How do we calm the fears?

As we continue to defend science here in Florida and across the country, it’s important to keep in mind what, exactly, we are up against. These folks are not anti-science just because they kinda don’t like science or find it generally offensive. It truly and completely scares them. Have a look at what Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio has to say in the Florida Baptist Witness.

The “crux” of the disagreement, according Rubio, is “whether what a parent teaches their children at home should be mocked and derided and undone at the public school level. It goes to the fundamental core of who is ultimately, primarily responsible for the upbringing of children. Is it your public education system or is it your parents?”

Rubio added, “And for me, personally, I don’t want a school system that teaches kids that what they’re learning at home is wrong.”

Rubio, a Cuban-American, made a comparison to the strategy employed by the Communist Party in Cuba where schools encouraged children to turn in parents who criticized Fidel Castro.

“Of course, I’m not equating the evolution people with Fidel Castro,” he quickly added, while noting that undermining the family and the church were key means the Communist Party used to gain control in Cuba.

“In order to impose their totalitarian regime, they destroyed the family; they destroyed the faith links that existed in that society,” he said.

Mocked. Derided. Communism. If you think I’m reading that wrong, and it’s not fear, then please tell me what your take on it is. How do we handle people like Rubio, who I sincerely doubt are going to be swayed by, well, any argument we can come up with.

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Analysis/Commentary, Our Science Standards. Bookmark the permalink.

300 Responses to How do we calm the fears?

  1. James F says:

    It’s absolutely fear, and it’s disingenuous to bring up Communism if that’s not what you are trying to invoke. Rep. Rubio falls into the same trap of equating teaching science with enforcing materialism or atheism in the classroom, which is unconstitutional. Science is a common language of humanity, while his Biblical literalism is a religious belief shared by fundamentalist Christian factions, and teaching it in science class is also unconstitutional.

    I would ask, then, how can people be disabused of the “science is anti-religion” argument? Would some sort of extra reinforcement of the First Amendment in the school rules allay their fears? How much influence, if any, do mainline Baptists, who generally have reconciled with evolution, have on the Florida Baptists? Would someone like Rev. Parrot and other Clergy Letter Project members be completely ignored? I see that Rep. Rubio is a Roman Catholic, as am I – the Church has long since reconciled with evolution, perhaps a letter from someone like Prof. Ken Miller or Prof. George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory? I’ll write him myself if you think it would help.

    Ultimately, then, the strategy is twofold: to eliminate the false fear of anti-religious indoctrination and to demonstrate how faith and reason can work together.

  2. S.Scott says:

    I came upon a great source last night after someone on a different blog mentioned that… “evolution isn’t in conflict with Christianity, it is in conflict with the Bible.”

    This might be a useful tool:

    Harmonizing the Bible and Mainstream Science

  3. Gavin Baker says:

    Education.

    The only way anyone could claim that evolution conflicts with religion is someone who doesn’t understand what science is. Science and religion are not competing explanations for why things happen; they are different methods of explaining.

    Religion has a place for the supernatural, for things beyond observation and repeatable experiments, for faith. Science, however, has no room for such factors. Does that mean they don’t exist? That’s not at all what it means. It means science isn’t concerned with such questions; it doesn’t try to answer them. Each individual can fill in her own answer, none of which can ever be proven or unproven. Science is only concerned with verifiable, objective fact. That’s why it’s a useful method, and why the discoveries arising from it are much more universally accepted than the views of any one religion or philosophy.

    Either our schools have utterly failed to teach this fundamental idea about what science is, or the opponents of evolution are intentionally misrepresenting the truth to score political points. Hmm…

  4. Karl says:

    I guess you can try turning it around on him: Given what he said, the Christian religion itself has some aspects that mirror totalitarian regimes, especially parts that essentially promise pain and death for non-believers, a favorite of the fundamentalists no doubt. There are plenty of historical examples of people putting this into practice in real life. I’d probably use this example as a way to ridicule the absurd notion of evolution = communist totalitarianism.

    Rubio is just another politician trying to increase support for his agenda by tying this “controversy” to something that his Cuban constituents can rally behind. The fact of the matter is, he’s banking on the fact that most of them don’t understand what science is to pull off this flawed metaphor.

  5. gabriel says:

    for those interested in Donna Callaway’s latest views, there is an op ed piece by her in the Florida Baptist Witness

    http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/8464.article

    It’s an interesting read, considering it discusses her motivations (recall how she claimed no religious motivation).

    Specifically, she says she felt motivated to inform “Christian parents.” If her objection was secular concern for academic freedom, why was she motivated to contact only Christians?

  6. David Bracht says:

    Whenever I stop to really think about it, I feel so ridiculous and embarrassed as a human being to have to be defending this issue. I might even make the case against evolution by the example of religious fundamentalism’s ability to still be thriving (Christian, as well as Muslim). Will it ever end?

    I have become enlightened that the school board members are appointed by our Governor, for an approximately three year term. I see that our hero, Mr. Martinez’s term is to end Dec. 31, 2008, and at the same time, Mrs. Raulerson’s term. If someone knows, please respond – How can we influence the decision on the appointment of future board members?

    Should we become pro-active at this time to try to influence the Florida Legislature’s possible involvement in amending the standards as passed?

    I feel that what became an acceptable outcome, in spite of our determined and well organized effort, was only a fluke, resulting from the fundies tripping over their own tricks (mainly focusing on getting the wedge word “theory” inserted). If they had realized what was happening, I don’t think any proposal would have passed at this meeting. What then? I see that any outcome of a Board of Education decision that is in our favor, will be further addressed by the State Legislature. Any decision by the BOE that is unfavorable to us, will probably have to travel the worn by now path through the courts to get straight.

    A final personal crusade thought – I also am passionately following the parallel issue of the Mohammed Danish cartoon controversy and the attempt to stifle free speech, thought, and press, in the West, by Muslims. I support Kurt Westergaard and Denmark, Lars Vilks of Sweden, and Ezra Levant of Canada.

  7. The fears are well-justified. Regardless of whether or not Darwinism is wholly or partly true, telling students that it is the “fundamental concept underlying all of biology” is telling them a Big Lie. I don’t even remember studying Darwinism in high-school biology.

  8. S.Scott says:

    Larry – Define Biology please. I’ll give you a hint – It is the SCIENTIFIC study of life (not religious study of life) Now please go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

  9. PC-Bash says:

    I don’t even remember studying Darwinism in high-school biology.

    Well, that’s because you’re sixty some years old. You went to high school in the sixties. Depending on where you went to high school, you may have been in a “whites only” school. Most likely, many of the things you were taught are now considered incorrect. Most likely, though, you don’t remember learning about evolution in high school because it was the sixties. A lot of people from your generation don’t remember what happened in the sixties, thanks to plenty of illegal drug use.

    telling students that it is the “fundamental concept underlying all of biology” is telling them a Big Lie.

    Here, I thought you were an “engineer”. Now, apparently you are a Biology Phd?

  10. MelM says:

    Mr Rubio has sidestepped the issue of whether or not evolution is true and good science; instead, he’s thrown (in the context of puplic school curriculum) a red herring into the argument. Although not the usual creationist scam–such as “academic freedom”, it works to the same end.

    The factual status of evolution is the issue here because a public school has the obligation to teach facts and only facts to its best ability. Whether in grammar, woodshop, or biology, facts must take priority over any infantile myths or New Age drivel.

    “It goes to the fundamental core of who is ultimately, primarily responsible for the upbringing of children. Is it your public education system or is it your parents?
    Rubio added, “And for me, personally, I don’t want a school system that teaches kids that what they’re learning at home is wrong.””

    In the current U.S. political context, the answer for most people is: “both are responsible”. Yes, the public schools may well teach things with which parents don’t agree; parents might believe in racism, the disvalue of learning, and endless junk they’ve picked up. And, teaching any form of compromise with creationism would certainly outrage many parents. This red herring is absurd.

    As for totalitarianism, there is no dictatorship coming because evolution is mandated in the public schools; it takes a great deal more than that to create a dictatorship. For something totalitarian, look at U.S. House Resolution 888–what I regard as “The Declaration of Theocracy.” It’s the Dominionist religious people who want total power in the U.S. and not scientists or secularists. Yet, the creationists are constantly playing the victimization card fraud. If relief from the state getting into education is wanted, then go to a private system and end public schools; I’m willing go along with that.

    About getting Catholic scientists to write letters to Mr Rubio, I don’t see that it would hurt; but, I note again that he sidestepped the issue of the truth or falsehood of evolution. So, letters may have no impact on him at all. Something that might help, and I’ve not seen enough of, is letters emphasizing the practical implications of the theory of evolution. There are scientists who are so caught up with the idea of the “beauty of it all” that they really avoid talking about practical matters such as health and wealth. Indeed, many religious objections to new discoveries were overcome because people chose the benefits over the dogma. If you want to fight the creationists in the longer term, you’ve got to fight biblical inerrancy (and for those who can, religion itself), which, of course, is what the creationists are frightened that teaching evolution will do. Yup, the kids just might find the information in science classes more compelling than Genesis.

    About the conflict between science and religion, metaphysical theism and methodological naturalism are in direct conflict. The only way that the two can be maintianed in the same head is if a particular scientist is able to miss or rationalize away the contradiction.

    I will end by saying that I congratulate Florida for upholding science; it’s hard to express just how important the fight in Florida is and how happy I am about the success. I was told by a Floridian to watch this blog and that’s what I’ll do.

  11. S.Scott says:

    Hi MeIM 🙂 – @ PC Bash … I think you are confusing Farfarman with that Bow man character.

  12. PC-Bash says:

    S. Scott –

    According to his blogger profile here:
    http://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228

    He is 61 years old, and a retired engineer.

    Yes, it is hard telling all of these characters apart sometimes. 😉

  13. James F says:

    MelM,
    You are correct to say that public schools have the obligation to teach facts. It is metaphysical naturalism rather than methodological naturalism, however, that is in direct and necessary conflict with metaphysical theism. Teaching metaphysical naturalism in a public school science class breaks the boundaries of a science curriculum; only methodological naturalism is appropriate, and it is methodological naturalism that poses no conflict with a mainstream, “compatiblist” religious view.

    At the same time I readily concede that even methodological naturalism conflicts with a fundamentalist view like creationism, which is at its core an anti-science belief. Those folks, we can’t help – but the rest of society, religious and non-religious, can form a very powerful coalition in support of reason, and you make a great point that we need to impress upon them that science, including evolution, has great practical value.

  14. S.Scott says:

    @ PC Bash – Sorry, my bad! 🙂

  15. Vance Geiger says:

    First I want to thank Florida Citizens for Science for keeping me informed on this issue.

    Second, there is more than fear operating here. When the rhetoric goes over the top and the epithets of totalitarianism and communism get thrown in then one has to ask what else is going on? There is another agenda at work here among the anti-evolution in public schools bunch. That agenda is to denigrate public education and promote private schools, most of which are church based. There are two aspects to this. First, is to manufacture a choice between public and private schools for those who are amenable to these exhortations and thus send their kids to the local religious school. The second aspect is to try to create state standards that religious schools can meet and thus reinvigorate the voucher program which largely failed because of the requirement that receiving schools had to meet state standards.

    Undoubtedly there are true believers and those motivated by a manufactured fear. There is also the money. The Florida Baptist Witness and the Baptist associations have a real stake in where the money for education flows. Consequently, one of the responses that can be made to the manufacturing of fear is to point out the hackery employed by the vocal opponents of science in schools.

  16. Dave B says:

    Wake up!
    House Speaker Rubio’s fears are well founded. It can be no mere coincidence that Fidel resigned his post last week. He’s coming to Florida to side with the Darwinians.

  17. Vance Geiger said,
    –“When the rhetoric goes over the top and the epithets of totalitarianism and communism get thrown in then one has to ask what else is going on? “–

    The book “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design,” by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, who also happens to be the chief author of the fanatically pro-Darwinist Fordham Institute (no connection to Fordham U.) report on state science standards, has also raised epithets of totalitarianism — the book charges that critics of Darwinism are a bunch of fundies who are conspiring to turn the USA into a theocracy. Forrest’s testimony was considered to be a major factor in the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.

    –“There is another agenda at work here among the anti-evolution in public schools bunch. That agenda is to denigrate public education and promote private schools, most of which are church based.”–

    That makes no sense at all. If the “anti-evolution bunch” succeeds in getting criticisms of evolution into the public schools, that would greatly reduce the attractiveness of private fundy schools.

    –“The second aspect is to try to create state standards that religious schools can meet and thus reinvigorate the voucher program which largely failed because of the requirement that receiving schools had to meet state standards. “–

    I never before saw the issue of state standards raised as an argument in the voucher debate.

    A related issue is the case of Association of Christian Schools International (ASCI) v. Stearns, where fundy schools are suing the Univ. of California because UC has refused to accredit some of the fundy courses, particularly a biology course whose textbook is critical of Darwinism. The last I heard, motions for summary judgment in that case were heard on Feb. 14. Info on ACSI v. Stearns is on my blog at —
    http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/search?q=ACSI+v.+Stearns

  18. PC-Bash says:

    That makes no sense at all. If the “anti-evolution bunch” succeeds in getting criticisms of evolution into the public schools, that would greatly reduce the attractiveness of private fundy schools.

    If we teach science out of the bible, or tell kids lies, such as “evolution is controversial” or “there are many flaws in evolution”, then we will be filling their heads with garbage. The kids will get poor grades, and more students will be able to apply for vouchers, causing a death spiral of public schools. Of course, the private schools won’t be any better in this department, as most private schools in Florida are Christian schools, and teach the same creationist garbage.

  19. Paul Ruscher says:

    Hi – I’ve started a new petition to House Speaker Rubio that I hope will generate widespread support – if you agree, please consider signing it and passing it along quickly – it needs to be delivered on the first day of the session. Thanks.

  20. Paul Ruscher says:

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/flhouse-science/index.html is the site – you can also get there by clicking on my name, apparently!

  21. bbrown says:

    Looking forward to Ben Stein’s new movie— Expelled / No Intelligence Allowed. Spring ’08 mark your calanders.

  22. PC-Bash says:

    bbrown –

    That ought to be rich. I can’t wait to tear it to shreds. 🙂

  23. PC-Bash says:

    bbrown –

    Here’s an interesting article on the movie, and some of the cowardly tactics that the producers took to get some of their interviews with experts:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php

    You can expect any of the interviews with the experts to be chopped up, taken entirely out of context, etc. Many of the questions asked were edited out, replaced by different questions in the movie — which entirely takes the responses out of context.

    If you watch this movie for anything more than a very poor comedic experience, then you will be a fool.

  24. PC-Bash says:

    I kind of like Myer’s view on the movie. I may go see it in the theaters just so I can heckle it.

  25. bbrown says:

    Because PC-Bash you are far to intelligent to believe any view point other than your own. You’re so cool.

  26. S.Scott says:

    @ PC Bash – make sure you pay to see a different movie instead but decide “last minute” to go into the Stein movie.

    @ Paul – Is Brandon going to put the petition on the front page?

  27. Guest says:

    @ bbrown
    You obviously, like most other I.D. supporters, are missing the point. We are not closed minded or think that we are superior in any way. I.D. or Creationism is not a science, period! It does not belong in a science classroom, anymore than dribbling a basketball would in English class. Basketball is for Gym class and I.D. or Creationism is for philosophy, sociology, theology, etc. Do you understand? It is about the integrity of the discipline.

  28. firemancarl says:

    I am tellin you guys, lets let ID in. I mean hey, what wouldnt wanna say “Hey teach, god did it and thats my final answer!” Just think how many kids can now get a 4.0 thanks to ID! Wooo Hooo!

  29. Josh Krupnick says:

    Let science unashamedly do it’s business. You handle paranoid people with the power of knowledge. They may be offended or feel that they are being mocked, but tough. Facts are facts. People who claim that the universe is 6000 years old, or that we walked alongside dinosaurs and that sort of thing not only invite ridicule, but frankly, they deserve it.

  30. PC-Bash says:

    bbrown –

    Because PC-Bash you are far to intelligent to believe any view point other than your own. You’re so cool.

    What makes me intelligent is that I don’t just blindly accept things on faith. If someone tells me that A = B, then I derive the answer on my own before I believe him.

    I had to come to the same conclusion regarding evolution and creationism. The former can be proved through scientific inquiry. The latter requires faith and ignorance.

  31. PC-Bash says:

    Josh Krupnick –

    Hear hear. iawtc!

  32. Egaeus says:

    @S.Scott Better yet, just download it unless you just want to support your local movie theater. Or you want to boost the box office for your favorite movie that’s playing. I would mention that downloading it would be illegal, but since they’re paying people to go see it, I wouldn’t be surprised if they put up the torrents themselves.

  33. PC-Bash says:

    I like the idea of going to heckle the movie, but paying for a different movie. 🙂

  34. Paul Ruscher says:

    Thanks, S. Scott for the suggestion that the new petition to Speaker Rubio be put on the front page of Florida Citizens for Science. This has been an exhausting month for many so far with new hearings on the 11th and the vote on the 19th and everything else we worked on. Efforts continue…and thanks for signing, too! Paul

  35. S.Scott says:

    YW 🙂

  36. ABO says:

    PC-Bash said,“I had to come to the same conclusion regarding evolution and creationism. The former can be proved through scientific inquiry. The latter requires faith and ignorance.”

    So would it be correct to assume in your belief, that you’ve arrived here from ape like creatures, is not a matter or faith and ignorance?

  37. PC-Bash says:

    So would it be correct to assume in your belief, that you’ve arrived here from ape like creatures, is not a matter or faith and ignorance?

    Your question is not very clear. Please rephrase it.

  38. Joe says:

    An interesting comment by one of the most astute men of our time:

    I’ve always liked the exchange featuring the excited young Darwinian at the end of the 19th century. He said grandly to the elderly scholar, “How is it possible to believe in God?” The imperishable answer was, “I find it easier to believe in God than to believe that Hamlet was deduced from the molecular structure of a mutton chop.”
    That rhetorical bullet has everything — wit and profundity. It has more than once reminded me that skepticism about life and nature is most often expressed by those who take it for granted that belief is an indulgence of the superstitious — indeed their opiate, to quote a historical cosmologist most profoundly dead. Granted, that to look up at the stars comes close to compelling disbelief — how can such a chance arrangement be other than an elaboration — near infinite — of natural impulses? Yes, on the other hand, who is to say that the arrangement of the stars is more easily traceable to nature, than to nature’s molder? What is the greater miracle: the raising of the dead man in Lazarus, or the mere existence of the man who died and of the witnesses who swore to his revival?
    The skeptics get away with fixing the odds against the believer, mostly by pointing to phenomena which are only explainable — you see? — by the belief that there was a cause for them, always deducible. But how can one deduce the cause of Hamlet? Or of St. Matthew’s Passion? What is the cause of inspiration?
    This I believe: that it is intellectually easier to credit a divine intelligence than to submit dumbly to felicitous congeries about nature. As a child, I was struck by the short story. It told of a man at a bar who boasted of his rootlessness, derisively dismissing the jingoistic patrons to his left and to his right. But later in the evening, one man speaks an animadversion on a little principality in the Balkans and is met with the clenched fist of the man without a country, who would not endure this insult to the place where he was born.
    So I believe that it is as likely that there should be a man without a country, as a world without a creator.

    -Bill Buckley-

  39. Joe says:

    The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!
    I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist’s views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
    I answered, “The reason scientific theories change is because we don’t know everything, isn’t it? We don’t have all the evidence.”
    “Yes, that’s right,” he said.
    I replied, “But, we will never know everything.”
    “That’s true,” he answered.
    I then stated, “We will always continue to find new evidence.”
    “Quite correct,” he said. I replied, “That means we can’t be sure about anything.”
    “Right,” he said.
    “That means we can’t be sure about evolution.”
    “Oh, no! Evolution is a fact,” he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.
    Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not.
    The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!

  40. Joe says:

    Another memory from another brilliant mind: Blaise Pascal

    Pascal attended parties where gambling was being conducted, and unfortunately became distracted by this lifestyle. However, Pascal had a narrow escape from death in 1654, when the horses pulling his carriage bolted. The horses were killed, but Pascal was unhurt. Convinced that it was God who had saved him, he reassessed how he was living. From then on,
    ‘From the age of thirty-one to the day of his death, at the age of thirty-nine, he had but one desire: he lived that he might turn the thoughts of men to his Saviour.’
    At this time of recommitment to God, Pascal wrote:
    ‘Certainty! Joy! Peace!
    ‘I forget the world and everything but God! …
    ‘I submit myself absolutely to Jesus Christ my Redeemer.’
    Much of Pascal’s last few years was devoted to his religious writings. He wrote a famous series of 18 letters known as the ‘Provincial Letters,’ considered by critics to mark the beginning of modern French prose. Pascal also wrote the outstanding book Pensées (French for ‘thoughts’) in which he argues the case for his Christian beliefs.
    Pascal recognized that man could not arrive at all knowledge by his own wisdom. He wrote that ‘Faith tells us what the senses cannot, but it is not contradictory to their findings.’ He also recognized that God was more than just the Creator—He was a loving, personal God as well—‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of the Christians is a God of love and consolation.’
    Pascal is famous for the statement known as Pascal’s Wager in which he applied his thinking in terms of probabilities to the question of salvation. Pascal’s Wager paraphrased is:
    ‘How can anyone lose who chooses to become a Christian? If, when he dies, there turns out to be no God and his faith was in vain, he has lost nothing—in fact, he has been happier in life than his non-believing friends. If, however, there is a God and a heaven and hell, then he has gained heaven and his skeptical friends will have lost everything in hell.’
    When approaching his death, Pascal wrote: ‘And so I stretch forth my hands to my Redeemer, who came to earth to suffer and die for me.’ Pascal died on 19 August 1662, in Paris. Despite a short life with constant sickness and pain, this devout Christian made outstanding contributions to science, mathematics, and literature that still amaze the minds of our age.

  41. PC-Bash says:

    Joe –

    Regarding your quote from Bill Buckley. It is easier to claim that your god did something and therefore not consider it anymore. Easier, but very unscientific. Science is about the discovery of knowledge through a process, a process of building intelligence. Using the excuse that your god did it is anti-intellectual, it’s a cop-out.

    Regarding your story about the geologist, this is nothing more than a strawman fallacy. Not even worthy of comment.

    Regarding Pascal. I read Pensées in the original French. I am very familiar with it. However, I fail to see how any of this has to do with evolution.

    You, like most creationists, are confusing evolution with atheism.

  42. Joe says:

    Yes I see that you think Bill Buckley is anti-intellectual. Speaking of no need for comment !

    As far as Pascal is concerned, read again:
    Pascal recognized that man could not arrive at all knowledge by his own wisdom. He wrote that ‘Faith tells us what the senses cannot, but it is not contradictory to their findings.’ He also recognized that God was more than just the Creator—He was a loving, personal God as well—‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of the Christians is a God of love and consolation.’

    You limit your knowledge to your own wisdom (as Bill Buckley would say you exclude the observation by faith – which is the gift of our soul that perceives accuracy of truth – which man willingly and by inheritance tends to ignore). If someone who is wiser through faith tries to share his wisdom with you will not accept with your mind alone. He is saying that faith, (which again is another part of our being) is a necessary ingredient to understanding truth. As confirmed by the Christian statement “we walk by faith not by sight (alone)” This sensitivity can be deadened through lack of exercising it or by violating it’s warnings. All men have a measure of faith. It grows by exercising it – it wanes by not exercising it. The fruit of exercising it is love, joy and peace (“love and consolation”) The reverse is true, the less we exercise it, the less joy peace and love – results are bitterness, resentment and unease as it’s fruit.

    In conclusion: if you limit your knowledge to just the senses you will eventually come to an error in your judgments. If we exercise the limited faith that we have, then we will see life clearer. Our mind then will be subject to our faith and not dependant in and of itself. Otherwise there would be no standard or a checks and balance system to determine error. Our minds can be deluded or deceived in such a way that it’s conclusions may be in error although we may not know it with the mind. So the gift of faith, which we all have, should be strengthened and then error can more easily be recognized. There are many ways to strengthen your faith – the first is to realize that deep down we all know that God continually prods us towards the truth. It may seem foolish in our mind but it’s taste is peaceable to the soul. Once we obey the peaceable prompting in our soul (which takes humility) we then begin to see the overall picture much clearer (bringing rejoicing to out heart).

    The whole dialogue comes to the point yes we live by faith and then let the mind submit itself to that faith – you live by what your mind tries to figure out and have no lasting peace. But we all know by experience that God’s spirit is always convincing our soul to listen to him. If we do not obey its promptings then that is the only sin that will not be forgiven.

    So if you want to use the pejorative “dumb” – meaning your god is not your mind alone. Then I would most gladly accept your insult knowing that My Lord, who demonstrated his love towards mankind and who did no wrong on this earth, was called even worse than that. It doesn’t matter to me I count it an honor to suffer for Christ’s sake (who by and through him all the earth and heavens were created)

    However the mind is ever expanded through faith and becomes more cogent in its reasoning’s then on the closed system of sight alone.

  43. PC-Bash says:

    Joe –

    You entirely miss the point. Science is not founded on faith. It is founded on fact. Any line of reasoning that requires faith is outside of science. In the science classroom, we teach science, not faith.

    If you choose to believe in your god, then that is your business. However, it has no place in the science classroom. Evolution is what the actual evidence provides, it is what the facts show. Your creation myth is based on faith that something written in a book thousands of years ago, before men knew of the existence of even bacteria or yeast, is somehow more accurate than the facts.

    If you choose to believe that myth, that is your business. However, poisoning the minds of children who are trying to learn science with this myth is wrong.

  44. PC-Bash says:

    You are attempting to argue atheism versus mysticism and religion. That is outside of the scope of this discussion. Of course, I’d love to debate you on this. I know that your faith is misguided, but honestly I think the readers of this blog could care less about such a discussion. Please try to stay on topic.

    If you want creationism taught in the science classroom, then you must provide two things:
    1. A hypothesis that fits within the bounds of the scientific method. It must be verifiable and falsifiable.
    2. Empirical evidence to support your hypothesis. You cannot use quotes from historic figures or from scripture, you need something tangible, something that can be independently verified, something that proves your hypothesis. Of course, there is no evidence to support creationism, which is why you have to resort to the direction you are attempting and failing to take this debate.

  45. Joe says:

    “Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena (observable occurance), acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

    Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

    Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.”

    Would you agree with this definition of scientific method ?

  46. Joe says:

    Lets lay a foundation for creationism. First – do you admit that a man named Jesus Christ existed ?

  47. S.Scott says:

    No – A man named Jesus Christ did NOT exist. I assume you mean Jesus of Nazarath ? (Geeeeeeze)

  48. PC-Bash says:

    Lets lay a foundation for creationism. First – do you admit that a man named Jesus Christ existed?

    Maybe a man named Jesus of Nazarath existed, but this does not mean that he was the “son of god” or any other of the nonsense attributed to him.

  49. PC-Bash says:

    Also, whether or not Jesus existed does not help your case for creationism.

  50. Helen says:

    Listen Joe. Evolution is just a theory based on selected “observations”. That is what the school system adopted. It doesn’t preclude creationism and when it is taught in the classroom it must be taught that it is a theory based on these selective “facts”. These facts change from time to time to fit their biased conclusions even when they are continually revising their “proof”. There are 3 schools of thoughts with regards to evolution. They don’t even agree with each other. That’s the way I’m going to present it in the classroom. So no use arguing with the bigots against faith. Don’t waste your time.

  51. PC-Bash says:

    Evolution is just a theory based on selected “observations”.

    Which “selected observations” would these be? Your statement begs the question, if the observations must be selected, then are there other observations that discredit evolution? The answer to this is no. There exists no evidence that discredits evolution, and a mountain of evidence that validates it.

    It doesn’t preclude creationism

    Evolution has nothing to do with when life begins, that would be abiogenesis.

    These facts change from time to time to fit their biased conclusions even when they are continually revising their “proof”.

    Please provide a citation to back up this claim.

    There are 3 schools of thoughts with regards to evolution.

    Which are?

    That’s the way I’m going to present it in the classroom.

    You had best present it in the classroom as the standard is defined.

    So no use arguing with the bigots against faith.

    Are you implying that people who support evolution are somehow anti-faith?

  52. S.Scott says:

    Now, now, now … it is a SCIENTIFIC theory – remember?

    (Dear Lord – Please don’t let my son attend a school where the science teachers don’t know the difference between “theory” and “scientific theory”.)

  53. PC-Bash says:

    Yeah. If these creationists think I am abrasive now… wait until I have kids attending school. I fully intend to grill the teachers during open house, to make sure they aren’t a “Helen”, a Joe, or a Larry Fafarman. When I find them pulling stunts like Helen claims to be pulling, I will work to have them removed from the classroom, or have my child moved to an objective classroom.

  54. Joe says:

    Good at least we all except that Jesus existed. At least you admit he was from Nazareth (which is where he grew up). We are getting somewhere !

    Plenty of recorded observable evidence exists that he did many miracles at the time. There is much recorded evidence that he was alive again after being dead three days. It was demonstrated in the presence of many witnesses that he raised others from the dead. It was shown he had the power over nature – he calmed the storm. It was shown that he could read others thoughts. It was shown that all life is subject unto his power. It was shown in the presence of many witnesses that the Old Testament predicted his suffering. Dozens of Old Testament prophecy’s have come true. As far as recurring miracles there are hundreds of miracles since his death. All this points to the truth of Holy Bible. Nothing has been disproved in the Bible. God is the author of all life and he states he created it in 6 days. All this is more persuasive than placing a few bones together and saying whoopie we must have come from a lump of primordial slush.

  55. Helen says:

    You can grill me all you want I will speak the truth. I guess you will want to lock us up as they did to the early Christains. Are you gonna bring your pitch forks and fire ?

  56. S.Scott says:

    OK Joe – Do you take every word of the Bible literally?

  57. Helen says:

    If I get your child in my classroom you can be sure I will let them know the real truth !

  58. S.Scott says:

    Helen – Do you realize that you are breaking the law?

  59. Joe says:

    The words of the Bible are inspired yes.

  60. S.Scott says:

    That’s NOT what I asked.

  61. PC-Bash says:

    Plenty of recorded observable evidence exists that he did many miracles at the time.

    Um. No.

    There is much recorded evidence that he was alive again after being dead three days.

    Fail again.

    It was demonstrated in the presence of many witnesses that he raised others from the dead.

    Even if these events happened, which I see no reason to believe, there could be other explanations.

    It was shown he had the power over nature – he calmed the storm.

    No.

    It was shown that he could read others thoughts. It was shown that all life is subject unto his power.

    No, and no.

    It was shown in the presence of many witnesses that the Old Testament predicted his suffering. Dozens of Old Testament prophecy’s have come true.

    The OT is not a reliable source here. I’m looking for objective evidence.

    All this points to the truth of Holy Bible.

    Even if a few things in your bible is true, it doesn’t make the whole thing instantly true. Of course, none of these can be shown to be true.

    Nothing has been disproved in the Bible.

    Nothing can be disproved in your bible. Lack of falsifiability takes your bible, and anything that it says, out of the realm of science.

    God is the author of all life and he states he created it in 6 days.

    According to a story, that could be interpreted as allegory just as easily as it is interpreted literally.

    All this is more persuasive than placing a few bones together…

    Evolution has far more evidence than paleontology, which in itself is rather irrefutable.

    …and saying whoopie we must have come from a lump of primordial slush.

    Which, if you would bother to read instead of ignorantly blathering with the same talking points, is completely outside of evolution. You are talking about abiogenesis, which is not part of evolution.

  62. Helen says:

    Breaking the law for telling the truth. Your funny.

  63. PC-Bash says:

    You can grill me all you want I will speak the truth.

    I hope so, because I will have you removed from the classroom for breaking the law.

  64. PC-Bash says:

    Breaking the law for telling the truth. Your funny.

    Umm… on what planet is a book full of myths considered the truth?

  65. Joe says:

    So then you dismiss the witnesses to the fact as documented. Then I will dismiss your witnesses to the “facts” that you espouse.

  66. S.Scott says:

    @ Helen – It’s called the Establishment Claus – and YES you can lose your job.

  67. Helen says:

    …Yawn …

  68. S.Scott says:

    Well if you don’t have anything to worry about legally -At what school do you work ?

  69. Helen says:

    Establishment clause ? Read your history.

  70. S.Scott says:

    @Helen – I have – you read it – Here you go … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

  71. PC-Bash says:

    So then you dismiss the witnesses to the fact as documented.

    The “witnesses” in your bible are written as part of the story. Look, I can do the same thing:

    “PC-Bash turned water into wine, and each of his disciples saw him do it. Joe-Bob, his disciple said ‘Wow, this gits me much drunk!’. Slappy, his accomplice, said “Yo diggity, your wine is da’ bomb!”

    Now, I have “witnesses”, just as reliable as what are in your bible. Strangely, though, you probably won’t think that I have the ability to turn water into wine. Did it not occur to you that just because something is written in a book doesn’t make it true?

    Then I will dismiss your witnesses to the “facts” that you espouse.

    The difference is that evolution has more than possibly fictional witnesses or accounts to back it up. Evolution can be tested and re-tested. Its claims can be validated independently of someone else’s written account. That’s what makes it a scientific theory.

  72. Helen says:

    Evolution is a tenet of the religion of secular humanism. Secular humanism is considered a religion by the Supreme Court. so should we ban that ? Good suggestion.

  73. PC-Bash says:

    Evolution is a tenet of the religion of secular humanism.

    No, it is not. Evolution makes no statement about religion.

    Even if someone used evolution to say something else, doesn’t instantly make evolution invalid or religious. That is a fallacy.

    For instant, I could say that your bible was used to slaughter millions of innocent people during the Crusades, and therefore your bible is a tenant of genocide. This would also be a fallacy.

  74. Joe says:

    Evolution cannot be recreated in the laboratory.

  75. PC-Bash says:

    So, Helen, at which school do you work? I think if you believe all of this nonsense, that maybe I should tell the superintendent of your school district and see what he has to say on the matter.

  76. S.Scott says:

    That’s what the fundies are trying to do right now Helen. Good luck with that and all.

    So? You never told me what school you are at? (since you have nothing legal to worry about and all)

  77. PC-Bash says:

    Evolution cannot be recreated in the laboratory.

    Wrong!

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

  78. S.Scott says:

    No fair PC-Bash! You beat me to it!

  79. Helen says:

    Yes it is a tenet of secular humanism.

  80. S.Scott says:

    I guess you are not going to answer us Helen because you KNOW that you are breaking the law.

  81. PC-Bash says:

    Yes it is a tenet of secular humanism.

    Please tell me that we aren’t going to get into a third grade level debate… “Yes it is” “No it isn’t”.

    Like what I said, even if your dubious claim (not your own but a talking point you read somewhere) was true, it would say nothing about evolution.

    I could start a cult that believes that the theory of gravity is its main tenant. That doesn’t make gravity a religion, now does it?

    See, a little logic, which you should possess if you were actually a science teacher, is all that is necessary to blow your stupid talking point to nothingness.

  82. S.Scott says:

    Shouldn’t she be in class right now? It is a school day, right? Or is she playing HOOKIE??

  83. Joe says:

    Thou shalt not kill
    Thou shalt not commit adultery
    Thou shalt not lie
    Thou shalt not steal
    etc

    I guess we should not teach these things. It would harm the minds of the little ones. But teaching them that you were evolved from a monkey and that since this is the case if you act like one then you can’t do anything about it – you can be disruptive so you are just acting out your nature and you couldn’t be held accountable for something you did not know better. Then who are we harming ? LOL ( and there is no direct link between the animal world and the human race – what a stretch) Where did the conscience come into play ?

    You all can’t see your own blindness.

  84. PC-Bash says:

    Maybe she’s using her students to debate here under her name. “Yes it is” “No it isn’t” “Uh huh” “Na ah”…

  85. Joe says:

    Pride goes before a fall.

  86. PC-Bash says:

    I guess we should not teach these things. It would harm the minds of the little ones. But teaching them that you were evolved from a monkey and that since this is the case if you act like one then you can’t do anything about it – you can be disruptive so you are just acting out your nature and you couldn’t be held accountable for something you did not know better. Then who are we harming ? LOL ( and there is no direct link between the animal world and the human race – what a stretch) Where did the conscience come into play ?

    This morality strawman has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of evolution. Religion does not have the monopoly on morality, despite what you may believe. Still, morality and philosophy are also outside of the science classroom.

    You all can’t see your own blindness.

    You fail to grasp what science means, because your religion blinds you to reality.

  87. PC-Bash says:

    Pride goes before a fall.

    By that logic, you should fall any minute now.

  88. S.Scott says:

    Joe – you can teach your kids whatever you want at home! Like I do! My son knows ALL of those things (Wow! Imagine that!) But the government does not use your tax dollars to do it.

  89. Joe says:

    Jesus Christ is a person not a religion.

  90. Joe says:

    Your son will then see the fallacy of evolution then. Job well done.

  91. S.Scott says:

    Wow!!! Who are you? LOL! It’s MY understanding that Jesus is the Son of God!!

  92. Joe says:

    Governmental laws do reflect morality.

  93. Joe says:

    Every law is based on a belief system.

  94. PC-Bash says:

    Jesus Christ is a person not a religion.

    Jesus of Nazareth was (may have been) a person. Jesus Christ is a religious figure. The word “Christ” means messiah, which requires religious faith.

  95. Joe says:

    Wow Scott thats good news

  96. S.Scott says:

    No – my son knows how to distinguish science from faith!!!!

  97. PC-Bash says:

    Governmental laws do reflect morality.

    Yes. But, this morality is derived from philosophy, not necessarily from religion.

    Every law is based on a belief system.

    Which doesn’t mean the same thing as religion.

    Still, absolutely none of this has anything to do with what should or shouldn’t be taught in the science classroom. You are branching out, because you cannot attack evolution, nor can you defend creationism. You are losing the debate…

  98. Joe says:

    Yes to be accurate it should be Jesus the Christ. what about him is religious ?

  99. S.Scott says:

    What good news? You are an embarrassment to me as a Christian.

  100. PC-Bash says:

    what about him is religious ?

    Once again, the word “Christ” means messiah or anointed one. To call him Jesus Christ means that you are implying that he is the messiah, which is a religious concept.

  101. Joe says:

    So Scott do you believe in that sin exists ?

  102. Joe says:

    will be back in a few have to do some work

  103. S.Scott says:

    I just don’t type fast enough…

  104. S.Scott says:

    It doesn’t matter what I believe – it only matters that what I BELIEVE is NOT science!! Don’t you get it?

  105. S.Scott says:

    @PC-Bash – and you thought ABO was bad! (ugh)

  106. S.Scott says:

    Saint Augustine believed that everything that man learned from science is necessary for man’s salvation – and I agree with him.

  107. S.Scott says:

    I think the ‘Florida Baptists’ might find this interesting! 🙂 The Baptists seem to be responsible for the “Wall of Separation”! (I did not know that!)

    (From Wikipedia) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_religious_history

    ” [edit] The Wall of Separation
    In October of 1801, members of the Danbury Baptists Associations wrote a letter to the new president-elect. Baptists, being a minority in Connecticut, were still required to pay fees to support the Congregationalist majority. The Baptists found this intolerable. They wrote that under the existing state constitution: “…religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favor granted, and not as inalienable rights: And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.”

    Clearly, the Baptists were well aware of Jefferson’s own unorthodox beliefs and sought him as an ally in making all religious expression a fundamental human right and not a matter of government largesse. Supporting a particular state denomination was no different than supporting a religion.

    In his January 1, 1802 reply to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptist Association Jefferson cited the First Amendment and, in summing up its original intent, coined a now-familiar phrase in today’s political and judicial circles: the amendment established a “wall of separation between church and state.” Largely unknown in its day, this phrase has since become a major Constitutional issue.

    The first time the U.S. Supreme Court cited that very phrase from Jefferson was in Reynolds vs. U.S. in 1878.”

  108. Joe says:

    Im back. So Scott you are a Christian ?

  109. PC-Bash says:

    Joe –

    I think S. Scott already answered that question for you.

  110. Joe says:

    You believe believe the Bible is God inspired ?

  111. PC-Bash says:

    Joe –

    Do you believe that all of your bible is literal? Every last word?

  112. Joe says:

    It interesting you join up with Bash who says your belief is a myth – and you won’t take God literal. Who is embarrassed at who ? Are you embarrassed of your faith. God will be embarrassed at you at his appearing.

  113. Joe says:

    Are you Scott too ?

  114. Joe says:

    The Bible is God inspired.

  115. PC-Bash says:

    The Bible is God inspired.

    You are dodging my question, and you are doing it on purpose.

    Do you believe that every word in the bible is literal, or do you not?

  116. Joe says:

    The Bible is true every word of it.

  117. PC-Bash says:

    The Bible is true every word of it.

    I’m assuming that you are saying that you think that every word is literal. You are being very dodge-y here.

    If you believe all of your bible to be literal, then, do you follow Mark 16:18?

  118. Joe says:

    The Bible like law has specific commands that are literal (statutory) and undelying principles that are absolute (Case Law) and also has allegories which reinforce the underlying message of the Bible.

  119. Joe says:

    Which theory of evolution do you adhere to ?

  120. PC-Bash says:

    and also has allegories which reinforce the underlying message of the Bible.

    Good. Now we’re getting somewhere. You agree that at least part of your bible is allegory.

    Why must you insist that the creation story is literal?

  121. S.Scott says:

    The reason, Joe, that I side with PC Bash on this issue are TWO FOLD!!

    #1 – Religion is not science.
    #2 – The teaching of religion (any religion) in science class is against the law

  122. PC-Bash says:

    Which theory of evolution do you adhere to?

    Your question is leading, as if there are different competing theories, which is not the case.

    There are different theories that build upon evolution and natural selection, that explain different evolutionary phenomena that we see. However, these don’t exclude each other necessarily.

  123. Joe says:

    Creation is an explicit doctrine of the Bible. Its not an underlying priciple.

  124. Joe says:

    Thats where you are wrong Scott

  125. S.Scott says:

    Que ??????

  126. Joe says:

    Yes Mk 16:18 is correct

  127. PC-Bash says:

    Creation is an explicit doctrine of the Bible.

    According to YOUR interpretation, in which YOU claim it is literal.

    Different people interpret Mark 16:18 as literal, and handle snakes to prove their faith. This interpretation is just as arbitrary as the creation as literal interpretation. The creation story makes a good story: temptation and the fall of man. You are attempting to take a VERY SMALL part of this, and twist its meaning to show that evolution did not occur. This interpretation of yours is just as arbitrary as snake handlers.

  128. Joe says:

    Scott do you believe that Christ created the world ?

  129. PC-Bash says:

    Yes Mk 16:18 is correct

    As in… not allegory? As in, a literal command? Do you handle snakes to test your faith, Joe?

  130. Joe says:

    Each teaching must be in balance with other scripture and not Misused as Satan tried to miuse it to tempt the Lord. It also says you shall not tempt the Lord yout God so to just handle snakes out of context is tempting God.

  131. Joe says:

    Scripture can be misused by those who are void of the Spirit.

  132. PC-Bash says:

    Each teaching must be in balance with other scripture and not Misused as Satan tried to miuse it to tempt the Lord. It also says you shall not tempt the Lord yout God so to just handle snakes out of context is tempting God.

    Yes, you are attempting to combine the temptation of Christ with this passage to interpret to mean that you should not handle snakes. Still, you are interpreting it to mean something, to mean something allegorical.

  133. Joe says:

    The scripyure states at least on 2 occasions that God creatd the world in 6 days.

  134. PC-Bash says:

    Scripture can be misused by those who are void of the Spirit.

    How do you know that you aren’t misusing it? How do you know that you aren’t misusing Genesis 1:25 to mean something different than it was meant? That’s the crux of your scripture argument that evolution does not occur, isn’t it?

  135. PC-Bash says:

    The scripyure states at least on 2 occasions that God creatd the world in 6 days.

    Even if you take this literally, this has nothing to do with evolution, which is about how species change over time.

  136. Joe says:

    The underlying command is not to tempt the Lord If we are doing something for him and come accross the snake as Paul did then we are protected – if not we may not be.

  137. PC-Bash says:

    The underlying command is not to tempt the Lord If we are doing something for him and come accross the snake as Paul did then we are protected – if not we may not be.

    That is your interpretation. Others interpret this passage differently.

  138. Joe says:

    Since earth has been here for less than 10,000 years. Your theory becomes less plausible.

  139. PC-Bash says:

    Since earth has been here for less than 10,000 years. Your theory becomes less plausible.

    Yet another interpretation, based on the genealogy in the old testament. So, you admit to being a Young Earth Creationist?

  140. Joe says:

    There is one interpretation many applications

  141. Joe says:

    Yes at least you have that right – young earth man here. 🙂

  142. PC-Bash says:

    There is one interpretation many applications.

    No, there certainly isn’t only one interpretation. For one thing, the bible that you read has been translated several times. Passages have been copied, omitted, entire books lost.

    You choose what in your bible to interpret, and that is what you base your faith on. Likewise, snake handlers choose what in their bible to interpret, and how to interpret it. Are you saying that anyone except for you and your narrow interpretation is wrong?

  143. Joe says:

    All of scripture is based on these 2 commands. Love God with all your heart and then love your neighbor as yourself.All the law and the prophets hang on these.

  144. S.Scott says:

    A hopeless case said:

    “Since earth has been here for less than 10,000 years. Your theory becomes less plausible. ”

    I feel that he is already doomed – let’s leave him to his woes …

  145. PC-Bash says:

    yes at least you have that right – young earth man here.

    So, where do you get your figure that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Could it be a creative interpretation of your bible?

  146. PC-Bash says:

    All of scripture is based on these 2 commands. Love God with all your heart and then love your neighbor as yourself.All the law and the prophets hang on these.

    So, that includes the pesky bits in the Old Testament about slavery?

  147. PC-Bash says:

    S.Scott –

    I agree, but I’m going to let him hang himself here.

  148. Joe says:

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God. also there is no private interpretation of scripture -2 peter1:20

  149. PC-Bash says:

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God. also there is no private interpretation of scripture -2 peter1:20

    So, how do you interpret your scripture then. You are interpreting it, you know?

  150. PC-Bash says:

    Furthermore, you are reading a version of your bible that someone else interpreted for you. How do you think it was translated? It isn’t translated word-for-word, otherwise it would be total nonsense by now.

  151. Joe says:

    Yes every one is a slave to something. Slavery takes on different forms. Employement is a form of slavery. Your a slave to a country’s laws. you are a slave to spiritual laws too. Paul and Peter both aknowleged a willing slavery to the truth – Jesus Christ. A person can be a slave to their desires etc. A person can be a slave to sin which can blind their mind – scripture is clear on this in Romans. Which form of slavery are you talking about ?Slavery to sin ? slavery to the truth ?

  152. Joe says:

    God’s Spirit is the author of scripture. He is the only one that can interpret it.

  153. PC-Bash says:

    Joe –

    You are being elusive here. You know what slavery I am talking about. I am talking about the practice condoned in the OT regarding the buying, selling, and management of slaves. You are attempting to claim that every word in your bible is true, that it is all applicable to modern life. How many slaves do you own? Do you whip them when they misbehave, as you are instructed to in the OT? Or, have you wisely decided that this part of the OT is no longer applicable to modern life?

  154. Joe says:

    Thats why you have to be born again by God’s Spirit to understand it. The Bible says you will never understand it except if its revealed to you by His Spirit I Cor 1 and 2

  155. PC-Bash says:

    God’s Spirit is the author of scripture. He is the only one that can interpret it.

    Well, you better dust off your skills in reading Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin. Because, if you are reading an English translation of your bible, then it was interpreted for you. Also, you had best not listen to any sermons, because those preachers are interpreting scripture for you. Furthermore, you had best not attempt to use anything in your bible that isn’t explicitly stated, as this would be interpretation

    This inane statement causes your entire position to fall to shreds. Thanks for that. Now nothing you say for now on will have any merit.

  156. Joe says:

    Not being elusive Look through the Bible there are many types of bondage. Yes there was slavery in the Old Testament. To those who were rebellious they went into slavery. Do we not put people in prison for misdeeds ? or is this wrong since there are no standard moral code ? Prison is a form of slavery or bondage for punishment – used to be called penitentiary – til one comes to their senses.

  157. Joe says:

    Very familiar with greek and hebrew here

  158. PC-Bash says:

    Thats why you have to be born again by God’s Spirit to understand it.

    I was born right the first time, thank you very much.

    The Bible says you will never understand it except if its revealed to you by His Spirit

    …and how does your god reveal this to you? Did he tell you that the earth was 10,000 years old in so many words? Did specifically he tell you to take Genesis 1:25 literally? Do you hear his voice in your head?

  159. Joe says:

    If the preacher is used by the Holy Spirit we all better lsiten to him

  160. PC-Bash says:

    Yes there was slavery in the Old Testament.

    …which goes against your earlier claim that, and I quote, “All of scripture is based on these 2 commands. Love God with all your heart and then love your neighbor as yourself.All the law and the prophets hang on these.”

    Do you not see the contradiction in treating some of your neighbors as slaves, and “loving them as yourself”?

  161. PC-Bash says:

    If the preacher is used by the Holy Spirit we all better lsiten to him

    …and if he is lying? Obviously, according to you, some preachers must be lying, because some preachers tell you to take up snakes to test your faith. How do you know when your preacher is not properly interpreting scripture?

  162. Joe says:

    His voice is heard by your heart. That is why those who have a hard heart cannot hear. Those who have had a brokeness of heart are open to the real truth – not those who continually resist the Holy Spirit and are proud in heart thinking they are a god unto themselves. The kingdom of God is only for the poor in spirit. Until you have the fallow ground of your heart broken up you will never understand. truth is perceived by heart and then mind.

  163. PC-Bash says:

    My point in all of this is that you are choosing to interpret your bible in such a way that it is contradictory to the scientific evidence that exists. That is your choice, and you have the right to make it. What you do not have the right to do is force this choice of interpretation on others, especially in places in which it makes no sense, such as the science classroom.

  164. PC-Bash says:

    Whoops… that shouldn’t have been in all bold…

  165. PC-Bash says:

    . That should fix it…

  166. Joe says:

    No contradiction sorry my friend. If you have children and punish them for their wrong doing, do you love them any less ? No I hope.

  167. PC-Bash says:

    … maybe now?

  168. PC-Bash says:

    No contradiction sorry my friend. If you have children and punish them for their wrong doing, do you love them any less ? No I hope.

    So, there is no contradiction in taking captives as slaves in war and loving your neighbor as you love yourself? Would you take yourself as a slave, or want someone else to do this?

  169. PC-Bash says:

    …and if you interpret the OT slave to mean something different than it does, then you are still interpreting scripture.

  170. PC-Bash says:

    truth is perceived by heart and then mind.

    Not in science!

  171. Joe says:

    There we go back again. You give your allegience to your form of science I acknowledge that is how you think. I think with my heart and mind which is more dynamic. One may hold your view out of ignorance or by the limited understanding they have of all the facts.

    Which theory of evolution do you espouse ?

  172. Joe says:

    Wow this is fun. Many taken into bondage have it better than they would have. What is your definiton of slavery ?

    What type of evolution do you espouse ?

  173. PC-Bash says:

    One may hold your view out of ignorance or by the limited understanding they have of all the facts.

    This is rich. I’m the ignorant one… because I use reason instead of feelings in deciding the veracity of something?

    Which theory of evolution do you espouse ?

    I’ve already answered this for you. Try reading my previous comment.

    You give your allegience to your form of science I acknowledge that is how you think.

    This is the only method thinking allowed in the science classroom. If you could get this through your thick skull, this whole debate would be over. Facts, reason, logic… these are the only tools of a scientist that can be used for science. Not faith, feelings, or scripture.

  174. PC-Bash says:

    Wow this is fun. Many taken into bondage have it better than they would have. What is your definiton of slavery?

    This is the same reasoning used by the slave owners in the southern states. That you would believe this frightens me.

    What type of evolution do you espouse ?

    Once again, I already answered this for you. Stop asking it over and over again.

  175. Joe says:

    Slavery is exercising control over another. Now everyone has this in their life in one form or another. If one is incapable of making correct decisions in their life or dont have the ability to fend for themselves then it would be a loving thing to help them make the right decision and to provide protection and a covering for them. Your children are in a form of slavery – you lovingly make decisions for them until they are able to themselves.

    Im sill looking for that rope of yours

  176. Joe says:

    That you cant see slavery all over our culture frightens me.

  177. PC-Bash says:

    Slavery is exercising control over another.

    Ah. Is that the interpretation you use? Interesting. You do realize that you are interpreting OT, right?

  178. PC-Bash says:

    That you cant see slavery all over our culture frightens me.

    That you see slavery everywhere makes me think of the movie “Sixth Sense”

    “I see slaves.”

    The point of this direction was to show you that you interpret scripture to make it say what you want to believe. You have proven this through your own words.

  179. Joe says:

    Now the scripture says if one has a servant then we are to treat him as a brother.

  180. Joe says:

    You are in a form of slavery we all are. We are told by the government what we can and cannot do. We work for another who tells us what we are to do also. etc

    The law and the prophets is based onthe 2 commands mentioned these. You see them through that grid and you will begin to understand the truth of God’s nature.

  181. PC-Bash says:

    Now the scripture says if one has a servant then we are to treat him as a brother.

    You mean, by beating him/her (Ex 21:20-21), by raping them (Lev 19:20-22), and by seizing them against their will (Det 21:10-14, Det 20:14)? See, I have read your bible.

  182. PC-Bash says:

    You are in a form of slavery we all are.

    Once again, you are interpreting scripture to mean something that it doesn’t explicitly state. That’s the same thing you are doing with the creation story in Genesis.

  183. Joe says:

    When one proves to be a responsible person then he would be given more freedom to be on his own. As we know that then he becomes a willing servant of the truth and love.

  184. PC-Bash says:

    Genesis does not preclude evolution, nor vice versa. Only your interpretation of Genesis does. That is the crux of the problem here. You are hung up on a single sentence in Genesis. If you get past your backwards interpretation of that sentence, then all will be well.

  185. Joe says:

    Who is reading something into scripture ? The scripture says nothing in that passage of rape. And if a man smites a man of course he should be punished. As with the other you must understand the whole context there which I will explain to you tommorrow for i have to go home now and lovingly provide for my family. See you tommorrow. 🙂

  186. PC-Bash says:

    Here’s the passage in Genesis that is in question. I thought, since you claimed that you can read Greek that you could interpret it for me:

    Και εκαμεν ο Θεος τα ζωα της γης κατα το ειδος αυτων, και τα κτηνη κατα το ειδος αυτων, και παν ερπετον της γης κατα το ειδος αυτου. Και ειδεν ο Θεος οτι ητο καλον.

  187. Joe says:

    Exodus 20:11 again says that creation was complete in 6 days. then the seventh day there was rest. thats one day not a million years

  188. PC-Bash says:

    The scripture says nothing in that passage of rape.

    In different parts of the scripture “go unto her” (as the King James version translated it) is used for both consensual and non-consensual sex. This is the interpretation that you read, is it not?

  189. Joe says:

    Thats funny Genesis is in hebrew not greek. Try again see you tommorrow

  190. PC-Bash says:

    Exodus 20:11 again says that creation was complete in 6 days. then the seventh day there was rest. thats one day not a million years

    As you are choosing to interpret it as literal days.

  191. PC-Bash says:

    Thats funny Genesis is in hebrew not greek.

    Well, I thought you could translate it for me anyway.

  192. S.Scott says:

    ” PC-Bash Says:

    February 28th, 2008 at 9:07 am
    Joe –

    Apparently, you are just going to spam these same inane posts all over. I’ll respond to them again. … ”

    I didn’t know what you meant here PC-Bash, so I had a look around the site.

    For any lurkers that are confused as well – this “Joe” person is cutting and pasting his comments in many different threads on this web site. (I guess with the hope that he will have the “Last Word” somewhere.

    It’s quite obnoxious, and is grounds to be banned from posting on a lot of blogs. I don’t know what the rule is here though.

    I am going to “cut and paste” THIS message everywhere I can find an infraction. (Hopefully I will be forgiven for doing so )

  193. James F says:

    If I might break in with a quick survey, ladies and gentlemen….

    One of the most astonishing things about the “creation science” and “intelligent design” movements is that they have never succeeded in publishing a peer-reviewed research paper in any of the journals indexed at the National Library of Medicine, which currently encompasses over SEVENTEEN MILLION citations. Furthermore, amongst these citations no research paper refutes evolution. NLM covers all branches of the life sciences, and a paper providing evidence against evolution would certainly be a blockbuster. So what’s the problem? There are two possibilities:

    1. Creationism and ID are based on religious belief and the supernatural, not science.
    2. A concerted worldwide effort by research scientists, scientific journal editors, educators, and the media has unjustly prevented a single valid creationism/ID manuscript from being published.

    There’s the choice. If you’d like to check out the NLM public database, go here:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/ Remember, I’m talking about research papers, not news items, commentaries, letters to the editor, reviews, and so on.

    Also, if you’d like to check out the position of the National Academy of Sciences on the matter, I refer you to this publication:
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876

    And here’s a great reference on creationism in the United States:
    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/suppl_1/8669

  194. Steve says:

    Here is one of a multitude of scholarly works that not only refutes the evolutionary theory but examines the same facts that evolutionists use to twist their conclusions .This evidence fits the creation model and flood model more exact than the false evolutionary theory. It shows the error in carbon -dating technique. It uses all the premises that the evolutionists use to defeat there own reasoning’s. This book is an excellent tool to cast down the false reasoning’s of so called “scientific” theory which evolutionists promote revealing their true motives, which are clouded by their biased assertions.

    http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&cPath=47&products_id=2718

  195. S.Scott says:

    Nice link… LOL! (Here buy a book from the Creationist Institute! ) How about a wikipedia link or something next time?

  196. Steve says:

    LOL, if you cant afford one I will pay for one for you.

  197. PC-Bash says:

    Steve –

    Has any of the so-called “evidence” in this book been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? If so, please provide citations.

  198. Steve says:

    So you have to go to the priests of the “peer review” to determine the truth ? Another blind follower of the blind ? The evidence used to come to the “conclusion” of the evolution theory has been used more conclusively to show evidence of the flood. Try and read for yourself and see.

  199. PC-Bash says:

    Steve –

    You fail to understand how science works. For a scientific hypothesis to be considered valid, it must be independently tested by more than one person. I want to see that your “evidence” went through the same scrutiny as the evidence that supports evolution. This is a simple request, and the basis of teaching things in the science classroom.

  200. PC-Bash says:

    I’m not going to buy a book which does not cite its references. I’ve read plenty of this creationist propaganda to know that it consists of hand-waving, arguments from (false authority), quote mines, and arguments from incredulity.

  201. PC-Bash says:

    Whoops. That should have been arguments from personal incredulity.

  202. PC-Bash says:

    …has been used more conclusively to show evidence of the flood.

    Oh… I forgot. You’re a young earth creationist. Your ability to discern real science from junk science is non-existent.

  203. Steve says:

    Your own method of carbon dating, a major lynchpin in the evolutionary theory, has proven to be misleading. A number of samples of rocks known to be formed by fairly recent volcanic activity have been sent to a number of your mentor’s laboratories. They have come back, after being tested using your method of evaluating age of rocks, showing that the rocks are hundreds of thousands of years old and in some cases millions of years old. The foundation is beginning to crack.

  204. PC-Bash says:

    If this is true, then it is too bad for you that carbon dating is only a minor part of the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.

    However, this argument of yours hinges on carbon-12 and carbon-14 levels remaining consistent, which we have shown to be not the case after the industrial revolution. Here’s an interesting quote from talkorigins:

    Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).

    Link:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html

  205. PC-Bash says:

    So… claiming that the results came back as “millions of years old” is hogwash. If the book claims this, then either the author was unable to fully research how carbon dating works, or (as I suspect) he is an idiot.

  206. Steve says:

    Good at least one of your linchpins is now shown to be invalid or unreliable. Good! We are getting somewhere.
    Next: There have been no fossil links found to support your theory. No fossils which show any link between any animal what so ever – much more no human link to any other species.

  207. PC-Bash says:

    Good at least one of your linchpins is now shown to be invalid or unreliable.

    Wow… You really didn’t read my comment at all. Carbon dating only works between 150 and 50000 years ago!. It is impossible for such a test to return a result indicative of “millions of years”.

  208. Steve says:

    You dismiss everything with a final word like idiot etc. Let us have a better tone of discussion here. I choose not to call anyone an idiot but may use the term close minded on occasion – not to cast personal barbs – but to illustrate the closed system in which you operate. I have no animosity to you at all. In fact I enjoy a lively discussion.

  209. Steve says:

    To extrapolate 50,000 years is a guess too. Based on a closed system where all the variables that effect the methods are the same – which no one on your side has been able to verify along the chain of “custody” (observation) of the events which may have altered the “reading“ of the straight line empirical method.

  210. PC-Bash says:

    Steve –

    The fact that you are attempting to argue that carbon dating returns results of “millions of years” shows that you have not researched the topic at all, and rather you are taking the word of some author as “fact”. Likewise, you are taking the genesis myth as “fact”. This is an antithesis for science.

  211. PC-Bash says:

    To extrapolate 50,000 years is a guess too.

    Apparently you didn’t even bother reading the link that I gave you. Radiocarbon dating has been calibrated using many different techniques. We can use it to date things that we know the history of, with surprising accuracy. If carbon dating is not correct, then you would need to come up with a reason why it works so well in calibration and in dating historic documents of which we know the actual date of.

  212. PC-Bash says:

    There have been no fossil links found to support your theory.

    Wow. Apparently you aren’t even going to go for any new material. You are going to re-hash the same creationist talking points. I thought you might have at least one new argument…

    Refutations for this inane talking point here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
    Here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
    …and here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

  213. Steve says:

    It’s interesting that it may be asserted that because you can’t scientifically prove something you won’t believe it. Interesting did you scientifically prove that your car works before you drove it ? You might say well “I depend on those who knew the principles of science that built the car.” Hmm You say that you have faith in them without having to prove it yourself. Although the car is intelligently designed you trust the maker of it. (how ironic) You expect children not to test your theory but they must take your word for it. Let them see all the facts interpreted on both sides of the spectrum and then let the them decide. You don’t want them to think on their own -you want to indoctrinate them as to your closed system – you must not think outside the box. Is logic counted in your method or not ? If not I apologize. Let the kids see all of the views then – what are you afraid of ? You should welcome it.

  214. Steve says:

    “If carbon dating is not correct, then you would need to come up with a reason why it works so well in calibration and in dating historic documents of which we know the actual date of”

    This does not prove the theory that millions of years of evolution has taken place. If it is true for things which we have seen then it must be true for things we have not seen or have been there ?

    finish this one then:

    2 .. 4 .. ? then what is next ?

    must be 6 right ? not necessarily could be 8 right or even 16.

    You extrapolate a few documents (which might be questioned) You continually make adjustments to prove your belief – not look at the facts to determine your result. You have a preconceived belief and fix the facts to fit your belief. Then convince yourself that your closed system is the best and others have to accept it.

  215. PC-Bash says:

    Your car analogy is very broken, it is a poor straw man.

    Interesting did you scientifically prove that your car works before you drove it ?

    Engineers in the lab certainly did before it was certified.

    You expect children not to test your theory but they must take your word for it.

    No, I fully expect them to test it. That’s part of science. Now that the Florida standards are better defined, they will have time to test this and many other theories in the classroom.

    Let the kids see all of the views then

    The problem is that science does not provide any other views. Creationism and ID are not science. Should we teach from your bible in science class?

  216. PC-Bash says:

    This does not prove the theory that millions of years of evolution has taken place. If it is true for things which we have seen then it must be true for things we have not seen or have been there ?

    Are you smoking crack? I just showed you that carbon dating isn’t even used to validate fossils that old. What does carbon dating have to do with fossils millions of years old? Absolutely nothing.

    You extrapolate a few documents (which might be questioned) You continually make adjustments to prove your belief – not look at the facts to determine your result. You have a preconceived belief and fix the facts to fit your belief. Then convince yourself that your closed system is the best and others have to accept it.

    You refuse to read any of the links that I have given, or we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. It is all explained in that link. Historical documents are one of many things used to calibrate carbon dating. Furthermore, carbon dating has nothing to do with validating the age of fossils. Nothing.

  217. Steve says:

    How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. … Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as ‘necessities of thought,’ ‘a priori givens,’ etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long common place concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken.
    (Albert Einstein. ‘Ernst Mach.’ Physikalische Zeitschrift 17 (1916): 101, 102 – A memorial notice for the philosopher, Ernst Mach.)

    Einstein’s thoughts on those whose method conclude them to evolution.

  218. PC-Bash says:

    Steve –

    I think that instead of blindly pasting talking points from your creationist website of choice, you should actually bother to read my comments or the links I give you.

  219. PC-Bash says:

    Regarding your Einstein quote. What the hell are you talking about? Ernst Mach was not an evolutionist! He was a physicist and a philosopher. Natural science refers to the former.

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

  220. PC-Bash says:

    It’s funny that you will quote mine Einstein, take his quote entirely out of context, yet claim that you have anything at all valid to say about anything.

    I think your quote mine sums you up entirely.

  221. Steve says:

    There you go again. Saying I’m smoking crack. This is not true. But you conclude this. Sounds just like your conclusions on evolution – mostly emotional not proven facts. Pemises that are faulty you build a monument that cracks under scrutiny.

    What about your fossil interpretation ? Where are the links ? There are no links. Evolution has not been proved in the laboratory either. Cracking more and more.

  222. PC-Bash says:

    Also, even if Einstein was an anti-evolutionist (which he certainly was not!), what would a theoretical physicist know about biology? The area is outside of his expertise. It would be like a theologist commenting on evolution… wait. Never mind — that’s what you are doing. 😉

  223. PC-Bash says:

    What about your fossil interpretation ? Where are the links ?

    Try here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

  224. PC-Bash says:

    Saying I’m smoking crack. This is not true.

    Well, it certainly seems this way. Also, I didn’t say that you were smoking crack, I asked if you were. You aren’t even bothering to read my responses, you are just pasting away with your talking points.

    Evolution has not been proved in the laboratory either.

    No? Try here:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    Cracking more and more.

    Yes you are…

  225. Steve says:

    Sorry should break in down to you I guess you need to explain at your level. Einstein was talking about the error on accepted method usnig wrong givens used to support a particular theory. Do you have a hard time understandnig undelying principles in thought ? Or is that outside your purview ?

  226. PC-Bash says:

    Einstein was talking about the error on accepted method usnig wrong givens used to support a particular theory.

    What wrong givens would those be? You are taking something that Einstein said out of context, and applying it to your argument. You are quote mining Einstein to give some authority to your argument, and you are failing at it.

  227. PC-Bash says:

    What would Einstein say about evolution? I couldn’t tell you. I can tell you what he thought of an all-powerful god, such as what would be required in the creation myth:

    …the man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events — provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equality for social or moral religion.

  228. PC-Bash says:

    Ouch. Hopefully that will put a stop to your Einstein quote mining. He certainly wasn’t on the side of young earth creationists like you.

  229. Steve says:

    You link but you don’t answer the question. Answer on your own. Oh you must accept these biased links on your websites. You dont think yourself ? I guess you accept their word as faith. Funny how ironic this is.

  230. Steve says:

    So you site without reference interesting. Einstein did believe in a higher being. He concluded in his late years that ID was most likely.
    -Einsteins Memoirs-

  231. PC-Bash says:

    You link but you don’t answer the question. Answer on your own. Oh you must accept these biased links on your websites.

    I see no need to copy and paste like you are doing. Instead of providing you with talking points, I’m giving you a link to a well put together refutation of your points, that thoroughly explains how science and evolution actually works. I’m sure the mod at flascience.org would prefer me not to write out several pages of response to your inanity.

    I guess you accept their word as faith.

    No, I’m not like you. You need faith for your beliefs. I have evidence for evolution. If you’d bother to read, then you would have evidence too. However, you are far more interested in trolling here than seeking the truth.

  232. Steve says:

    Lets then debate this without using any other reference then. Im willing to do this. But you have to accept the veracity of those who either misread the facts – try to fit the facts to have their desired results. Lets have rational thought here then.

  233. PC-Bash says:

    So you site without reference interesting. Einstein did believe in a higher being. He concluded in his late years that ID was most likely.

    My point is that you are attempting to quote mine Einstein, take his quotes out of context, and when you do it they are valid. When I quote mine Einstein, my “interpretation” is out of context. Funny, huh?

    Personally, I could care less what Einstein had to say on the matter one way or another. He was a theoretical physicist, and I highly doubt that he spent any time researching a topic entirely outside of his expertise. He spent most of his later life working on a theory to unify quantum physics and relativity.

    You are attempting to use Einstein’s “authority” to lend credibility to your incredible position.

  234. PC-Bash says:

    Lets then debate this without using any other reference then.

    Wouldn’t that be convenient? To have a debate without facts? Why would I want to debate your fantasy with you without a reality check?

    No, I want references for everything. Only an idiot would want to discuss something without caring what experts had to say about it.

  235. PC-Bash says:

    Lets have rational thought here then.

    Believe me, I’m trying. You’re the one who’s being irrational. You think the earth is less than 10000 years old, remember?

  236. Steve says:

    Sorry there is no evidence that disproves the young earth.

  237. Steve says:

    what is your definition of philosophy ?

  238. PC-Bash says:

    Sorry there is no evidence that disproves the young earth.

    There’s no evidence that disproves that I’m the son of your god either… but I’m sure that you find it highly unlikely that I am.

    Science is based on evidence, verifiability, and falsifiability. Your creationist myth lacks all three.

  239. PC-Bash says:

    what is your definition of philosophy ?

    I don’t really see what that has to do with the topic at hand (evolution).

  240. Steve says:

    You answered the question of your philsophy in your other response. You say evidence – verifiability – and falsifiability. Good you base your life on this. Correct ?

  241. PC-Bash says:

    Good you base your life on this.

    I base science on this, as this is part of the underlying philosophy of science. We are talking about what should be taught in the science classroom. The direction you are attempting to take this discussion needs to remain relevant to the science classroom.

  242. Steve says:

    In other words you base all of your decisions on this method right ?

  243. Steve says:

    What is the value of science then ?

  244. PC-Bash says:

    In other words you base all of your decisions on this method right ?

    What I base all of my decisions on is only relevant if these decisions are part of science. You are desperately trying to get me into a gambit, and it isn’t working.

  245. Steve says:

    Why then should it be taught then ?

  246. PC-Bash says:

    What is the value of science then ?

    Science produces a body of knowledge which is verifiable and has evidence to back it up. I would consider that to be very valuable.

  247. PC-Bash says:

    Why then should it be taught then ?

    Because we base our knowledge of the natural world on science.

  248. PC-Bash says:

    Without science, our lives would be much poorer indeed. For instance, let’s consider a world without evolution. No flu vaccine, no modern medicine, no animal testing to test new pharmaceuticals. No genetically modified food crops (which are keeping millions of people from starving). No understanding of genetic diseases. Without quantum physics, this conversation that we are having would not be possible (thanks to the semiconductor). Shall I go on?

  249. Steve says:

    Not desperate – your fear, of where I’m going, misleads your impressions. I’m trying to bring you to see how you think. You admit that you only use this method of thinking when related to this particular subject and not to another. This should speak volumes to you. Listen to what you are saying.
    Can I infer then that you do not use the same method when evaluating other subjects ?

  250. Steve says:

    None of the subjects that you have mentioned have a basis of evolution at its foundation.

  251. PC-Bash says:

    Can I infer then that you do not use the same method when evaluating other subjects ?

    No. I’m saying that your argument is not relevant to science.

  252. PC-Bash says:

    None of the subjects that you have mentioned have a basis of evolution at its foundation.

    Really? So, by that logic, you should never need a flu shot, correct?

    By that logic, we test on animals because your god designed animals to be tested on, and not because we understand through evolution what parts of tests are valid and what parts aren’t? Gee… I hope your god did a good job designing pharmaceuticals — because we have no scientific basis by your argument for ever considering the test results.

    Since we cannot infer what genes do based on evolution — how did we decode enough of genetics to make genetically modified food? You are claiming to be an expert here, by saying that “None of the subjects that you have mentioned have a basis of evolution at its foundation.” Outside of our understanding of evolution, please detail for me how modern genetic engineering could be derived. Bonus points if you can use scripture quotes. 😉

  253. PC-Bash says:

    You admit that you only use this method of thinking when related to this particular subject and not to another.

    Not true. I said, and I quote: “I base science on this, as this is part of the underlying philosophy of science. We are talking about what should be taught in the science classroom.”

    Nowhere did I imply that I use different reasoning for other subjects, personal or not. Nowhere did I imply that I used the same reasoning. You are attempting to put words in my mouth.

  254. Steve says:

    Closed modification is a long way from evolution.

  255. Steve says:

    You don’t want to go anywhere else because you would be saying that you were inconsistent with you thinking process. Therefore you get to pick and chose how you want to look at a subject rather than the being consistent with the whole.

  256. Steve says:

    Cause and effect is can be a good source of dicovering priniples. Underlying principles might be derived from that, but we cannot always predict the outcome because other variables might have influence not accounted for in the derivation of the original hypothacy. But to limit the cause to a closed system can create error. You refuse to look at any evidence, that contradicts your philosophy, that might is not based on your closed system – that is what Einstein was implying in his comment by the way.

  257. Steve says:

    Have to let you feel you have some success by misspelling some words so you can correct them. 🙂

  258. PC-Bash says:

    You don’t want to go anywhere else because you would be saying that you were inconsistent with you thinking process. Therefore you get to pick and chose how you want to look at a subject rather than the being consistent with the whole.

    We could have a discussion about epistemology, philosophy, or anything else. The problem is that all of these are off-topic here. We are discussing whether or not evolution should be allowed in the science classroom. I’m not being evasive, I honestly don’t care about anything outside of science / evolution, and don’t care to argue that with you. I’m sure we disagree about a great many things, but only a small fraction of those are remotely relevant to this blog.

    You refuse to look at any evidence, that contradicts your philosophy

    What evidence would that be? Something written in a 3000 year old book? What evidence do you have?

  259. PC-Bash says:

    Closed modification is a long way from evolution.

    Not according to all the evidence we have. How do you explain speciation in the lab? Are you even aware that we can create new species in the lab?

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

    I bring this up, because most young earth creationists don’t believe that evolution can lead to new species. They believe in some “micro-adaptation” bullshit that has no scientific basis. They believe that mutations are caused by missing genetic material, even though we can generate new genetic material in the lab. They have faith that they are right. There is evidence that they are wrong.

  260. PC-Bash says:

    Whoops. Wrong link. This is the link I meant:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

  261. James F says:

    So you have to go to the priests of the “peer review” to determine the truth ? Another blind follower of the blind ? The evidence used to come to the “conclusion” of the evolution theory has been used more conclusively to show evidence of the flood. Try and read for yourself and see.

    Right, I’ll mark that down as choice two, “vast conspiracy.” Thanks!

  262. PC-Bash says:

    Right, I’ll mark that down as choice two, “vast conspiracy.” Thanks!

    Haha. 🙂

  263. Steve says:

    Good morning ! Remember that evolution is to be taught as a theory in the classroom and not as fact. It can be brought to the child’s attention that there are at least 3 major theories of evolution and there is not unanimity of opinion on the subject. That the facts used to look at the evolutionary model can be also used to show a more cogent model of origin. That the child should be taught to think for themselves and not be indoctrinated by those who have a closed system of thought and one must use all their faculties in determining the truth of the matter. Then the teacher can share the great thoughts of those such as William Buckley, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, Albert Einstein etc. The great minds of those who do not use a closed system to determine truth. So that the child can also reach great achievements in their lifetime by thinking outside he box.

  264. PC-Bash says:

    Remember that evolution is to be taught as a theory in the classroom and not as fact.

    Bzzt! Wrong. Evolution is going to be taught as a scientific theory, which is as close to a “fact” as science can get.

    It can be brought to the child’s attention that there are at least 3 major theories of evolution and there is not unanimity of opinion on the subject.

    Bzzt! Wrong again.

    That the facts used to look at the evolutionary model can be also used to show a more cogent model of origin.

    Bzzt! Wrong yet again! The evidence does not imply anything else but evolution.

    That the child should be taught to think for themselves and not be indoctrinated by those who have a closed system of thought…

    You mean… like young earth creationists? I agree. Children should not be indoctrinated by creationism. They should be given the facts, and given the tools they need (scientific method) to seek the truth.

    Then the teacher can share the great thoughts of those such as William Buckley, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, Albert Einstein etc.

    Blah blah blah. I have already shown that Einstein definitely does not think as you do. Parading historic figures does not make creationism any more plausible.

    So that the child can also reach great achievements in their lifetime by thinking outside he box.

    Hey. We’re trying. The box is fundamentalist teachings that require faith, like creationism.

  265. PC-Bash says:

    I have asked repeatedly for evidence of your young earth creationist beliefs. You cannot provide any.

    You ask for evidence for evolution. I provide you copious amounts.

    Yet… evolutionists are the ones thinking in the box? Evolutionists are the ones who have been indoctrinated? I guess if reality is indoctrination, if objective truth is indoctrination, if every observable piece of evidence is indoctrination… then you must be right. But, then what do you call faith in something that cannot be proved, that relies on a 3000 year old story that has been translated so many times it’s like a game of telephone, that requires belief in a mythical being that has never been observed which commits “miracles” that have never been seen… If that’s thinking outside of the box, then I’m happy to remain in the box with reality and fact.

  266. PC-Bash says:

    Whoops… that should have read “If that’s thinking outside of the box, then I’m happy to remain in the box with reality and facts.”

  267. Steve says:

    I guess you want to teach a theory as fact. Sorry not in our schools. You want children not to think. No amount of evidence would get you to admit your fallacy. It would be a waste of time as the great thinkers have pointed out and you have illustrated. Let the children think for themselves. You want to make the leap from theory to fact but sorry not happening. You don’t want the children to have an open an honest discussion. If you were so confident if your beliefs you wouldn’t be so nervous. You have no peace – you and I know this. If the teacher teaches that evolution is fact they, in some districts, would be fired and rightfully so. What are you so frightened of ? your conscience bother you ? oops I guess there is no such thing as a conscience – you cant measure in the laboratory.

  268. Steve says:

    Children have more cognitive abilities than you do. They hopefully havent been as spoiled by a stained conscience. Which all the great minds recognize as part of the understanding process. When you block that out you have a deluded reality and facts.

  269. PC-Bash says:

    I guess you want to teach a theory as fact.
    and
    You want to make the leap from theory to fact but sorry not happening.

    You are ignorant of the definition of scientific theory.

    No amount of evidence would get you to admit your fallacy.

    You have yet to give me a single shred of evidence! Please, give me some evidence. Put up, or shut up.

    If you were so confident if your beliefs you wouldn’t be so nervous.

    I am not at all nervous. I’ve seen the evidence. You are the one who is afraid that if children see the truth they will leave your faith. That’s what this is really about.

    When you block that out you have a deluded reality and facts.

    Wait… so believing in a myth that has no evidence, other than a 3000 year old book written by people who claim to talk to an imaginary person… this is not delusion but looking at the facts are?

  270. PC-Bash says:

    Whoops. That should have read “this is not delusion but looking at the facts is?”

  271. Steve says:

    It is very interesting. You have proven scripture to be right by your responses. Every one of your responses has been predicted in the scriptures. It predicts you mocking spiritual reality (Jude 1:17). It predicts the spirit of unbelief that controls you (2 Tim 2:26) It even says that you do the work of your father (The conjurer of deception). He controls you and blinds your mind so that you don’t even know it (John12:40, 2Cor 4:4 and Eph 4:18)). These are spiritual truths which the natural mind cannot understand., because they are spiritually discerned (1Cor 2:14). The spirit of disobedience that controls you is your master (Eph 2:2). You are in bondage (Romans 5-7) and don’t even know it. It’s truly amazing to see how accurate the scripture is concerning these things. I perceive that at one time you toyed with the idea of “setting your hand to the plow” but withdrew or when confronted with that decision you backed off and 7 worse spirits entered you (Matt 12:43-45). Here are other predictions in the scripture – It says that those who say there is no God have done abominable things. – and you know whereof it speaks. (Psalm 14:1) It says you have hardened your heart so much that you cannot even let the truth in. This is a good lesson to those who are observing – not to harden your heart when God speaks to you.

    It even predicts your response to what is being written here and I’m sure you will confirm it with your response.

  272. PC-Bash says:

    Wow. I’m not even sure if I can comment to that. That must be the most inane thing I have read in this blog so far.

    So, essentially, you are saying that you refuse to look at the facts, because the scripture claims that it is true, and claims that those who look at the facts are evil? That’s pretty pathetic. You, my friend, have been brainwashed.

  273. PC-Bash says:

    This is a good lesson to those who are observing – not to harden your heart when God speaks to you.

    So, if you hear a voice in your head telling you to jump from a building, that gravity is “just a theory”, will you harden your heart to it?

  274. Steve says:

    I rest my case.

  275. PC-Bash says:

    You read a book that is internally inconsistent and self-contradictory.

    This book tells you to rely on it and to perform no objective analysis nor to use common sense to rely on its claims. Others take this book figuratively as a work of beauty. You take it literally as a math and science book.

    So, tell me. If it isn’t in your book, does that mean it didn’t happen? Are bacteria and viruses a figment of our imagination because they did not exist? Or, is omission different than inconsistency? I think that explaining to us the process of pasteurization or the use of penicillin could have saved many lives. Alas, your great science book is silent on this. You would have us never seek knowledge, to rely on your magic book as the be-all and end-all of the pursuit of knowledge.

    Because if we ever find something that might contradict your magic book, we are instantly evil and this knowledge, even if useful for saving millions of lives, is taboo.

    Go ahead. Rest your case. Live in ignorance. I am just thankful that people of your mindset don’t hold enough power to stop progress or education, at least in Florida.

  276. Bam Bam says:

    The Book is not internally inconsistent and self contradictory – you are. The Book is both a work of beauty and fact book. If all the things were written down of the knowledge of God – the world couldn’t hold them. He put just what we needed to understand who he is and the tools to understand all of nature, including human nature.

    “Are bacteria and viruses a figment of our imagination because they did not exist?” The scripture is full of principles of hygiene – because it shows how to keep away from that sort of contamination and it teaches about the types of washings to protect against such things – wow even thousands of years ago without the benefit of your “science”. The greatest majority scientists that ever lived were devout Christians. Knowing that God was their creator and learning from him various principles so that they may develop practical and healthy contributions to society. Have you found the cure to death yet ? – You will never find it without God. Luis Pasteur was one such devout believer and creationist who was credited with helping mankind – correct.

    Nothing can contradict the Book. If it does it is false.

    “I am just thankful that people of your mindset don’t hold enough power to stop progress or education, at least in Florida.” First of all, who are you thankful to ????? I am thankful (to a holy God) a good number of people have the same mindset because they can warn the young generation of the dangers of morally bankrupt view of evolution.

  277. PC-Bash says:

    Nothing can contradict the Book. If it does it is false.

    I guess by your inane logic, the following (posted by Karl on a different thread) are not true either:

    The sun doesn’t orbit the earth. (Josh 10:13)
    Insects don’t have 4 legs. (Lev. 11:20)
    Hares don’t chew their cud. (Lev. 11:6)
    Fowl don’t have 4 legs. (Lev. 11:20)
    Eagles don’t carry their young on their wings. (Deut. 3:11)
    The earth does indeed move. (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chron 16:30, Psalm 93:1)
    Pi does not equal 3. (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chron 4:2)
    The world is not flat. (Matthew 4:8)

    It looks like your “facts” need to be checked.

    First of all, who are you thankful to?

    The state board of education for seeing through your nonsense.

    the dangers of morally bankrupt view of evolution.

    Like a broken record, Bam Bam repeats the dubious claim that evolution makes claims about morality.

  278. PC-Bash says:

    My apologies. The previous quotes were from Cheryl Shepherd-Adams, not Karl.

  279. Bam Bam says:

    “The sun doesn’t orbit the earth. (Josh 10:13)
    Insects don’t have 4 legs. (Lev. 11:20)
    Hares don’t chew their cud. (Lev. 11:6)
    Fowl don’t have 4 legs. (Lev. 11:20)
    Eagles don’t carry their young on their wings. (Deut. 3:11)
    The earth does indeed move. (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chron 16:30, Psalm 93:1)
    Pi does not equal 3. (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chron 4:2)
    The world is not flat. (Matthew 4:8)”

    Did you look up these references ?

    First of all there is no reference that the sun orbits the earth. But if you use the term sunrise or sunset does that make you infer that the sun goes around the earth ?
    Second the term ‘fowl’ is more inclusive than just insects.
    Thirdly, In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.

    However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practice refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

    It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the skeptics are wrong.
    Fourth see above.
    Fifth Deut 3:11 ?
    Sixth misquote of perspective.
    Of course 3 doesn’t equal Pi. 3.141592653589… rounded off just happens to be 3.
    And lastly now where does it say the earth was flat, not Matt. 4:8

    Get your facts straight please.

  280. PC-Bash says:

    And lastly now where does it say the earth was flat, not Matt. 4:8

    I understand that you probably aren’t educated in three-dimensional geometry. Please build for me a mountain tall enough to see every kingdom of Earth from 2000 years ago. This is impossible to do on a sphere. For this to work literally, as you are claiming that your whole bible is literal, the earth would have to be flat.

  281. PC-Bash says:

    First of all there is no reference that the sun orbits the earth. But if you use the term sunrise or sunset does that make you infer that the sun goes around the earth ?

    Well, the Church certainly did when it used these “facts” to persecute Galileo. In those days, they took those verses literally, as you claim to take your whole bible literally.

  282. PC-Bash says:

    Sixth misquote of perspective.

    “He fixed the earth firm and immovable.” That doesn’t seem to be taken out of context, despite your claims to the otherwise. If you take your bible literally, then you must believe that the earth does not move.

    Of course 3 doesn’t equal Pi. 3.141592653589… rounded off just happens to be 3.

    Well, if you take your bible as facts, then the only thing you have to go on is pi being 3. You leave no room for error, you take your bible literally. Otherwise, your creationist position falls to pieces the moment anything can be glossed over, or anything can be taken as allegory.

    Do you also drink poison and handle snakes to test your faith?

  283. Bam Bam says:

    Pi is not found in the Bible.

    Stick to your comics. You purposely twist the meaning there with the immovable earth. Its a matter of perspective.

    In the spititual world you can see all the kingdoms. You shouldn’t be quoting something you have no understanding of.

    You are looking for any excuse to not have to be morally accountable – we all know that and that is why you desperately don’t want the Bible to be true.

    As far a Galileo is concerned he looked at the perspective that the earth went around the sun – fine. But from the perspective of those on the earth the sun does travel across the sky. As I said the common usage is sunset and sunrise.

    Look you don’t have to believe in God if you want. That’s up to you. You don’t know what happens after you die. Do You ? God will not force you into his presence. You make the choice. If you don’t want him to susatin your existance, so be it. Each person makes that choice.

  284. Bam Bam says:

    With all your postulating how good evolution is for the medical field. Have you overcome death ? Nope. Have you seen beyond the grave ? Nope. What happens when you die ? What hope do you have ? None. You bask in God’s mercy now – you want nothing to do with him. Then you will have to go to your grave in fear because you then don’t know what it portends. You will then enter into the torment that awaits you. Many have come back, being well documented, seeing the torment of hell and seeing the glorious place of heaven. Even one who asked for one to tell his family not to come there – but it was said if they didn’t believe in who Christ was that there was no hope for them. For one to believe that Christ is who he says he is one has to know he is lost to look for a cure. Until you see your lostness then you will not believe – thats a fact. Hope you see it before it’s too late. Millions upon milions have realized they need something outside themselves and have found peace and joy in the Gospel.

  285. PC-Bash says:

    Stick to your comics. You purposely twist the meaning there with the immovable earth. Its a matter of perspective.

    If you can view this as a matter of perspective, then why must you view creationism as literal, and not as a matter of perspective. How do you get to choose what to take literally as “fact” and what to take figuratively, or interpret by perspective?

    In the spititual world you can see all the kingdoms. You shouldn’t be quoting something you have no understanding of.

    By your interpretation, you see climbing a mountain as an allegorical statement, yet you view creationism as a literal fact, instead of a spiritual concept. Do you not see the contradiction? Perhaps it is you who has no understanding.

    You are looking for any excuse to not have to be morally accountable

    Bullshit. You are re-directing evolution to morality, which is as meaningless as re-directing Ohm’s law to astrology.

    But from the perspective of those on the earth the sun does travel across the sky.

    From your perspective, which is nothing more than another word for interpretation. As before, who are you that you get to choose what to take literally in your bible, and what to take figuratively?

    You don’t know what happens after you die. Do You ?

    No. Neither do you, do you? You have a belief, but no substantial proof.

  286. PC-Bash says:

    Have you overcome death ? Nope.

    Have your beliefs allowed you to overcome death? Care to provide evidence to this?

    What happens when you die ? What hope do you have ? None.

    What hope do I need? Death is inevitable. You will die too someday. What is your point, and what does this have to do with evolution, exactly?

    Many have come back, being well documented, seeing the torment of hell and seeing the glorious place of heaven.

    Documented where, exactly? Oh, yeah, your unverifiable bible.

    The rest of your comment is off-topic and inane.

    If you choose to believe in your god, then fine. But, don’t try to claim that your belief is science, unless you can provide empirical evidence that can be verified by an unbiased third party.

  287. Bam Bam says:

    Its interesting you are so interested in the truth that you dont want to look for something outside your frame of reference. You would think you would be interested to know what happens to you when you die. You go along then boom thats it ? Your not interested in finding out ? Talking about foolishness ! The biggest event you will ever face and you ignore it. Does that make sense ? Wow what hope do you have then – you work all your life and then thats it – no more ? Hmmm sounds like denial to me.

  288. Bam Bam says:

    Like saying ” im in a boat and don’t no where its going so I will enjoy myself now. Then you go over the waterfall. But since you didnt see the waterfall you must be ok. Wow God help you.

  289. PC-Bash says:

    Its interesting you are so interested in the truth that you dont want to look for something outside your frame of reference.

    The frame of reference here is science and what should be taught in the science classroom. You obviously want to teach religion, which science says nothing about. Science neither verifies nor falsifies religion. It has obviously falsified your literal interpretation of your bible, but if science did not discover something that was unknown 2000-3000 years ago, then it would be rather worthless, wouldn’t it?

    If you seek spiritual truth, then you can’t use science to find it. Instead, you want to corrupt science to follow your beliefs, because you have this ignorant notion that your bible should be taken literally, even though you have repeatedly contradicted yourself about taking it literally. “Oh, everything but this should be taken literally, this obviously wasn’t meant to be taken literally…” Wasn’t meant by whom? You have no basis for picking and choosing what to take literally, you are making arbitrary choices. Fine, if that is what you believe. But, this arbitrary literalist interpretation has no place in the science classroom. None.

    You go along then boom thats it ? Your not interested in finding out ?

    Personally, no. I have better things to spend my time on, like living.

    The biggest event you will ever face and you ignore it.

    If death is the biggest event in your life, then you lead a sad, pathetic life indeed.

    Wow what hope do you have then

    Why do I need hope. Death is inevitable. Only a fool worries about that which he cannot change. You imply that religion fills this gap. Well, only someone who fears death needs religion by your logic. I do not fear death. Pain? Sure. Leaving behind loved ones? Definitely. Death itself is meaningless to me. Do you fear death? Do you think you would if you had no religion? If so, then maybe you need religion. I’ve come to terms with my life. Shakespeare had a saying, “Thou dost protest too much.” You are the one who is so desperate to get me to see things the way you do, which implies that you are the one suffering from denial. Maybe you hope that by convincing me of your irrational literalist beliefs that you will feel better? You won’t, you know?

    I lose consciousness every night when I sleep. Physiologically, the only difference between death and sleep is that you don’t dream when you’re dead. That certainly doesn’t sound like anything for me to worry about.

  290. Bam Bam says:

    There is a documentary showing a man that died After three days he came back to life. You see him embalmed in a coffin. Then you see him raised to life again. It’s all on video. You have eye witnesses. He talks of seeing heaven and hell. See for yourself.
    http://www.shepherdserve.org/special_reports/daniel_main.htm

  291. Bam Bam says:

    You don’t dream when you are dead ? Wow what a statement – what proof of this do you have ? Doesnt sound very scientific to me.

  292. PC-Bash says:

    He talks of seeing heaven and hell.

    Standard delusions caused by brain compounds decomposing into DMT in the brain.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Biological_Analysis_and_Theories

    It’s very common to experience religious themes during hallucinations, as anyone who has abused LSD, mushrooms, or peyote can tell you.

  293. PC-Bash says:

    You don’t dream when you are dead ? Wow what a statement – what proof of this do you have ? Doesnt sound very scientific to me.

    They have hooked up EKG and performed plenty of other electrical scans of recently deceased cadavers. Physiologically, it is like sleep without dreams.

    If you choose to give death spiritual significance, that is your choice. However, that would be stepping outside of the realm of science.

  294. Bam Bam says:

    Wow you are truly a sad case. Sorry to see. You are the most ardent skeptic Ive ever known (except for a few). You must have been in the seminary or something like it at one time and have become bitter at someone or God thence why you are so vehemently in denial.

  295. Bam Bam says:

    I tell you what. This is more a power play than not. This I tell you. You will believe in God soon – I guarantee it. I will be praying and fasting for your spritual eyes to be enlightened. If I were even to die in the process so be it. It would be worth it to see you praise the glorious savior.

  296. PC-Bash says:

    You are the most ardent skeptic Ive ever known (except for a few).

    As a scientist, I take that as a compliment. Thank you.

    You must have been in the seminary or something like it at one time and have become bitter at someone or God thence why you are so vehemently in denial.

    No, I’ve never been in a seminary, and I have no feelings one way or another about your god. I do, however, have strong feelings about creationists destroying the foundations of science and scientific method to back up their dubious beliefs.

  297. PC-Bash says:

    I tell you what. This is more a power play than not.

    By the creationists vying to destroy science, by malicious intent or through sheer ignorance? I agree with you.

    You will believe in God soon – I guarantee it.

    I doubt it.

    I will be praying and fasting for your spritual eyes to be enlightened. If I were even to die in the process so be it.

    It is precisely this sort of irrationality that I don’t want in a scientist. Things don’t work out to meet your beliefs, so you fast and pray hoping it will change. Trust me, it will be a complete waste of time.

  298. Bam Bam says:

    I harbor no ill will to you. You indeed have an intellectual prowess. Spiritually your missing out – I’m not condemning you. I actually do have respect for your abilities. Just my hope that you could see beyond the scope of just human reason alone thats all. Take care.

  299. PC-Bash says:

    I harbor no ill will to you.

    No, just your god. He loves me, yet he will cast me into eternal damnation for not believing in him, even though there is no rational reason for me to do so.

    Spiritually your missing out

    I have no hole for spirituality to fill.

Comments are closed.