Stories by Answers in Genesis
* Flood Legends by earthage.org
* Flood Legends by Tim Lovett
* Flood Stories - Can They Be Ignored by Roth, A. A.
* Flood Traditions by Noahs Ark Zoo Farm
* Flood Traditions of the World Arthur C. Custance
* Genesis and ancient Near Eastern stories of Creation and the Flood by Christian Answers Net
* Grand Canyon Legend by Answers in Genesis
* Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic by John Sarfati
* Panning for Traces of the Flood by Kyle Butt, M.A.
* The BIAMI Legends by Answers in Genesis
* The Genesis Flood and Human History
* The Two Flood Stories; A Comparison of the J and P Accounts by Henry E. Neufeld
* Travels of Noah - book written in 1601 telling of the travel of Noah's and the re-population of Europe
* Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Secular Flood Legend References
* A possible source of the Noah's Flood story Critical review by the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance
* An Anthropologist Looks at the Judeo-Christian Scriptures
* Choctaw Flood Legends Index USA
* Comparison of Babylonian and Noahic Flood Stories
* Flood Legends by Alan Feuerbacher
* Flood Stories details of many accounts from around the world
* Flood Stories From Around the World by Mark Isaak
* Incan Legends of the Great Flood!
* Language Grouping for Flood Stories by Mark Isaak
* Morgana's Observatory: Universal Myths (Flood Myths Part One)
o (Flood Myths Part Two)
* Myth - Flood by N.S. Gill
* Native American Indian Lore: The Great Flood
* The Epic of Gilgamesh Tablet XI - The Story of the Flood
* The Eridu Genesis The Sumerian Noah
* The Flood, Greek Mythology Link
* The Myth of Noah's Flood by Joseph Francis Alward
* The Story of Atrahasis
Flood Legends from Around the World
Quote and References on Flood Legends
* a . “It has long been known that legends of a great flood, in which almost all men perished, are widely diffused over the world ...” James George Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1, (London: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1919), p. 105.
* Byron C. Nelson, The Deluge Story in Stone (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1968), pp. 169–190.
* “... there are many descriptions of the remarkable event [the Genesis Flood]. Some of these have come from Greek historians, some from the Babylonian records; others from the cuneiform tablets, and still others from the mythology and traditions of different nations, so that we may say that no event has occurred either in ancient or modern times about which there is better evidence or more numerous records, than this very one which is so beautifully but briefly described in the sacred Scriptures. It is one of the events which seems to be familiar to the most distant nations—in Australia, in India, in China, in Scandinavia, and in the various parts of America. It is true that many look upon the story as it is repeated in these distant regions, as either referring to local floods, or as the result of contact with civilized people, who have brought it from historic countries, and yet the similarity of the story is such as to make even this explanation unsatisfactory.” Stephen D. Peet, “The Story of the Deluge,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 27, No. 4, July–August 1905, p. 203.
* C. H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, The Discovery of Genesis (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1979). [This excellent book shows that the classical Chinese pictographs contain many stories and details found in the early chapters of Genesis. The earliest people of China, 4,000–5,000 years ago, brought with them stories of past events that became imbedded in their language. (See Figure 37 on page 45.)]
So, there it is, Josh. EVIDENCE. You asked for it. I delivered.
I think in past postings you have required of me to produce evidence for the existence of God.
So, I ask you, what form would that evidence have to take to be convincing to you? I mean, convincing enough for you not just to give intellectual assent (a hard enough thing to do), but to believe and change your life and attitudes toward God?
I'm not offering you salvation, Josh. Only God can do that. I believe that He will, if He chooses to do so and I am a mortal and cannot say when or where He will choose to act. I think, furthermore, that good evidence that He has saved you (theologically this is called justification and it precedes conversion) is that you keep responding and don't just shut off this conversation. Your human will COMPELS you to be here on this blog and respond, even if you respond with jests today. Another great evidence is how these arguments stir up your emotions inside and remind you of past hurts.
Tell me, Josh, what form must the evidence you require take? If you're asking me to cook up God in a laboratory test tube, I can't do that. God, by His definition, defies that kind of empirical test. If I could just add 300mg of omnipotence (ludicrous in itself) to 50mcg of omniscience and add in a few grams of unending undying love, I could not "make" God. If I could, I would BE God.
You don't require the same proofs to believe in the existence of Lao Tzu or Confucius, yet you believe they existed. You don't require DNA evidence to confirm the existence of the Buddha, yet believe he existed.
God isn't like any of these men of the past, you will no doubt say. I know, I said it myself. No, indeed, He is not.
So, again I ask you, what evidence do you require? i will do my best to procure it for you.
Ryan, almost all of the tripe you just posted is refuted in this thread. You cited essentially no peer reviewed primary scientific literature, so essentially you presented nothing. You are supposedly studying to be scientist. You should know better. We are terribly disappointed in you and your illogical non evidential post. We expect better for scientists.
We are present up on a current thread. You should join us
Ryan, I’m getting a little concerned about you. Have you gone off the deep end? Did you witness a horrifying murder or something that left you schizophrenic and utterly discombobulated?
[ I read #196 over the weekend, and thought: "You know, I have better things to do with my life besides coping with this Creationist jackasshole". So I worked on other stuff over the weekend. But I actually did read up a bit on the topics raised, and finally decided that I would, by damn, respond -- with as much heaping of abuse as I felt necessary. Because, hey, if Ryan storms off in a huff, that's a win. And if he learns something, that's OK too. ]
[ S I W O T I ! ! ! ]
You have not asked any reasonable questions. You have babbled like a deranged loon.
All of which says nothing about whether I am correct, though. I do not need to know you to observe your mood swings and manic obsessiveness in your multiple incoherent postings here.
Take your damn meds, bipolar boy.
No. I'm not the one making ridiculous grandiose claims that would change everything known about the world. You are.
What institution(s) gave you multiple degrees? Or did you get them from a diploma mill? Find them in a Crackerjack box? Print them out yourself on a printer, maybe on real nice paper? Scrawl them on scrap paper with crayon?
Or, hey, am I right about you going to Clown College? If this is a prolonged joke, good job.
Someone with real experience with biology would at least have some slight knowledge of vetebrate anatomy, and dismissing Tiktaalik as a "squashed crocodile", demonstrates utter ignorance of that field of knowledge.
For that matter, up above, you didn't say "I'm a biologist and a chemist" or "I'm a pathologist". You said you were a mathematician, of all things — and you completely screwed up basic bonehead algebra. And on top of all that, the only familiarity you seem to have with peer-reviewed literature and the methodology of science is rare references to Wikipedia and frequent references to Creationist crap sites.
I smell bullshit on your every word.
I think we may need to add "compulsive lying" and "megalomania" to that diagnosis of bipolar syndrome. Lyin' braggart; yup, sounds about right.
Respond? Well, it's nonsense, from start to finish.
Everything we know about the universe is a reasoned inference from the evidence of the universe itself.
For example: The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. This arises from the application of the Special Theory of Relativity to the behavior of light, and both arises from experiment, and was confirmed by experiment, the earliest very rough estimate being done 300+ years ago.
Now, I should not need to tell a real mathematician this, but a pathetic fake such as you probably needs to be reminded of the basics: The distance traveled by something is equal to the rate of speed multiplied by the time it takes to travel. That is: D=R*T. But we can, of course, solve for time: T=D/R. Since we know that R is the constant c, 299,792,458 meters per second, and can often calculate D for nearby stellar objects via basic trigonometry (parallax), we can divide the distance by the speed of light -- and know that we are seeing light from the past; tens, hundreds, and many thousands of years ago. There are other methods of determining stellar distances, which are also based on reasonable inferences from physics as we understand them.
In addition, we know that the universe is expanding. That is, we see red-shifting of stellar spectra, and deduce, from its general uniformity, that something is causing everything to move away from each other, thereby affecting the wavelength of light, and we can calculate what that shift is.
And, in combination with all of this, we can take observations about the dissipation of blackbody energy -- that is, Planck's law -- and make a prediction about what energy level would expect to find given the current expansion of the universe, and then find that prediction confirmed by experiment.
All of which leads to the following conclusion about science:
Yes, it works, bitches.
So, in summary, we do in fact know, based on everything we know about physics, that the empirical observations made of the cosmos are indeed of that which happened in the past, based on the consequences of their physical constraints, as we see them now in the present.
 Rømer, Ole (1676). . "Démonstration touchant le mouvement de la lumière". Journal des sçavans: 223–236. Translated as "A Demonstration concerning the Motion of Light". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (136): 893–894. 1677.
 Michelson, A. A.; Pease, F. G.; Pearson, F. (1935), "Measurement Of The Velocity Of Light In A Partial Vacuum", Astrophys. J. 82: 26-61,
 P. Beckman, P. Mandics (1965). "Test of the constancy of the velocity of electromagnetic radiation in high vacuum". J. Res. Natl. Bur. Std. 69D (4): 623. OSTI:4619000.
 Gibbs, Philip and Carlip, Steve (1996,1997) "Is The Speed of Light Constant?"
URL LINK: math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
 Knop, Rob (2007) "Redshift (Basic Concepts)"
URL LINK: scienceblogs.com/interactions/2007/03/redshift_basic_concepts.php
 Planck, Max (1901). "On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum" Annalen der Physik 4: 553.
 Hubble, Edwin, "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae" (1929) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173
 Freedman, Wendy et al. "Final Results from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to Measure the Hubble Constant" (2001) The Astrophysical Journal, 553:47-72
 D. N. Spergel et al. (2007). "Three-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Implications for Cosmology". Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 170: 377-408.
You mean hypothesized cloud. God is imaginary; there is no evidence whatsoever for any such fairy-tale made-up nonsense. The Oort cloud at the very least has the evidence of the comets themselves.
And of course, there is indeed observational evidence.
We report the discovery of a minor planet (2006 SQ372) on an orbit with a perihelion of 24 AU and a semimajor axis of 796 AU. Dynamical simulations show that this is a transient orbit and is unstable on a timescale of 200 Myrs. Falling near the upper semimajor axis range of the scattered disk and the lower semimajor axis range of the Oort Cloud, previous membership in either class is possible. By modeling the production of similar orbits from the Oort Cloud as well as from the scattered disk, we find that the Oort Cloud produces 16 times as many objects on SQ372-like orbits as the scattered disk. Given this result, we believe this to be the most distant long-period comet ever discovered. Furthermore, our simulation results also indicate that 2000 OO67 has had a similar dynamical history. Unaffected by the "Jupiter-Saturn Barrier," these two objects are most likely long-period comets from the inner Oort Cloud. 
[ See also comment #232 above, which links to a discussion that goes into more details about comets themselves ][ Oh, and note that even other creationists think that the comet argument is stupid. How about that: You're even dumber than the average creationist. ]
Your problem, Lyin', you ignorant slut, is that you are not a rational person, and you are making loads of mistakes: First of all, you're arguing from a popular article based on a press release. Second of all, you're a presuppositionalist moron who is totally ignorant of physics and astronomy. Third of all, you assume that everyone else in the universe is as ignorant and stupid as you are, or even dumber than that.
Press releases and popularizations may give an idea of what the science underlying a given discovery is, but they may leave out details which lead to confusing in the ignorant. You seem to have the terribly mistaken impression that space pebbles have been seen through a telescope lens.
When you actually look at the paper that describes the actual astrophysics — I don't expect you to actually understand the whole thing; it's written in astrophysicsese — what should immediately become clear to an intelligent reader is that the "pebble-sized" particles were not directly observed. Rather, there is an enormous — I mean absolutely fucken huge — disk of material swirling around the star. They are not seeing "pebble-sized particles" through a lens, they are inferring that the disk is composed of rocks of that size, on average, based on the wavelengths reflected from that humongous disk.
Here, we use radio-wavelength data to trace the thermal emission from large dust particles in the disc around HL Tau [...] Millimetre interferometry (resolving out the envelope) has shown emission from the dust-disc extending out to at least ~100 AU radius 
Since your knowledge of basic science is abysmal, it's worth pointing out that 100 AU is 9,300 million miles.
The dust spectrum of Fν ∝ ν2.5−2.6 is characteristic of emission from a population of particles extending in size up to at least three times the observing wavelengths (Draine 2006), and hence here to bodies of > 10 cm.
The spectrum of the condensation is ∝ ν2.5 from the fluxes of 23 ± 5 mJy at 1.4 mm and 78±17 μJy at 1.3 cm (neglecting lower-resolution data noted by Welch et al. (2004) as surrounding disc flux may be included), again implying that very large particles are present. This would agree with simulations (Rice et al. 2006) in which ‘boulder’-like bodies of around metre-size are most readily captured in unstable regions. 
Got it, dumbass? They're seeing characteristics; effects that imply; agreement with simulation -- not pebbles through a lens.
And once again, your argument relies on your pathetic ignorance of physics. If you don't know physics, don't mouth off about it.
The disk, with its constituent pebbles, is visible because it is lit up by the hot young star in the center. The whole thing is reflecting lots and lots of radiant energy. That's what's being seen in the first place.
Well, radiant energy dissipates the further away from the radiating body you get. It falls off with the square of the distance from the radiating body. And the Oort cloud is approximately a light year from the sun. Can you do the math, you brain-damaged fuckwit? Is any of this getting through to you? The disc around H Tau is receiving and reflect a lot of light; the comets of the Oort are receiving almost no light to reflect.
I don't know if the Hubble space telescope could detect comets in the Oort cloud, but I suspect that it could. However, there is the pragmatic matter of priorities. Should this huge, expensive telescope be used to detect incredibly faint bodies that are not of huge interest, in and of themselves, or should it be used to find things that glow brightly and beautifully, like nebulae, galaxies, and distant stars and solar systems? Hey, why don't you try and tell NASA that their priority should be looking for practically invisible distant comets?
Meanwhile, other astronomers, who are interested in the Oort, are perfectly capable of using other telescopes to carry out their searches, and are indeed doing so.
 Nathan A. Kaib, Andrew C. Becker et. al. "2006 SQ372: A Likely Long-Period Comet from the Inner Oort Cloud" Astrophys.J.695:268-275,2009
 J. S. Greaves, A. M. S. Richards, W. K. M. Rice, T. W. B. Muxlow "Enhanced Dust Emission in the HL Tau Disc: A Low-Mass Companion in Formation?" arXiv e-print (arXiv:0809.4151) (Submitted on 24 Sep 2008)
URL LINK: arxiv.org/abs/0809.4151
[print publication: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, Volume 391, Issue 1, pp. L74-L78 ]
 T. C. Nihei et al "Detectability of Occultations of Stars by Objects in the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud" 2007 The Astronomical Journal 134 1596-1612
 Julio A. Fernández, Tabaré Gallardo and Adrián Brunini "The Scattered Disk Population and the Oort Cloud" Earth, Moon, and Planets Volume 92, Numbers 1-4 / June, 2003
Hey, how about you do these experiments, Mister Oh-yes-I-am-a-real-genuine-biologist-and-chemist Lyin' Braggart?
URL LINK: profiles.nlm.nih.gov/PX/Views/Exhibit/narrative/monster.html
That's going to leave a mark.
Well, that explains the huge cut/paste of already refuted material from creationist web sites. They guy is an unstable mental midget. And still no physical evidence for his imaginary god. Which is always step one creating a really viable hypothesis based upon real evidence.
Which doesn't say anything about the validity of the actual fossil, it just shows that you are willing to accept your ignorance of the subject as more valuable than the people who are actually experts in the field.
Like I said, Dunning Kruger in full effect.
The only person you are humiliating is yourself.
What's really funny is that some of you people feel the need to use profanity. Well, atleast we can tell who is the more "Evovled" people here.
Just to throw in my two cent, for those who need a picture or need to see a physical proof of God's existence, you will never see it since you aren't looking (Denial is part of the definition of an Atheist) and if you are looking or willing to listen if there are any facts/evidence then you are admitting that there is a possibility that God exist and well what's the rush? When you pass away, if we're right, you'll see everything you need to see, and if we're wrong, well, you won't exist to care anyways so why are you putting so much energy into debating who is right and who is wrong when you have other things to do, unless of course, you do not. If that is the case then there's a Sudoku puzzle that I could use some help on.
Evolution is rejected by many as Creation is rejected for the same reason, both in short are theories, get over it.
Evolution is a theory, so it has no facts to back it up or it would be a science fact. Many Evolutionist will say that their theory can be proven true, um no you can't as you do not have evidence or proof and thus Evolution remains a theory. Sorry folks, you can keep trying to find the body of Big Foot though.
Creation is a belief and does not need immediate scientific proof or do you have a different definition of a religious belief? For those who say Creation is not a belief, well, "I BELIEVE that the God Almighty Created... ", well your sentence starts with it and you can't prove it either so it's a belief, not a given fact.
Just because you do not have facts or evidence does not mean it (Creation or Evolution)is not possible or that it does not exist, it just means that you both need to quit wasting time arguing, debating, denying, pointing out to things in history/past, insulting, getting all fired up or whatever it is you folks get off on and actually do some research and find out for yourself which is the truth. By the way folks, Googling online is not researching.
Lastly (this is especially for Atheist believers), If indeed you are right and there is no God, nothing will happen to you and I when we pass away whether we believed in a God or not. If you are wrong and there is a God, you will probably end up in a hot and painful place and I will end up in a very warm and comfortable place. Do you really insist on taking the short end of the stick, if so, then just tell people who are religous that you don't want to go to heaven, we'll try our best to understand.
Anyways, to the topic of Kent Hovind, I don't know any "facts" as I did not do the investigation, prosecution, defending, or deliberating, or was involved in any way and I know none of you people have either unless you can prove it otherwise. What makes you people have any right to say anything? It would be like if your pants slipped off when you were tying up the cow's leg to prevent it from kicking the milk bucket and your wife walked in. Well guess who knows for a fact what happend?
PS, if you point out a spelling error or a grammar error, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were willing to become a teacher and work for free, in that case, e-mail me, I'd love to take your paychecks.
Faulty onomatopoeia — should be Nyuk Nyuk. :)
Dear Brother Aku Aku,
Between us, I'm God's appointed missionary on this blog and I don't need your semi-illiterate foaming at the mouth to help me with my witness.
Why don't you go and pray for your own crop of atheists to shine the light of Jesus upon?
You'd better pray for some less "evovled" ones, because you are right out of your league here.
Yours in Christian contempt,
God's only appointed missionary to the hell-bound atheists of Pharyngula.
Duuhh, okies! I needs your bank account details.
I'll send you the moneys soon as you post them.
The standard Christian hypocrisy. The truth of the matter is that you are the ones who refuse to analyze the evidence.
And we don't see evidence because there are none. If there are PUT IT UP. Otherwise STFU. (Profanity is legit. For you, it put character into speech and is a vital part of understanding language.)
I not only beg to differ, but I am willing to put up evidence. Look up evolutionary medicine. Or better yet go to Talk Origins. There is significant support of evolution. Unlike intelligent design.
Pascal Wager again?! What if YOUR WRONG? What if this whole time you've done nothing but offend Quetzalcoatl? That's a stupid wager because you never seem to think the possibility that your wrong. If you're right, then FUCK GOD. It'd rather be in hell than to be with someone that vain and dim-witted.
Now I see!
What's really funny is that some of you people feel the need to use profanity.
Dumbfuck whiny crybaby starts of immediately about tone. Well, fuck you. Asshole, before you say an other fucking word on the topic, find the link to Kent Hovind's dissertation paper sent to a diploma mill. Read it and see if this is a man you want to defend.
Until that you do that, kindly go fuck yourself.
And one last thing, my use of profanity does not take away from the breathe taking inanity of Kent Hovind's word. His shit smells just as bad no matter how much I swear.
Do I need to spank you, Smoggy,
On your faithful bare behind?
AkuAku is misguided
But his motives must be kind!
All his arguments are dated,
All his wording second-hand--
Smoggy, don't belittle someone
For what they don't understand!
Personally, I don't trust anyone who doesn't ever swear. To swear is human. There's plenty of worse things out there than swearing. Willful and prideful ignorance is one.
(And really, you start by sneering at us for using profanity, then you end by making a bestiality-themed joke. It's like hypocrisy is the air you guys breathe.)
Yes, you need to spank me, Cuttle,
For that is what I prayed you’d do!
As for that dickhead AkuAku
Another brain that lacks a screw!
All his thoughts are blandly facile,
All his words taste like cold sick--
Cuttle, I can’t but help revile
A man of God so fucking thick!
That is known as Pascal's wager, a know bit of idiocy. You are wrong. There is no god, since there is no physical evidence for one, just fallacious sophistry.
Oh, you, like all idiots, must be ignoring the million or so scientific papers that back evolution, both directly and indirectly. When you get the mud off your face try again with some truth. Starting your you are a delusional fool.
And the foot goes further in the mouth. You must love the taste of toe jam on your uvula.
Tax evasion is a felony, and KH committed tax evasion and was tried and convicted of his crime. Period, end of story.
Teachers don't work for free, and are vastly underpaid. Especially when dealing with mentally deficient and delusional idjits like yourself.
How is that funny? More to the point: how did you differentiate between 'need' and 'desire'? Please show your work. I, personally, use profanity if I feel it's appropriate; for example, I think that calling you a fucking clown shoe is reasonable because you've demonstrated all the hallmarks of being a fucking clown shoe.
No, the definition of an atheist is 'one who is without gods'. The practice of denial would imply there is a god (or gods) to be denied; by definition you can't deny something you're without.
Please learn what words mean. They're important.
Pascal should have stuck to mathematics. You should stick to whatever it is you do. I'm guessing, based on the insight you've demonstrated here, that you're a junior jizz-mopper at an especially cheap whack-parlour.
Again with not knowing what words mean. Evolution is a fact; the Theory of Evolution is the theory which explains the details of that fact. And it is not rejected by anyone who actually knows anything about it.
Creation isn't even a theory - it's a fairy tale. Theories (in science) require certain things (proposed mechanisms etc.) which can be tested and observed. Creationism doesn't have those; ergo, it is not a theory. It's just wishful thinking by ignorant and/or deluded morons.
This part you've actually gotten right - sort of. The problem is is that your brothers-and-sisters-in-faith keep on insisting that there are reasonable, rational and intelligent reasons for holding that belief when there are not.
In short, you're entitled to believe whatever the heck you want to believe - just stop claiming that doing so is rational. It's no more rational than those who believe in ghosts, alien abductions or the Loch Ness Monster.
Oxymoron - you moron.
What if there is a god, but it's not yours? What if the Hindus are right? What if it's the Jews, and the whole Jesus thing was a test which failed? What if the Norse gods are real, and by virtue of not dying in battle you get to spend eternity warming Odin's codpiece?
What if it's another god entirely who has deliberately provided no evidence for his existence and is only rewarding those who (rightly) did not believe? Atheists in, theists out? Have you considered that possibility?
He's in jail because he was found to be guilty of crimes. Evidence was produced to demonstrate this - you see where I'm going here? Evidence - it's a wonderful thing. You don't have any; we have lots. We win.
Care to try again?
What's funny about it?
Another Liar for Jebus. Denial has nothing to do with "the definition of an Atheist." But then Lying for Jebus is one of the favorite tools of Christians. They don't have any real arguments supporting their beliefs so they have to lie about people who don't accept their delusions.
Do you even have a clue about what the word theory means when a scientist uses it? It does not mean a guess. A theory is an explanation. The Theory of Gravity and the Germ Theory of Disease are not guesses.
Do you really think people on a science blog are going to be fooled by your bullshit? Because that's what it is. You might find the word "bullshit" funny but it's a perfect description of what you're trying to peddle. There are literally tons of evidence for evolution. It's better supported than almost anything else in science. So don't come here telling us there's no evidence or proof. We know better.
This bit of sophistry is known as Pascal's Wager. Homer Simpson gave one of the problems with it: "But Marge, what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we're just making God madder and madder!"
Your loving, benevolent god would give me eternal punishment if I don't believe in it? What an immature, self-centered bully it is. Any god that sadistic isn't worthy of my belief. And if it does exist and does so punish me, I'll spit in its face because that's what it deserves. No, I most certainly will not believe in or even pretend to believe in such a god. And it doesn't say much for you that you feel the need to worship a sadistic asshole.
Hovind's guilt was proved in a court of law. His appeals have been denied. He's a convicted felon. If you don't like it, that's your problem, not ours.
I take it that Ken Ham's latest fan still hasn't explained why it was wrong to lock Mr Ham up for using his faith as an excuse to commit tax fraud and money laundering?
Um, Stanton, you have the right initials but the wrong person.
It's Hovind, not Ham, who was convicted of tax fraud and money laundering. They're both creobots but only Hovind is a convicted felon.
Let me get this out of the way: "F@#K!" Much better.
Now, you are wrong about the definition of "atheist". Acceptance, not denial, is actually part of what the word "atheist" entails—acceptance of reality and the cold, hard facts that are silent about the existence of gods or anything else supernatural, acceptance of the fact that holy texts are written by humans with stupefying imaginations and often delusions of grandeur, acceptance of objective observations and explanations of physical reality that work without the need for deities at any step of the way. Atheism is all about acceptance. Theism is a denial, a denial of reality in favor of fantasy for less than noble and often irrational purposes.
Admitting that a god could exist is a simple thing for an atheist to do. You are right, there is no rush on our part to find evidence for a god. But you, you still have your whole life ahead of you to present us with evidence that your deity exists, which means that you are the one who ought to be in a hurry. Time is running out to submit proof that your god is real.
Hovind, Ham, they're both slimy crooks for Jesus... After all these years, it's hard to tell them apart.
That, and I was half-asleep at the time.
Kent Hovind's innocence or guilt is not for us to judge. None of us can claim to live perfect lives. Very often it is those who throw stones that are trying to get the attention off themselves.
It is human nature to kill or attack that which we fear - that would explain the comments on this site against Kent Hovind.
Besides, if evolution is true, then why is tax evasion wrong? Why is anything wrong? It should be a free for all then, each to his own. If we're all animals anyway then why not just let go and give into our "true" nature (as some posters on this website have already done)?
The man governing my country was arrested and tried for corruption and rape, yet the majority still voted for him (the fraud case was "squashed" because it was pretty much fore-known he would win the elections and nobody wanted to be on his bad side). We have a fraudster and rapist for a president, the Muslims destroyed the twin towers and killed thousands of people, Robert Mugabe has all but chased white people out of Zimbabwe and given their farms over to the "war veterans" (many of them barely old enough to shave let alone be veterans) and yet it is these people that the world protects and bends over backwards to keep happy all for the sake of "human rights" (even though they themselves have violated the rights of others).
If evolution is true then life doesn't matter. Nothing matters, not even the injustices of this world. Why should it when we ultimately have no purpose? Here's for killing the babies and saving the whales. But then even that doesn't matter either.
I can understand now why you are all so full of hate; you have no purpose so choose to cut down those with purpose. It will never give you peace, because once you're done with Kent you'll simply go looking for another victim, like a pack of hungry dogs with nothing better to do.
What I don't understand is why do you fight so hard for a theory that diminishes your value and worth as a human? I've never in my life seen people so determined to remain slaves.
Confused fundie @ 487,
Ehm, mate, that with the slaves as virtue thing is a feature of religion...
Ehm, mate, please read up on the definition of "victim".
Judged he has been, by the justice system.
*yawn* Another White supremacist (Boere Meisie "Farmers Girls" #487) here to defend Kent Hovind with a comment full of lies and racist screed.
If evolution is true then all life, even human life, has never needed a god-given purpose. The pain that this little truism causes in the hearts of Kent Hovind fanatics matters not.
Slaves to what?
The theory of evolution does not diminish the worth of any human life; it is just reality. Welcome to reality. We fight to save ourselves from having your fantasies imposed on us.
The Abrahamic religions - amongst others - diminish our value and worth as humans because it makes us out to be nothing but pathetic toys in a vile monster-god's game and capable of achieving nothing at all; instead, the faithful revel in the belief we've had everything doled out to us in return for slavish obeisance and fawning sycophancy - paired with threats of eternal damnation for resisting.
Acknowledging the fact of evolution, on the other hand, means knowing we earned our place in the world. I know which I'd be more proud of.
I do fear con-men and criminals like Hovind because of the damage they do. His incarceration is a direct result him breaking the law, nothing more.
Your misunderstanding of humanity doesn't have any bearing on truth.
I'll take giant sequence of non-sequiturs for 1000 Alex.
Again, your misunderstanding of things has no bearing on the truth. Evolution is true or not based on the evidence. Your misapplied false consequences have no bearing on that. If you continue to torture logic like this please do it elsewhere.
I'm not full of hate, I just have a greater appreciation for honesty that either you or Hovind do. My purpose is to live a good life and to not suffer fools. Hint you and Hovind are fools.
Again, your misunderstanding of humanity, science, and logic have no bearing on reality.
Appeals to misunderstood consequences are not a good way to support whatever idiotic point you are trying to make.
Kent Hovind is an idiot. However, I will say this: no one should be imprisoned for tax evasion.
The US criminal justice system (and, to a lesser extent, those of the rest of the world) massively over-uses imprisonment. An absurd number of people are incarcerated for non-violent offences - a policy which is completely counterproductive. Studies illustrate that prisons actually increase crime; those who are released from prison are extremely likely to re-offend. Imprisonment is also extremely expensive; while the rapidly growing use of imprisonment might be great for the profit margins of private prison contractors, it wastes tons of taxpayers' money on a policy which doesn't work.
We need to stop incarcerating people for non-violent crime. Prison should be reserved for those violent offenders who pose a continuing danger to the public. Issues like drug addiction should be dealt with through health services rather than the criminal justice system, while those who commit white-collar and other non-violent crimes should be subject to fines or civil penalties rather than imprisonment. Kent Hovind, while he may be a blithering idiot, does not pose a danger to the physical safety of other citizens, and there is therefore no good reason to put him behind bars.
Who are you to judge the man governing your country? This is not mockery, I am using your thought process. (Such as it is.)
Poor Boere... he hasn't even a clue of the irony of that statement...
Jeez, what is it with proselytizers colonizing long-dead threads lately?
Boere, do you really believe that? Honestly? I don't think that you do. At least, I hope that you don't. Consider the implications of that statement for just a second.
Imagine that someone proved to you, conclusively, today, that there is no God.
Do you have parents, Boere? Do you love them? Would you cease loving them instantly if you thought there was no God? Honestly? You've just said that you would. Immediately, upon learning that there is no god, your love for them would cease, because life doesn't matter, nothing matters.
Do you have a spouse? Do you have siblings? Do you have children? You are declaring that you would stop caring about them, instantly, if there were no Gods in the universe? The simple fact that an ultimate being doesn't exist would cause you to sever all of your emotional ties, all of your feelings, all of your caring, simply because that being does not exist? If your child, Boere's child, were in the street and about to be hit by a car, you would just watch idly, because life has no meaning? You would not try to stop it from happening, just because there is no god?
Let's not even use your family; you may not have anyone close to you. If you saw a small child being beaten savagely in the street, but you knew that there was no god, you would not try to save the child? You would not alert authorities? You would not feel even a twinge of upset or discomfort watching that child be hurt, beaten and screaming, simply because there is no god watching you to force you to care? That is what you have just claimed. Your simple throwaway piece of shit statement that there is no meaning to life without God means exactly that. It means that you honestly would not care, that only the presence of a God in the universe makes you care about other people.
And you say we're the monsters.
It's a complete non-sequitur to argue that evolution implies that there should be no such thing as society. We evolved to be social animals. So instead I'll answer this from the perspective of the other really common question non-believers get: "If there's no God/afterlife, why is (insert silly thing here) wrong?" It's interesting how religionists always get this backwards.
Without an afterlife, this life is infinitely more important. To make the most of this life, we need a cooperative society in which we can all feel relatively safe and have many of our needs met. In order for that society to work we need to agree on some rules. For those rules to be followed by those individuals who do not mind harming others for their own gain, we need there to be consequences. Our current arrangement is to use governments to enforce those rules, and help provide some of those needs. Thus someone who benefits from that government (like driving on publicly funded roadways, calling the police or fire department when needed, etc.) but is not paying taxes is stealing from the rest of society. To prevent people from taking advantage of us in this way, dodging taxes is illegal and punishable.
I'd like to sidetrack for a moment here to flesh out something that's been on my mind. This reminds me of the argument that if you don't believe in God than there's no reason not to be an evil ax murderer, or Stalin, or whatever. This is ridiculous.
1) If your argument is true then I already think murder is fine, so what good is it going to do to tell me that not believing in your god will lead to people killing each other?
2) If you accept that I don't think killing people is fine (which you must if you think that this argument would be convincing at all to a non-believer), then you must accept that people who don't believe in your god can have other reasons to think killing people is wrong. In fact, you probably have other reasons besides the Bible for not going out and murdering people yourself.
Boere Meisie, if I am not mistaken, is comparing Jacob Zuma to Kent Hovind? I have no defense to offer Zuma, but even if the charges against him were true, how does this vindicate Hovind? When a leader of another nation is convicted (or suspected) of a crime, must we release a criminal in America?
Is jy mal in jou kop?
Thank you all for amusing me. It wasn't hard to throw a piece of "meat" out there and watch you all scavenge over it like a pack of dogs. I think this forum is the best evidence for evolution (this is, if humans regressing to animals is part of the evolution theory).
Antiochus Epiphanes, die punt wat ek het probeer maak is dat daar is geen "justice" in hierdie wêreld nie. Die skuldiges loop vry terwyl die onskuldiges moet ly (poetic, is it not?).
You may not like Kent Hovind, and can verbally bash him and others like him all you like, however the fact of the matter is that he has encouraged so many people and given hope (regardless as to whether or not you think that hope is displaced) more than I think you all have combined. He doesn't promote war, he doesn't promote hate but instead has a lovely sense of humour and administers his message with love. His only crime is that he cares about others. I'd follow a man with a vision like him any day rather than evolutionists who emanate so much hatred and bitterness.
Thank you for demonstrating that you are full of bullshit.
It wasn't hard for you to throw out a pack of mischaracterizations, distortions, falsehoods, misconceptions, and lies out there and ignore every refutation.
And of course, even suggesting this demonstrates that whatever your personal philosophy is, mischaracterizing and lying is fundamental to it.
The fact of the matter is that Kent Hovind is full of bullshit. He lies about his own credentials, and he lies about science. I have no idea what encouragement and hope you refer to, but it cannot be any different from the "encouragement" and "hope" used by any common con-artist or other scammer.
He promotes war on truth and hatred of science.
He sneers at those who do the actual hard work of science and administers his message with hatred of them.
His only crimes were that in working to promote his lies, he broke U.S. financial laws, multiple times, and lied about it, multiple times.
Clearly, because you like the lies that he tells.
You of course ignore Hovind's hatred and bitterness, and your own.
He only cares about his dogma. His real crime is evading taxes for which he is punished for.
Yawn, what a pile of steaming, malodorous manure. His real crime is that he thought he was beyond taxes, when he wasn't. He is slime, and a liar and bullshitter. The fact that you think he is worthy means you are also a liar and bullshitter. And think you are beyond the law. That doesn't say much for your morals...
The Federal Court for the District of Northern Florida found he also committed twelve counts of willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over Federal income taxes and FICA taxes, forty-five counts of knowingly structuring transactions in Federally-insured financial institutions to evade reporting requirements, and one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Hovind's appeals as "without merit."
The courts have been after Hovind for years. Why isn’t Willie Nelson in prison or our Congress Men? Sounds like a gag order or a hidden agenda.
I never heard Hovind Speak without glorifying our Creator.
Well yeah, he broke the law.
Hovind made the situation worse for himself:"The saddest thing: Had they cooperated with the agents, they probably wouldn't be worrying about prison sentences now."
From what I gathered, even a totally baked Willie Nelson had the good sense to cooperate.
Huh? If you are saying they framed him look at the court documents for the abundance of evidence that Hovind broke the law.
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." - Matthew 22:21
You see, Hovind failed the fist part.
This thread is one powerful freak magnet. Ten months after it was first posted, random creotards still pop in.
Yet he lies about science, he lies about reality, he lies about the consequences for not believing - are you honestly that blind that you think it okay for someone to lie and lie and lie and lie and think he's a good person for doing so?
So much for valuing honesty...
That just shows the delusional thinking that ended up with his ass in jail. Your creator doesn't exist. Pretending he does, then inventing irrelevant evidence to attempt to prove that a book of fiction/myth is inerrant will warp one's mind, cause them to think they are above the law. Just like any con man, any relationship between what he says and reality is purely coincidental.
I never heard Hovind Speak without glorifying our Creator.
fuck off and die, Sandikens...
all praise Jesus!
You and your descendants shall surely rot in the bowels of the lowest of beasts...
Hail almighty God!
So the creator is glorified by a liar lying? Nice to see what kind of god you worship there, dishonest to the core but it's okay because it gives hope.
those who commit white-collar and other non-violent crimes should be subject to fines or civil penalties rather than imprisonment.
what's the deterrent to someone stealing all your money and spending every last dime of it until they are broke again, Walton?
fines and civil penalties?
how would they go about paying such a fine.
and if they decide not to?
what if they leave the jurisdiction?
your over-simplistic mind rears itself once again.
It's more than that, Walton just doesn't seem to recognise that you can harm others in ways other than physical.
I don't believe the Christian god exists, but if it did, why would it - since it is claimed it is a perfect being - need glorification? It's as glorified as it can get; ergo, it hardly needs humans to point out to it what it already knows.
10 uit 10 boeremeisie!!!
Well, where can I begin. 1st thing, someone said boeremeisie is "farmer girl", that is true when you Google the words. a boeremeisie is an afrikaans speaking girl and nothing to do with racism.
Ok, now the word atheist is contradictory in itself. The word comes from Greek: A meaning not, you know with assurance, and theist, god, so you know that there is no God. So you have been everywhere, you know everything but doesn’t that make you god if you know everything?? So then there is a God, YOU!!! So the work really doesn’t make any since.
Why do non-believers criticize the bible so much? They criticize a book that they have not read and or studied. Do you take the New York Times bestsellers list and start criticizing the books? Of course you do not, so why do you do it to the bible?
Christians being slaves to God: actually its the best feeling of freedom you can EVER experience, I am speaking from 1st hand experience, got saved 5 years ago, and it has been getting better and better.
I also agree with a lot of what you have said. Preachers that just want your money are most likely false teachers. Giving money is an act of obedience from me to God. I am showing God that I am trusting Him in my finances also.God doesnt need my money! Let me give an example. I had to put my youngest kid in school but we did not have enough money to pay the school monthly. We prayed about it and God told us to go ahead and take that step of faith, He will provide for our needs. That was about 6 weeks ago. My wife and I did not tell anybody about this. At the end of last month I got a raise from my boss, and guess what, the raise I got was EXACTLY the amount we needed to pay the school.
I belive in creation (if you are a bible believing Christian you should), evolution is one of the biggest hoaxes ever invented, driven by money. Honestly, i dont agree what KH did, pay your taxes!!! but pulling the guy apart like this, come on people
ok, so let the judgement begin
Wrong, the vast majority of atheist I know are atheists because they've read the bible and seen it for what it is.
post hoc ergo propter hoc
This is the dumbest thing I've read today.
It's more than him not paying his taxes, it's his life of hoisting the lie of creation on children everywhere.
He's a liar and is dragging those to ignorant to know better down with him.
Nonsense. It just means "godless". A- means "-less" whenever it doesn't mean "un-".
Also, what do you mean by "know"? Look up Russell's teapot – we don't need the assumption that there is a god to explain anything, so we have no reason to make that assumption in the first place.
Many of the regular commenters here have read the Bible from cover to cover. Some even several times. Don't make yourself ridiculous.
How do you know? Isn't the idea that only God knows?
How do you know?
How do you know this is a miracle?
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
How would that generate any money? How could tens of thousands of people ever keep a secret? Do you have any idea how scientists are paid, and what they're paid for?
You have a lot to learn.
Let the lies begin. I have read the unholy babble twice, so I know what is there. Mythology, a trace of history, and one capricious amoral god who supports rape, pillage, plunder, genocide, slavery, and a host of other ills. Some gang/drug lords are more moral than Yehweh.
And the lies continue. All that money that professional scientists rake in to lead a middle class existence. Your lie ignores that there are a million or so scientific papers to back up evolution. Compare this to zero scientific papers backing the religious idea of creationism. No science there, just religious ideas and bad disproven mythology like the flud.
Well, you certainly did not make a case for your imaginary deity. You presented no conclusive physical evidence, just a series of inane anecdotes that didn't prove your point at all. So, show us the physical evidence, evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientific explained), origin. An eternally burning bush would be a nice place to start.
Uhm... Thank you?
Humm you know what. This story sounds very very familiar. SO familiar I believe someone has used the same exact story here in the past.
I smell a rat.
Why do believers keep spouting out this lie? The best way to see the evil of the bible is to read and analyze it.
(BTW, you forgot to capitalize bible. Blasphamy)
Evolution has sound scientific backing, so that statement is idiotic.
OTOH, why should you believe in only Christian Creationism? Have you any evidence to prove other creationism wrong?
(They'll never come back.)
You fail at Greek.
I don't have to know everything to know that something that is supposed to be everywhere, know everything, and can do anything doesn't give any sign of existing.
You fail at logic.
You fail at writing English.
You fail at knowing what we have read and studied.
You fail at analogies.
You fail at not contradicting yourself.
You fail at not having confirmation bias.
You fail at science.
You fail at not being a hypocrite.
You fail at judgment.
I'd join in here, but I have to go cash my monthly check from Big Evolution.
Keep up the hoax while I'm out.
It sounds familiar because you've probably caught 100's of these stories in your spamfilter just today, Rev...
"Forward this email to 10 people and you will soon be rewarded with a financial windfall! Please don't disregard this! It really WORKS!!! Last week a friend of mine forwarded the email along and the NEXT DAY she got a huge raise at work. One of the people she forwarded it to forwarded it along and 2 days later he hit the lottery!
THIS IS REAL. If you don't forward it along, bad luck will find you. A person who ignored this email was hit by a bus within a week. Starnge forces are at work! Forward this to 10 people within 24 hours or you will miss out and bad things will happen!"
That's religion in a nutshell to me... one cosmic email spamming scam for my mental junk folder.
I knew something was missing in my mail! *grumbles*
yeah, good point CE
wow, that was quick. ok, a very simlpe question. how did life start?
If the answer is "we don't yet know", does that = god? Why?
I tried to read Nellis's rant, but the stupid was too much. I pulled a brain muscle. *ouch*
By abiogenesis a few billion years ago.
Where is your eternally burning bush? Inquiring minds want to know...
Nelis... one simple question. how do other religions believe life started? Why is yours the correct answer? How can you prove that and disprove the others?
How did life start? Partly by chance, also by favorable environmental conditions. But why do you assume that it must the Christian answer if we are not sure? Why not Bhrama or Huitzilopochtli? Your idiotic presupposition is very revealing. (Also answer the questions given to you.)
ok, by abiogenesis (whatever that is). you googled it? how do you know it? are they still around? i'm just asking because i don't know, just like you, you don't know, i believe that God created everything, BTW, you know that everybody has a god? what do you spend most of your time with, that is your god, mine is Jesus Christ. also, those emails you get to send money has nothing to do with the testimony i told you, that is not chirstianity, if you "read" the bible like you said, you should know it.
you ask me why do i only belive in Christian creation, but why do you only believe in evolution? works both ways bro.
That's right, because you believe in imaginary deities and mythical/fictional holy books. We have our eyes on the real world.
You still haven't shown any evidence for your imaginary deity (your testament isn't evidence, just unexpert opinion), or any evidence that the babble is inerrant. Tsk, Tsk, you have a burden of proof to uphold. Start showing some real evidence that you aren't a delusional fool.
No they don't. Babies don't have gods. Gods are given to them.
If you've know anything about history, you'd know you are wrong. Christianity has historically (and currently) relied on taking the money of other people.
Kid, you're out of your league here.
Best to back away.
HAHAHA (speaking in a James Earl Jones voice) we have our eyes on the real world......
if you do, why do you believe in evolution? you can not even explain how life started. the theory changes every other year. you hide behind "millions and millions of years", take that away and your theory is very silly
Wow. Ok... i really wasn't aware of exactly the level of knowledge we were dealing with... so I'm going to stop picking on you now and deal with you on a totally different level.
I don't know how old you are or what your level of education is, but I would like to ask you if you would seriously like to learn some things about evolution, and science in general. We tend to lean hard on the people that come here here that are religious creationists that actually know some level of the science but simply deny it or deride it.
It seems clear to me that you simply don't have a very basic understanding of some of the concepts here... and since this is a blog that is rife with very smart, knowledgable, and even nice (believe it or not) people, I'd like to offer you the chance to ask all the questions you want, completely free if ridicule and finger-pointing, and we will answer as best we can, and show you places where you can get more information.
That offer is only good if you sincerely would like to know. We won't indoctrinate you... every answer we give you can be cited and referenced by studies and papers that provide the evidence for the statements and facts we will provide you...
So what do you say, nelis... are you up for it? Do you want to learn about what it is you seem to hate or think so little of, or would you prefer to remain ignorant and simply just accept the bible for what it says and never question it? The choice is yours, and should you choose the latter, I wish you well but suggest you be on your way, or the ridicule will begin anew.
I admit to being a little bloodthirsty. ;)
A simple question without a definite answer. Still, given A) the first lifeforms were whipped into existence from nothing by the magic space chef or B) a chemical soup began forming imperfectly self-replicating, "hungry" complex chemical structures that kicked off natural selection, I'd choose B.
I don't believe in evolution. Evolution is just fact. We have scientific data that has been peer reviewed to back it up. In this world, scientific data trumps all else. If you don't think so, I suggest you stop using any form of modern medicine.
One word, evidence.
Evolution has the full support of it, creation has exactly zero supporting it.
You don't have a clue how science works. The only changes are ones that made because of evidence. And all of those changes move to further support evolution not move away from it.
Like I said kid, back away.
That's how sciene work, idiot. Science is ever changing. Old theories are discarded as soon as new evidence shows them to be wrong. You complain about the million of years part, but scientific evidence supports it. Only your stupid presupposition supports your 6 day bullshit.
CE, that sounds very good. unfortunately that is not what is happening here. i say something, but instead of correcting me in a decent manner, i get slammed. if you can answer me in a rational way, maybe i will listen. i also think i dont know a lot about the subject, its your field. so, you are asking me to respect your views, respect mine also.
Let's start here. Evolution has nothing to do with how life started. Evolution is the explanation for how life changed over time to produce the diversity of life on the planet. You can propose 100 different theories for how life started and it would still not change the fact that evolution does, is, and has been happening since life first started.
That we may not know the exact details of how life started is irrelevant to evolution, and certainly does not equal "god did it".
If by "changes", you mean is improved upon and added to, then yes... it changes quite frequently, as do all scientific theories as new information is learned. But it has not changed in its basic principal, that species change over time due to various mechanisms including natural selection. This is observable fact.
Actually, billions of years. But why would you "take that away"... we can prove quite conclusively the "billions of years" part. There is no proof whatsoever in any of nature that contradicts an earth that is billions of years old. Crap made up by illiterate goat herders thousands of years ago does not count as evidence.
Do you have other questions I or anyone else can answer for you?
I guess we won't make any headway explaining that evolution doesn't technically say anything how life began.
But why get all sciencey on him, it's obvious he's already in over his head.
Agreed... and I am trying to do that already... but among the ground rules I would also ask that you try to be a little less smug and arrogant in your assertions and questions if you would like to be taken seriously, especially if you are going to admit to a lack of knowledge of the subject.
My goal here at this point is really to try and educate you, if you are really willing. So if we can dial back the tone, I'm ready for your questions... in all sincerity.
Respect ≠ tolerate
I tolerate views such as yours but there is not reason I should respect them as they are built on willful ignorance and outright denial of everything we know about the world.
You don't even know what you don't know.
So you actually worship yourself.
No, you spend most of your time with yourself, not with Jesus.
Especially since you weren't even alive 2000 years ago when Jesus was.
So your story about getting the money you needed for tuition is not Christianity either.
Because Christianity has no real-world evidence, and evolution does have real-world evidence.
Why do you think that knowing or not knowing how life started has anything to do with evolution?
The theory changes with new real-world evidence. Changing your mind when you get new evidence is called "learning from the real world".
Pity you're incapable of it.
You mean, we have real-world evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (or 4.5 thousand million, if you like), and the universe is 13.7 billion years old (or 13.7 thousand million).
You can't "take that away" without showing real-world evidence why you should take it away. You haven't. No creationist has. No creationist can.
Sven: You have to get Big E to direct-deposit. It is so much faster.
No, he's right; he just hasn't thought it through enough to realise he hasn't made an argument that's useful at all.
It's like someone claiming they drove from New York to LA. If creationists could think consistently, they'd say, "No, that's impossible. LA is like, forty-hundred cubits from New York or something, and it's in a different state. When the Founding Fathers asked Jesus to write the Constitution, they created all the states after their own kind. Have you ever been to Georgikota? I thought not. Plus, New Yorkers are going to hell, the Librul bastards."
Our driver would then respond (after counting to 10), "Actually, New York and LA are separated by nearly 3,000 miles, but that's certainly possible to do at normal highway speeds if you take a couple of days to do it, like I did."
Our creationist--let's call him 'Melis'--Melis would then respond, "That's absurd. You're a liar, hiding behind your 'couple of days'. Take away the length of time and your 'theory' of cross-country driving is completely silly. Now, join with me in prayer to thank our god for killing himself on our behalf (and then living again, because hey, how does one kill a god anyway?) in payment for a crime our god claims we committed against him as part of our nature which he gave us knowing full well it would cause us to commit said 'crime'."
ok, CE, i will let you know.
I hope nelis doesn't disappear... I'm quite sincere in my hope to at the very least correct his obvious misunderstandings about evolution. I hold little hope of thinking I could turn him away from his religion, but I'd at least like him to be informed about the subject he's arguing.
(Nelis, if you are reading still, this is also the reason so many of us are so well read with the bible, as we've pointed out to you. Knowledge of a subject is always a good thing, and arguing on a subject while totally ignorant of it is a very bad thing, regardless of the subject matter.)
No better time than now.
Only after you can show with physical evidence that your imaginary deity exists, and that your babble is inerrant. Until you do so, you are a delusional fool.
We scientists have the scientific literature, which is found at intstitutions of higher learning around the world. Literature you are obviously unfamiliar with, but conclusively show evolution happened with a million or so scientific papers to back up the theory. Versus none for creationism.
Nelis, just because we don't (yet) understand where something came from, doesn't mean that the answer is, "Because God made it". Once upon a time, we didn't know what caused thunder, and gods were invented to explain/take credit. I doubt that you'd agree with that Olde Tyme Religion that attributed thunder to Zeus. Same deal for earthquakes; Poseidon at work? Is that giant glowing, burning round thing in the sky Ra in his celestial barque? I think you'd agree with us that the answer is, no.
The Christian god(s) are exactly on par with Zeus, Poseidon, and Ra. You don't get to claim validity of your god based only on your holy literature and then deny the validity of Zeus, or Ra, just because you don't accept the truth of the historical literature behind them.
Good on ya, CE, for offering to explain the basics to Nelis.
Nelis, if you actually want to learn something, this is a good opportunity. (Just ignore the folks -- like me -- who can't help being nasty; it's a habit born out of running into far too many people who aren't interesting in understanding well-established scientific facts about the world.)
If you believe in a scientific theory, you're doing it wrong – you're not doing science.
Whichever idea is easiest to square with reality has to be accepted till an even better idea comes along. :-|
Explaining how evolution – descent with heritable modification – works is very easy; basically we just need to watch it. Explaining the origin of life is a lot more difficult; it requires knowing the chemical composition of sea, air, seafloor, and who knows what else about 4 billion years ago, and a lot of experiments.
But we're working on it. There are several great YouTube videos on the origin of life; watch them.
Science corrects its mistakes.
They just aren't going away. There's no way to explain the composition of the Earth, the crystal structure of iron meteorites, the layers in the ice caps, and so on and so forth without thousands of millions of years.
Funnily, it all fits together.
bla bla bla bla.... sorry but i only read CE posts. Ok, let me ask again, how did life started? please refrain from making comments that deos not have anything to do with the post. and yes, english is not my 1st language.
CE, you are right, you will not turn me from my love for Jesus nor my views of creation, but i am really looking forward to understanding what it is that a REAL evolutionist believes.
Dear Sister Nelis,
What are you doing here on this evil blog? As a born again, bible-believing Christian, I exhort you in the name of Jesus to seek a place of safety. Don't you realize that by talking to hell-bound atheists you are opening yourself up to Satanic demons? Before you know it, the Devil will make you start thinking about things for yourself and learning to use your mind, rather than simply believing all that stupid stuff that you read in the Bible and hear from the pulpit and parrot back to other stupid people.
God doesn't want you to know how life started, because the next thing you'll be wondering how He started. And then you might start to wonder whether humans made gods up (note the plural, humans have believed in thousands of different gods, not just your version) to explain all the amazing things that we now understand through science. Then once that happens, you might go and get a proper education and realise that you don't have to believe some silly story dating back to the bronze age and told by an ignorant tribe of desert dwellers.
So go back to your safe place of ignorance, Sister Nelis. Turn your back on reason and shelter behind superstition once again. And while you are at it, abandon modern medicine and all the technological advances that evil science brought us. You sinner! Jesus commands you to smash your computer! There are no computers in the Bible!
Missionary to the Atheists
You may want to read through them again, in the interest of learning you might not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and frankly there are people on here far far more knowledgeable on the subjects than I am... I'd pay particular attention to David Marjanovic... he's one of the most knowledgeable people I've come across and he's generally even-tempered about it.
But I will attempt to answer what you ask as best I can.
If English is not your first language, you're doing far better at communicating than I would in any other language, so I will try to keep that in mind.
The short answer is that we don't know conclusively how life began... yet. There are theories, but not enough firm evidence to single out any particular one as likely enough based on that evidence, to be considered probable.
But experiments and tests are being conducted every day. It's a complicated question, scientifically, as David M. pointed out above, there are so many variables, and we would need to know them all with some level of certainty, in order to accurately produce the conditions that existed on earth at the time we know life to have begun (about 3.5 billion years ago). Knowing the conditions (the composition of the atmosphere, oceans, other chemicals in the early earth "soup") allows us to then test different chemical reactions to see if we can reproduce living micro-organisms from the non-organic chemicals that existed at the time. And I think we are pretty close to being able to do that. So again, we don't yet know how life began, but we're close to figuring it out, in my opinion.
Of course you probably know I'd like to make some comment here regarding religious claims to life's beginning, but since you asked me to only answer the question you asked, I will respect that and stick to that. If you'd like to know my reasons for not accepting a religious claim to life's origin, I will gladly answer.
And that's fine... while I would ask you to perhaps take a more critical look at your beliefs and your reasons for having them, I'm really not interested in trying to de-convert you.
I'm also not interested in being preached at, either... so let's both keep that in mind as I'll continue to be happy to answer your questions.
in regards to science? hopefully nothing.
people here don't "believe" in evolution; evolution, i.e. "descent with modification", is an observable fact. Some have seen evolution happen with their own eyes, others have seen the results of it and studies about it.
The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of how evolution happens, and it, too, has mountains of evidence behind it. There is no need to believe in it.
Because you don't like what anyone else says?
All of my comments have everything to do with your posts, and you just said that you're going to ignore them anyway.
In other words, you don't care about what is actually true or false.
Scientists believe that understanding how you know what you know, and gaining new knowledge, and being able to change your mind when you get new information, is more important than staying with a fairy-tale like creationism that either has been proven from real-world evidence to be false, or else cannot be tested at all.
Life is made of cells. Cells are made of chemicals. Cells take in chemicals and grow, and reproduce (make more cells), in various chains of complex chemical reactions.
Therefore, the most reasonable simple explanation of how these chemicals that are living things, that engage in the complex chemical reactions called "life", are from some prior chemical reaction.
Studies of the origin of life involve examining different complex chemical reactions to see if they can give rise to life.
The burden is on you to show that life cannot have arisen from a complex chemical reaction.
Show all work.
I am going to be offline for a bit... but please continue to ask your questions, and I would encourage you to not disregard the answers you get from people other than myself. As I said, there are far more knowledgeable people here than I. You may not like the tone, but that in no way diminishes the accuracy or relevance of the response... and after all, knowledge is what you are looking for, right?
I will check back in on the conversation later.
I don't know why you are attempting to compare our knowledge of evolution, which has a million or so scientific papers confirming it, to your belief in a deity without any physical evidence for that concept. It is obvious you don't understand what evidence means.
Faith and belief are what must happen when there isn't sufficient physical evidence to back up your ideas. A book of mythology/fiction, with many parts that are at odds with physical evidence from the world, is not a solid foundation for your ideas, so you must hold to faith/belief even in the face of evidence refuting it. In such cases, scientists would give up using that theory for anything.
I doubt that very many scientists would say that theories and methods of science won't change in the future, and it will always be based on solid physical evidence, not wishes or fads. About the closest a lot of scientists get to a belief system, is the belief that a hundred years from now, science and the scientific method will have advanced humankind since it is self correcting, always curious, and not static. Compared to religion which is not self correcting, inhibits curiousity, and is very static.
To my mattress? I'm hoaxing off the books here.
I wonder how Nelis would find out what a REAL chemist believes. I appreciate that English isn't his or her first language, but I'm pretty sure they publish books in other languages as well.
Sven: Ahhhh...I have been claiming my income like a sucker!
Nelis- A real evolutionist believes what scientists believe: that the universe is real and that we can learn about it through observation.
Evolution is the result of scientific discovery.
I wonder when Nelis is going to start asking questions about evolution?
If CE is good enough for Nelis, CE is good enough for me. I'll just put him down as my first Molly vote for next time. *scribble scribble*
Again with the assumption that atheists have never read the bible. I just can't understand that. Just from my own personal experience, a higher percentage of atheists that I know have read the bible than Xians I know. I think after I finish Harris' book I'll finally read my copy of the Bhaghavad Gita and then maybe I'll trudge through the bible again. Anybody have suggestions on a translation to work with (an English translation, that is)?
He's on my lists, and I believe I did nominate him at least once.
Hmm...I believe I'll have a pre-dinner libation.
Or to put it another way... "reality is that which doesn't go away when we stop believing in it".
Thread, meet winner.
Many people who believe in a religion that has a holy text – this includes Maoism – and haven't read that text believe the text has magical powers such as immediately converting anyone who reads it.
That's also why they don't read it – they're already converted, so they believe they don't need to.
Why do the proudly ignorant piss me off so much???
But rather than instantly convert new followers, it often slowly converts followers to atheism. I wish more Christians would carefully read the Bible. And not just the good parts, but not necessarily the bad parts. I mean the silly parts. The parts that expose it for the Bronze Age superstition that it is.
I see nelis has not returned. If you are still reading this, Nelis, I'm sure you have more questions. Now that you (hopefully) understand that evolution and origins of life are completely separate issues, do you have any questions about evolution itself? You seem, from your posts, to not fully understand the theory and what it means.
When you are interested to learn, please feel free to come back and ask... we'll be here, with facts ready. I look forward to it.
I don't know how to 'justify' atheism using science; I was born an atheist and stayed an atheist because I managed to resist the slight indoctrination attempts from the Sunday School my mother sent me off to for as long as it took for me to decide that I didn't want to go any more.
Heck, I'd realised there was no way I was going to believe in God before I'd even heard of evolution. Even now I find myself baffled by those who have been presented with this added evidence for God's nonexistence yet still cling to their irrational belief system.
Why hasnt missing links been found? not just for humans, but for all life? if you say there is, please direct me to them, very curious.
Also, just because you went to church doesnt make you a CHRISTian, just like standing in McD's doens make you a hamburger. You can go to sunday school as much as you want but if you are not open to the Word, you will not receive it. You say that Christianity brainwashes you from an early age, actually its the world that brainwashes you from an early age to make you believe there is no God. Being a Christian goes agains the flow of the way the word thinks. Why do you condemn me for trying to be better person, loving my wife, loving my kids, being good to other people? i agree, a lot of people has done a lot of bad things in the name of "christianity", but don't you think its wrong to put a label on EVERYBODY? Your problem is that you read the bible like a text book, you are blinded to see what the meaning of it is. The moment you get saved the Holy Spirit comes into you and your eyes are opened and you can understand the bible, the REAL bible.
so people, i am asking you nicely, lets have a decent diuscussion here, no silly comments, please.
:-D :-D :-D
Is this person for real?
1st silly comment....
Seriously? You follow that chunk o' crap (including "just like standing in McD's doens make you a hamburger") and then ask for no silly comments?
Because all of the ones that have been found are no longer missing.
Do you have Google? Try Ardipithecus and Acanthostega for starters.
There's no such thing as a "missing link". There are transitional fossils, of which plenty have been and are being found.
Look up Tiktaalik to start. Then read how it was discovered. Evolutionary science predicted where we would find a transitional fossil just like they one they found.
that was painfully bad.
translation: You can go to Sunday school all you want, but if you can't suspend reality, reason and logical thinking you won't be able to accept the Lord.
Yes yes, reality is a tough master.
Holy shite you're full of some good FSTDT quotes.
No, being Christian goes against how the world IS
I'm not condemning you for that, I'm condemning you for subscribing to a religion who's holy text and common current practices goes against much of that.
And you can do all of the above better and more efficiently by eschewing your silly superstitions and throwing away that book of yours
Oh course, except it isn't just the people doing bad things, it is the religion itself and what it requires of its followers. Namely that they suspend reality to follow what it says.
Translation: As soon as you believe the bible you will believe it.
Circular reasoning at it's worst.
How about this, you stop ignoring good comments because you don't like what they say
i got google:
As is typical, this “missing link” is presented with impressive pomp and circumstance before the emporer comes out wearing no clothes. We’ve seen this before time and again with Ida, Puijila, and even Archaeoraptor - the fraudulent fossil that was brazenly heralded with many bold claims as “proof of evolution” before it was quietly sidelined after it was !!!!!!!!!!!!discovered to be a fake!!!!!!!!. I still, to this day, occasionally have people bring up Archaeoraptor as proof of evolution. This is the power of propaganda.
Acanthostega seems to have been an almost totally aquatic amphibian. Both reptiles and mammals have totally aquatic kinds, so totally aquatic amphibians are possible as well. Furthermore, there is no evidence of a connection to fish; the fossil evidence is too fragmented. Also it is dated as contemporary with Ichthyostega, so there is no clear indication of what Acanthostega would be transitional from and to.
i see you don't get the hamburger thing
We are having a decent discussion. And it is going the way it typically does with believers who think their testament means anything to us, but not the way they want it to go. We are knowledgable people of diverse backgrounds who express ourselves. We are trying to teach you, which is not a discussion. We are uninterested in your religion and deity. Your ideas of what is creationism are not out there as you have presented no scientific ideas or evidence for them. However, keep in mind creationism is a religious idea without any scientific evidence.
Nelis, first of all, every fossil is a transition fossil (missing link). Evolution occurs, so that no species is truly static over a long time. Changes are always occuring even if they can't be seen in the bones. The changes in the soft tissues and immune system don't show up in the fossil record.
Second, you don't get to define what is or isn't a christian. If someone claims they were a xian, we consider them an xian. The "no true xian" argument is bogus. I grew up methodist, and still have the bible they gave me. I was an xian at one time.
You still haven't provided any solid physical evidence for your imaginary deity, or to show your babble is inerrant. We are an evidence based blog. Your testament is not evidence, merely opinion.
whose / who's
You could try reading this post by PZ almost 3 years ago.
No, you are not asking people nicely. You might be saying please, and you might not be swearing at them, but saying please and and thank you does not mean you are being nice.
Being nice requires you be honest, which in this context means specifically being intellectually honest. You are not being intellectually honest since it is clear you reject any evidence that does not fit with your pre-determined world view.
You could try reading this post by PZ almost 4 years ago.
I don't think anyone here condemns you for that. In fact, most here I think would congratulate you for trying to do those things. However, you don't need to be a Christian to do that nor believe in a silly creationist myth.
I don’t know about brainwashing, but the world does make a convincing case…
And also contradicts reality.
Who condemned you for that? You can do those things without believing in God…
I’m not trying to be mean, but you have a lot of reading to do before this makes much sense to you. If you are interested in seeing evolutionary transition series, this Wikipedia page is a good start, but really you should buy a book and try to understand what evolution means. While I have complained about Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True, it is a good text for a beginner.
Yes there have been a minute number of hoaxes but guess who exposed them? Scientists.
Now tell me how you are going to show that Tiktaalik isn't a transitional fossil and also explain how if evolutionary science is so bad that they could predict where they would find a fossil just like Tiktaalik?
Use your google now Nelis.
If you're going to quote a creation site, please at least give it credit and try thinking for yourself.
Again, look up Tiktaalik
@Nelis: imagine how you would feel if somebody came to you and tried to persuade you that Harry Potter had given his life (but magically survived) to save us all from Voldemort, and they produced the Harry Potter books as proof. Your response would probably include this important point: all of the above are fictional characters. It doesn't matter if they think that Harry Potter's wonderful example of self-sacrifice makes them a better person; this is not a reason to believe that anything in the story is true.
This is you. You are asking us to believe in an ancient Hebrew tribal deity - a fictional character - and you're waving bibles. Nothing you say is remotely relevant to reality, because you are quoting fiction; made-up stories.
Now, go be a nice person to the best of your ability; and don't try to tell people what's real.
Sorry about the near-double post. I forgot how long I'd been hanging about here.
i see its going in that diection again. so this will be my last post. Say whatever you want to me, pull my posts apart as much as you want, but i am praying that you will get to know the truth one day before it too late. Jesus love you and is waiting for you. God bless.
i see its going in that diection again. so this will be my last post. Say whatever you want to me, pull my posts apart as much as you want, but i am praying that you will get to know the truth one day before it too late. Jesus love you and is waiting for you. God bless.
Translation: I'm over matched here and don't want to actually learn something because it will upset my cherished belief so I'm going to run away.
You are a coward, Nelis. You've not had time to read that post on Tiktaalik, let alone consider it.
As for knowing the truth - some of us are actually looking for facts and some are running away from them as fast as their little legs can manage.
I'm working on a response to your question, nelis...
but I have to warn you... your last comment at #584 is troubling from a person who claims to know little about the subject and wants to learn.
If I didn't know better, I'd say that response was coming from a person who doesn't want to actually learn, and only wants to confirm the things he or she already believes.
I say this because you were given three examples to investigate concerning transitional fossils: Ardipithecus and Acanthostega, and Tiktaalik.
You came back by not addressing any of those, but instead trotting out old, long since discredited examples of fraud.
When it comes to fraud, it exists in every aspect of life and every career, including science. Yes, there are exaples of fraud, including Piltdown Man, which you did not include, but what you forget to realize is that it was science that exposed the frauds. Science does not benefit or profit from things that are not real. Scioence only advances through real, actual evidence, so it is inherently self-correcting. Evidence of any kind is reviewed hundreds of times over my many eyes and is scrutinized for every level of accuracy. If it is found to be erroneous or fraudulent, it is tossed out unceremoniously. Such as what has happened in every case of fraud we're talking about.
Here's the problem for you, though: a few cases of bad people looking to profit off of fraudulent scientific claims can not dismiss the millions upon millions of other pieces of evidence that cover every time period since the beginning of life and that have been reviewed, studied, and accepted by multiple persons and teams within the scientific community. To cast a doubt on evolution as fraudulent you'd need to prove every single one of those pieces of evidence as fraudulent... and I'm afraid to say you simply can't do that, and therefor you simply can't ignore it.
Tiktaalik is of particular importance because it does something that is critical to the success of any scientific theory: it confirmed the predictive power of that theory. Scientists knew based on the fossil record that, according to the Theory of evolution, a species of animal with certain specific characteristics should exist at a fairly specific timeline in the fossil record. They said "an animal with these characteristics should be found in this timeline"... and recently they discovered such an animal that had more or less the very characteristics the theory of Evolution predicted. This is as much a proof for a theory as you're ever going to get in science, and is why the example is largely ignored by creationists... you want transitional forms, I give you Tiktaalik... ignore it at the cost of your own intellectual integrity.
So, again, my concern here is that instead of investigating the examples given to you, you instead ignored them and decided to provide a very weak backing for your own already pre-judged answer, despite your acknowledgement that you don't really understand the science.
This concerns me, and makes me doubt if you are serious about learning anything here.
How do you respond?
And we're done here.
Ah, the old "you expect me to learn, which I can't do" routine. Boring. We've heard that hundreds of times before.
You gave us nothing to learn from. Still no evidence for your imaginary deity, or that the babble is something other than myth/fiction. Your deity doesn't exist, no evidence for one. Jebus is myth. No conclusive evidence he existed. Your opinion on the subject is irrelevant compared to the evidence. When you say you will pray for us, our response is "f*ck you too", because that is what you are really saying. You just don't want to acknowledge that.
Nelis, that was a disgraceful display of ignorance, self-delusion, and dishonesty. You could easily ignore the comments that you think are "picking on you" and learn information that many of us were trying to give you... but your last few posts indicate to me, by neither acknowledging the answers we provided you nor actually investigating the examples we asked you to, that you were never actually interested in learning anything about science or evolution.
It seems that you wold prefer to remain ignorant and backwards. So be it. I've wasted my time with you, and now you need only reference yourself when you wonder why people of your ilk get the reception they get.
I'm generally one of those people that would simply point and laugh and go on the attack, but I thought I'd try a different approach with you, as you were so clearly and totally lacking even the most basic of scientific understanding.
I see it was a wasted effort and I couldn't be less surprised. :-/
Go back into your shell and stay far, far away from places like this... or from museums, schools, libraries, universities, or anyplace else where learning occurs. The real world is clearly too much for you to deal with.
Nelis, anyone who, in their first post, declares this;
does not get to complain able being verbally abused. You are the one who came in sneering about your own self righteousness. You got treated in kind.
I will give you this advise, do not be convinced by your own ignorance.
I think you've nailed it.
wow, today's the one year threaniversary for this thread, and there's still a faiththead who comes in and wants to pray forinsult us ?
To be fair, the real world is quite hard to deal with. At this rate, I'm going to fail my finals and will be unemployed this time next year. :-( Living in the real world is vastly overrated.
The pity of it, for me anyhow, is that I was taking nelis quite seriously and really trying to get through to him so he'd learn something. Not in an effort to convert him, just educate him.
I spent the better part of a half-hour crafting a response to his latest question about "missing links", one that I thought would be of real help to him, before I caught sight of his creo-leptic fit.
Had to trash the whole feckin thing... and now I'm in a foul mood and I'm looking to sink my teeth into some ignorant creationist flesh... so help the next ignorant godbothering shitestain that sullies these comments today...
Oh, Walton... don't be so dour...
The real world becomes vastly harder to deal with when you ignore the honest efforts of those who would help you deal with it, like poor nelis. That's the real point.
Chin up, sir... failing is hardly a foregone conclusion, and help is available, if you are willing to take it, I'm sure. Living in the real world is vastly better than the alternative, ultimately. Trust me as someone who's lived in both.
ok, this is the last post, CE, i really appreciated your reply, i really did learn something from it, thx. The reason i do not want to post anymore is that i get bashed for every single thing i say, you did it with respect, and i thank you for that. what is the use of me saying something then. This is not a science blog, its a trash-the-CHRISTians blog.
for my google reply's, someone asked me if i had google and i did goolge that stuff, you can get anything online. i want to hear expanations from someone, not a webpage.
so lets see how many times you can bash me now.
But you cut and pasted that as if they were your words. Bad form.
What do you want explained?
Hey, that's kind of true for those kids who are willing to observe nature. It's not so much brainwashing that the world does though as it is myth-washing. Excuse me for a second.
*goes outside and hugs the world*
"Thank you, world, for soundly refuting the insanity of Christianity!"
So, you already have to believe in order for the only written words of YHWH to be convincing? And you're telling us not to have a silly discussion?
I don't understand this reasoning:
"So, you want me to believe in God?"
"How do I do that?"
"Read the Bible."
"But I have."
"Oh, but it only works if you already believe in God."
Nelis, first off, I prefer to use the word bash for a physical assault. The word becomes extremely devalued when it is used to say; Oh, someone said something critical of me.
Second, you came in and declared that the people here are following the biggest hoax known to humans. You whined for respect but not once did you show any. You got what you gave. Also, did you notice that you pissed off the person who was trying to answer your questions.
Yeah, I'd say they're possible all right.
Sorry, CE. It was pretty clear that Nelis wasn't interested in learning, rather just preaching. That's all 99% of the creationist trolls here ever seem to want to do.
But keep your chin up. Lots of former creo Pharyngulites have told us the science talks do sink in, albeit slowly.
fool me twice... I... won't get fooled again...
Sorry, nelis. You've twice now indicated your last post, and you've still not indicated that you in any way acknowledge, understand, or accept the answers we've provided, nor that you've investigated with any real integrity the examples we've given.
ALSO, in my post #560, I indicated that I had no intentions of trying to de-convert you, but that I also do not want to be preached at, which you immediately ignored in your #579 and spent the entire second half of the comment preaching. You ignored the ground rules, why should we not reciprocate in kind?
I very much doubt your sincerity at this point,and so I'm withdrawing from this conversation.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution March 17, 2010 10:25 AM
For what it's worth, I admire your attempt and enjoyed your comments, even though Nelis intentionally failed to be enlightened by them.
Also, I'd much rather have the very scientist who predicted, searched for and found Tiktaalik to explain the significance of it instead of some guy named Rev. BigDumbChimp.
So go to his site and educate yourself Nelis.
Quite making excuses, because that is all you have done so far.
I very much doubt your sincerity at this point,and so I'm withdrawing from this conversation.
C_E, you cannot withdraw from what never was.
you only get bashed here when you aren't interested in a discussion but only come to proselytize.
I had that inkling, and was prepared for that likelihood, but at one point he really did seem to genuinely want to understand at least some basic info regarding science and evolution.
Eh... that's my thought as well. If nothing else, maybe a casual reader, a fence-sitter, might read and learn something. On the chance that that might happen, the effort isn't completely wasted, and I'll likely do it again.
CE, your already fooled. Believing this hoax. fooled twice, more like millions and millions of times.
i really wanted to learn something, but speaking to closeminded people that doesnt even know they are, actaully it made me smile.
Cheers vir eers
Point taken, Janine...
quite = quit
typos are flying full and free today
He do and they is?
nelis, every time you post after claiming it was your last, you make yourself a liar and make baby jesus weep.
Your own comments expose that you were NOT interested in learning, nelis. You've done nothing but proselytize and deny, make excuses and turn a blind eye to the answers we give that don't line up with your pre-conceived beliefs. What's the point? You already know you're not going to learn anything here that's going to reinforce what you believe from the silly bible. And, you clearly don't want to learn something if it contradicts your closely held beliefs, so why bother with the phony effort?
I think you've got all you need from this place... and we're certainly not going to learn anything from you. I think it's best if you just go away now.
Don't worry, your posts were very useful anyhow. And I'm quite sure Nelis will have read them and that will have dismantled a few bricks in his wall of certitude.
This is how you respond to a person who took your questions in good faith and answered them, Nelis?
You are a complete asshole.
Nelis at #621 shows how a person, using pleasant language can be much more contemptuous than a bunch of foul mouthed people.
Nelis, go back to your mental shelter. The real world is mush too dangerous for the likes of you.
And, no, this is not a bashing. A bash would be if I took a tire iron, tracked you down and hit you across the face. I do not engage in bashing.
Projection Nelis, you have provided no evidence that evolution is not occurring. You have also failed to provide any evidence that creationism is based on anything but your own brand of superstitions.
Oh please Nelis, you've been provided ample evidence to chew on for a while yet you have done nothing but make unsupported assertions and proselytized.
Follow the link I provided above and then come back and tell us what you've learned.
My bet is you will not because you are afraid and want to remain willfully ignorant and blinded by your faith.
You're a sad person.
Thanks, negentropyeater and Sanction for the kind words.
Ah, the usual godbot lies. We are openminded. But you have to show us real physical evidence, not just your opinion. Which is all you offered.
If you really want to learn something:
Neil Shibin Your Inner Fish
Jerry Coyne Why Evolution is True
Richard Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth
All written for the non-scientist.
This used to piss me off no end when I was struggling with my faith. YHWH knew there would be competing faiths. He knew we would be born into a world where any evidence of him would be scant and difficult to see unless you really wanted to, and that said evidence would work just as well for the multitude of other deities proposed by people. Yet, he tosses us in eternal hellfire for failing to win at his stupid shell game, for failing to find him at his hide-and-seek? What kind of twisted, abusive, mindf*cker would do that and call it love?
Nevermind; I dated someone like that.
You don't do those because of your religion, you do those things in spite of your religion. Religion doesn't teach people to be good to all people - it has rules about which people to be nice to (insiders) and which to be very very unkind to (homosexuals, women, nonbelievers, etc).
Walton, you can't complain yet. Get healthy first.
Nelis claims to be gone, but creationwiki isn't gone, so I'll take the unattributed quote apart.
As aquatic as a catfish – and it's not an amphibian. The real amphibians are more closely related to us than to Acanthostega.
Functional internal gills. Tail fin with fin rays and the extra bones between the vertebrae and the fin rays. One of the three bones of the gill lid (small, but still present). Lack of differentiation between the finger/toe bones and those in the palm of the hand/foot. Braincase anatomy. Vertebra anatomy (each vertebra consists of several separate sheetlike bones). All those retained bones in the skull. I could go on for 30 pages, and indeed some people have done just that.
Hey, next to me lies a photocopy of a 22-page paper on just "the snout, palate and ventral [ = belly-side] parts of the braincase, with a discussion of their significance":
J. A. Clack (1994): Acanthostega gunnari, a Devonian tetrapod from Greenland; the snout, palate and ventral parts of the braincase, with a discussion of their significance, Meddelelser om Grønland – Geoscience, 31: 3–24.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
We're talking about complete and hardly disturbed skeletons here.
The tree of life is not a pole, it's a tree. It branches. There aren't only parents and children, there are aunts/uncles and cousins all over the place. What is the probability that we find a parent? What is the probability that we find one branch out of thousands?
While I am at it, I can take the rest apart, too:
And? What's wrong with Puijila?
Indeed, what's wrong with Darwinius? It's more important for the origin of lemurs than that of monkeys (including apes (including humans)), but that doesn't make it less interesting, does it.
Fakes are common in northeastern China – the fossil traders have noticed that complete and rare fossils fetch higher prices and therefore like to glue unrelated parts together.
The fun is which parts they glued together in this case: the front part of the bird Yanornis and the hindquarters of the dromaeosaurid Microraptor.
Lots of complete specimens of Microraptor have been found. It's the famous four-winged dinosaur.
Yanornis (of which at least one complete skeleton has been found) is fairly closely related to the modern birds, but it's not inside that group; it retains things that the modern birds have lost, such as lots of teeth, a lower number of sacral vertebrae, a not quite modern shoulder girdle, various details of the wing bones, and so on.
Instead of one missing link, we have two. You lose.
"Proof of evolution"? No such thing was needed. Evolution is a fact, I've seen it happen with my own eyes overnight in a petri dish. But probably you don't even understand what I'm talking about.
Neil Shubin, not Shibin in #631.
And those who won't consider the non-existence of their deity are as close minded as it gets.
The image of god as a carney cheating you at the shell game almost made me inhale this bite of apple.
That would have hurt.
Why do you always try and hurt me Brownian?
So you say. You also said that you were interested in learning, but in nearly every comment you responded to genuine attempts to teach you with derision. "Blah blah blah" you'd write. "Don't send me to a website" you'd write.
And you want us to believe you're trying to be a better person and be good to other people?
You're an asshole and a liar, and if you really think you're becoming a better person because of your faith, well, that's the biggest hoax ever perpetuated.
People like you make me violently sick to my stomach, and what's more, you make me loathe Christians because of your smug dishonesty, knowing that their belief system enables people like you.
Aaaaah. Shaker's Law knows no exceptions: the more loudly and often someone claims to be leaving, the sooner they'll come back.
Oh no. Everyone who makes assumptions but can't defend them gets trashed here. Here is an example of non-Christians getting trashed. :-)
Look into a mirror.
Typo for Shubin.
Then why are there more Christians than members of any other religion?
This is where superstition comes in big time to override rationality. By even pretending their deity doesn't exist, they could be purchasing a one-way ticket to hell or setting in motion a string of bad luck that will ruin them. Maybe their loved ones will leave them or *gasp* one of them could die an untimely death. Maybe they'll get deathly sick and not fully recover. The sun could explode tomorrow if they pretend God doesn't exist. So how dare you ask them to make their deity vanish for a thought experiment; you are pretty much physically assaulting them by doing so.
Hitchens always said it best:
Celestial. North. Korea.
Bitter atheist, remember? I'm sure I'd be a lot happier if I went around spouting that I believed in a deity that just wants ♥PEACE♥ and ♥LOVE♥ but then shat on homosexuals at every opportunity like rob1 from the email thread, but there you go. Maybe one day God will show me the light and I'll walk around like I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread (sliced bread slathered with false humility, of course) and treat everyone else like dung like our friend Nelis here.
Perhaps I'll practice now, just in case:
"Hey atheists! Ur all the victims of a hoax call Evilution that you jsut want to believe in so you can ABORT the babies produced by ur gay sex. Can U explain Y a daffodil? No? Becuse ur CLOOSE-MINDED!"
Now, if you'll all indulge me in getting angry at that, I'll pretend I have no idea why and chalk it up to good ol' Christian persecution:
"But, but, we just wanna be gud pirsons. Y do y'all hate us so?"
Neil Shibin Your Inner Fish
Jerry Coyne Why Evolution is True
Richard Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth
for fossil series, Don Prothero's book is probably a good add here.
Good on you, CE, for trying.
What do you think a "missing link" would look like?
So if people might not be Christians just because they say they are, it follows that we have no reason to believe that you're a Christian either.
So... the world is more powerful than God?
Or rather, Christianity -- all religion, really -- is epistemic perversity.
Being an epistemic pervert makes you a better person?
You can't love your family and be good to other people without also being an epistemic pervert?
You mean like you put a label on "evolutionists", you hypocrite?
It's not a text book. It's a collection of propaganda.
Once you decide that you want to be an epistemic pervert, you become an epistemic pervert.
People aren't mindlessly agreeing with you and letting you win, so you're going to flap your wings, knock over the chessboard, and leave in a huff.
You've already indicated that you don't actually care about what truth is.
You mean, you want to bash non-Christians and bash theistic evolutionists and bash atheists and bash science and bash evolutionary biology all you bashing well bashing want, but if you get bashed back, you don't like it.
Says the trash-the-nonCHRISTIAN basher.
You've been given explanations and ignored them. And you've said that you don't actually care anyway.
You're still bashing us and demanding that we not bash you back.
Bash bash bash bash trash bash trash.
Another Christian hypocrite.
Being an epistemic pervert makes you happy. Of course.
If the advice of a fellow countryman is of any use, Nelis (or at least, the advice of someone who can at least speak your first language), forget about the tone here. Rudeness here is pretty much irrelevant. It is the content of your posts that is important. If you look past the rude words, then you will find that quite a few people are addressing your arguments directly.
That said, your last post directed at CE said you think we are fooled, by a hoax, by which I take it you mean evolution. OK. If I give you a working definition for evolution that most scientists would be pretty happy with, would you tell me where you think the hoax aspect has crept in?
Biological evolution is the change in the frequency of heritable characteristics in a population of organisms over time.
What aspects of the above definition do you think are a hoax?
I don't think Nelis knocked over the chessboard, but I do think he/she left something on it.
5.6 for the flouncing away. He would have got a 5.8 but he flounced twice. You have to stick the landing to get a 5.8.
Nelis, showing off his persecution complex @ #579:
No one is condemning you for those things, and you know it. Isn't that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
People here are condemning you for being a willfully ignorant Liar for Jesus™ who whines about being insulted when your every post is an insult. People are condemning you for demanding answers to your ignorant questions based on false premises, then fleeing in terror and refusing to even look at the answers you are given. People are condemning you for pretending that being a smug lying cowardly asshole like you is the only way to be a real human being.
By your above quoted whine about imaginary persecution, you are trying to imply that because I don't reject reality and believe in your psychopathic imaginary tyrant in the sky, I am incapable of loving my wife or children. I know you're too much of a coward to say such foul things to my face, but you see nothing wrong with spreading such grotesque libel, not only against me, but against everyone else here. You have no problem at all insinuating such sick lies about countless people you know nothing of. You are denying the humanity of everyone who does not share your delusions. Why do you do this? Why, Nelis? How can you sleep at night after saying such vile things? Where do you get the gall to pretend that YOU are unjustly condemned, when your every post drips with such casual contempt for people you don't even know?
Let's be honest, Nelis. You have no interest whatsoever in being good to other people. If you did, you wouldn't accuse every scientist on the planet of perpetrating a hoax, or treat people outside your cult as less than human, or show such disdain and hatred for the attempts people here have made to educate you. You don't really love your wife or children, you just see them as tools to use, human shields to hide from criticism behind, and if they ever dared look at reality and question your sick cult, you'd kick them to the curb in a heartbeat. And we all know you couldn't possibly care less about being a better person. Being a better person requires a willingness to learn, and you've made it painfully clear that you would rather die than learn anything. Being a better person requires basic honesty, and you've shown that you despise the truth and will lie at every opportunity, just for the pure joy of spreading falsehoods in the name of your imaginary god.
You are scum, Nelis. You have taken out your honesty, your intelligence, your compassion, your very humanity, and made of them a burnt offering to your sick monster-god.
Nelis, I do not condemn you for trying to be a better person, or for loving your wife and children, or for being good to others. I cannot, because you do none of these things. Instead, I condemn you for being the worthless fraud you are. I condemn you for whining about being insulted, when your entire reason for being here is to insult others. I condemn you for throwing away your life in the service of an evil cult. I condemn you for feigning an interest in learning, while covering your eyes and ears to hide from the truth, and slandering those who try to teach you. I condemn you for being a liar, a hypocrite, a coward, and a bigot. Now begone from this place, foul inhuman thing. Remove your vile stench from the Internet.
Wow phantomreader42, that was way cool!
Ahem... you don't do...er... physical chastisement as well do you?
Just wondering... you seem so masterful (or mistressly)!
What is Kent's Federal Id so we can Write him. If is in this line of blog forgive me for now reading through it to find it.
Jason Vale, I suggest you use the search engine of your choice to find Hovind's website. We aren't here to do your work for you.
phantomreader42, consider this a *standing ovation* Exquisitely written.
I agree with Smoggy and Caine. phantomreader42, that was superb!
Please, our cartoon creation explanation is just that Cartoonish. When I say We, I mean us christians. I am Pentecostal and see that the only part of Evolution that is not true is where some evolutions say that it started on it's own. All the rest is a scientific description and explanation of stages matter went through over time. When G-d says he "brought forth" creatures from the water, what more orderly way to do it then to start from the smallest and add to it over time. And in the beginning there was no sun or 24 hour day or night. The first day could have been 13.5 billion years for all we know. The Bible is correct and parallels even the evolutionary explanation if you look close with understanding. Anyway, what is Kent's contact Federal ID so I can write him?
jason vale, learn to frelling read. I will repeat comment #650:
As for your god, there is no evidence whatsoever that any gods or goddesses exist. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.
Welcome to Pharyngula, Jason.
Do you have any citations for that belief?
I also refer you to the actual sense of evolution it refers to.
I also refer you to this logical fallacy: the straw person.
Your beliefs are cartoonish whether in comic form or otherwise, and Pentecostals don't speak for all Christians either.
How do you know that it's not true? What evidence do you have for this claim?
How do you even know that God actually said anything? How do you know that God exists?
I'm afraid that it does nothing of the sort.
Look up at the very first words of this post. Scroll down a few paragraphs.
What do you see?
Poof everything into existence the exact way you want it to be, obviously. He's the creator of the universe, with unlimited power - why does he need to 'start small and add to it' at all?
Also: fossils. If he's omniscient - and, as far as I'm aware, all Christians believe that he is - he'd have known what he wanted to be around for humans (his most important creation, right?) to interact with; why, then, would he have gotten some wrong and needed them to die off so as to not be in the way?
Or, alternatively, is your god just an asshole who likes screwing with us?
I mean, look at the very first words of the original post written a year ago, March 17, 2009. Start there. Then scroll down from there.
(Huh. I just checked, and I see that Google has this very page on the first page of hits. Interesting. )
(Of course, Hovind's own website is the very first hit, so it's not like it's hard to find.)
(Actually, I see that comment #408 has the info from the Fed Bur Pris. Oh, well.)
In honor of this thread being a year (and a day, now) old...
...I would just like to take a moment...
...and say a few words...
Owlmirror, your nakkid beastly desire has now been made clear.
PS Grats! You did it! ;)
(*facepalm* for losing track of the count)
2009. Seems like a different world.
Oi! Who in blue blazes resurrected this moldy old thread, and why is it the most active thread at 1:46 a.m. a whole year after it started?
In the endless thread, I called attention to phantomreader42's post at #647. It should not only be read, it should be stapled to Nelis's nose.
Don't know. But another great ADW video:*
*BTW, met Bill Cosby in an elevator years ago in Las Vegas. He was not nice.
OK. Let's resolve not to keep posting on this forsaken thread. It's most annoying to see it active. See you on Teh Real Thread?
Fine. Resolve whatever.
Oh my, passed the number of the beast are we? Doesn't that mean you have to humanely euthanize this thread now, PZ?
666: The number of the Beast.
668: The neighbor of the Beast.
667: The tuff shed of the Beast.
...at 666 there lives a Mr. Miller, he's our local vicar and a serial killer... at 999 they make a living from crime, there's nobody at home because they're all doing time...
I'm going to be humming that song all day now.
You're a ninja! Admit it.
Is there a lever big enough to first pull Nelis's head out of his deep smelly place?
Molly nomination for phantomreader42.