Jindal Signs Louisiana Anti-Evolution Bill

Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and this week signed the law that will allow Louisiana local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public school science classes as they discuss evolution.

Similar bills were prepared for the last session of the Florida legislature, but weren’t considered solely due to lack of time, NOT to lack of interest.I’m sure they will be on the docket in the fall, so lets not ignore this issue. “Hound your local politicians!” Spread the word to your community members and friends. This is not what we need for our Florida students.

Keep an eye on Louisiana Coalition for Science.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

120 Responses to Jindal Signs Louisiana Anti-Evolution Bill

  1. firemancarl says:

    Gosh, and “we” dare to wonder why we’re falling behind the rest of the world?

  2. Green Earth says:

    sigh… as bugs bunny would say- “what a maroon”

  3. Wolfhound says:

    Yaaaay! Bring on the lawsuits! LA is already a backward, podunk, nest of poverty-soaked ignorance. A few multi-million dollar court cases wherein the creotard forces cost the school districts stupid enough to force-eff religion into the science curriculum (a la Dover) will perhaps teach them a good lesson. 🙂

    Trots off to make sure ACLU dues are paid…

  4. S.Scott says:

    I’m with Wolfhound – bring on the law suits and put this issue to bed for good!

  5. Jonathan Smith says:

    Barbara Forrest (LCS) has a great overview on this debacle
    http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/6/26/18920/8497

  6. PatrickHenry says:

    There are millions of blogs out there, so what I’m doing is virtually assured of having no effect, but I put this up this morning: Open Letter to John McCain. It’s really nothing, but it feels good.

    Observe, in case you’re motivated to do something similar, that my letter is scrupulously non-partisan. I thought that was the right approach.

  7. James F says:

    You Floridians can take heart in the fact that there was actually debate on the antievolution bills in both houses of the legislature. The decision in the senate would have been reversed but for three votes. In Louisiana, you had a bill that was even more insane (origins of life? global warming? human cloning?) and the legislature scooted it right through.

  8. Wolfhound says:

    Louisianna: It ain’t the heat, it’s the stupidity.

  9. Skepticism says:

    🙂

  10. Karl says:

    I’m reminded of Mathew 6:5:

    And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

    In this case, the reward will be watching their children’s future go down the drain when school district after school district lose millions in lawsuit settlements over the actions of a few religious zealots posing as educators.

  11. ABO says:

    Are ya’ll concerned that the sacred teachings of the Prophet Charles Darwin could be blasphemed. Or is it just a matter of cash?

    [Please don’t troll. This message is a service of SlimeGuard]

  12. ABO says:

    Not trying to be facetious, but isn’t it true that if folks like Donald Johansson weren’t cashing in on things like Lucy, they wouldn’t be finding them. And of course here in Florida now that the new science standards have been approved McGraw-Hill and the like stand to make millions on new books. The new books will surly have the same story with a couple of words changed. Sounds like a good business to me.

  13. Wolfhound says:

    Isn’t it true that if high ranking members of the clergy weren’t using the Bible to thought control the ignorant masses, spoon feeding them their particular spin on a collection of nonsense fables, living high on the hog through tax-exempt status, and fleecing those who live in fear of the promise of eternal damnation for not flattering Jesus there wouldn’t be organized religion leading the charge back into the Dark Ages? Setting up tax exempt churches, selling videos, books, Jesus and angel themed knickknacks plus “charity” organizations which accept tax-free donations through countless webstes sure sounds like good business to me. How’s the con-artistry for Christ business treating you these days, ABO?

  14. Kyle says:

    Ouch!!!!!!!!
    Wolfhound with devastating left hook!

  15. Wolfhound says:

    I will admit to feeling particularly intolerant of ignorant, pot-calling-the-newly-fallen-snow-black spew like ABO’s this morning. If the world’s biggest ponzi scheme hadn’t been set up by the clergy of all denominations, people like McD and ABO and the rest of them would have to get REAL jobs instead of sucking at the teat of ignorance, upon which they have grown fat. If they’d keep their irrational male bovine feces to themselves (like at home and at church, where it belongs if must exist at all) instead of trying to foist it upon the rest of us through legal thuggery and back-door tactics, the world would be a happier place for all.

    Yeah, I need some decaf! >:(

  16. Green Earth says:

    To continue on Wolfhounds train of thought:
    they also have billboard advertisements, mail fliers, radio and tv comercials- sounds like a business to me!

  17. Green Earth says:

    argh – commercial

  18. firemancarl says:

    ABO said

    And of course here in Florida now that the new science standards have been approved McGraw-Hill and the like stand to make millions on new books. The new books will surly have the same story with a couple of words changed. Sounds like a good business to me.

    Fir reals? A conspiracy theory about science and textbooks that school kids will have to schlep around and leave at home/in locker/car/dogs stomach?

    I am continually amazed ABO. Do you mean to tell me that your counter is that people make money from evolutionary finds?

    Don’t your xtian bretheren make lotsa dough pedaling books/movies/beads?

    You have a problem with this yet, you have no problem with people making money off of books dealign with atomic and germ theory do you? It’s just when it collides with your belief system that you get all hinkey.

  19. Skepticism says:

    Wolfhound, I wonder if the world would really be a better place. Nietzsche asked the same question and provided the answer. Yet people like you are still ignoring it with your fingers in your ears if not elsewhere.

  20. MaryB says:

    ABO
    If you look at our text books in Florida (mine is Holt) you will find no changes needed there. The texts already reflect the scientific consensus on evolution and other important ideas in science. The change that is needed is in the classroom on how that text is used. We need to teach good science. And as for your claim that scientific evidence is produced for profit, I think you are transferring the situation in some religious communities where a few individual are profiting at the expense of the many. The economic advantage of teaching good science will be to the whole society and especially to the children who learn it and find work in the billion dollar economic boom in biotechnology and medicine, environmental science, electronics, engineering and chemistry, etc.. The role of religion is to apply positive value systems to help us decide which way to go with all the powerful tools of that are being created as we pursue knowledge using science. Those values don’t include the hate and fear.

    a science teacher

  21. Wolfhound says:

    Skep, you need to apply your totally inappropriate handle to yourself. Look at the load of moronic fairy tales you think are “truth” and then the real world around you. If you still have your fingers in your ears and other places, you are truly deluded and brainwashed. And for that I am sorry for you.

  22. Wolfhound says:

    It’s looking like Johnny McD is going to descend yet again into philosophy and then will likely further degrade into his ever-popular “you are all just sacks of chemicals so you can’t love!!111!ELENTYONE!!

  23. Skepticism says:

    Like I said, just because one can argue the Christian position doesn’t mean that he or she adheres to Christianity. Also, just because one is not religious does not mean they will epouse evolutionary theory either. But as to your statement above, evolution does leave you as a biological machine programmed by nature and responding to nature according to the program. Sounds like determinism to me….

  24. Wolfhound says:

    The point of your above post is what, exactly? That your use of sockpuppet accounts is somehow clever? Dude, anybody who was ever on the debate team can argue from the other position. I once argued the pro-forced-maternity side of a debate as an exercise. It doesn’t make that side, just like the religious side of the science vs. theistic ignorance battle, any less stupid.

    Seriously, John, get a life. If you think Jesus is the only answer (what was the question again?), good for you and the rest of your moronic faith. Leave it eff out of public schools. I repeat once again, if I want my kids to believe in supernatural causation and other reality-defying nonsense, I will take them to an appropriate venue. But at school, in SCIENCE class, I want them to learn science, NOT the aforementioned supernatural causation known as religion. How hard is that to understand for you and your ilk? Sheesh!

  25. S.Scott says:

    @Wolfhound – Have you determined that Skep is definitively Johnny McD?

    Isn’t sock puppetry cause enough to be banned?

  26. Paul R says:

    The inclusion of global warming/climate change issues in the LA bill is of concern for several reasons, not the least of which is that it could conceivably afford some legal protection as a non-secular issue. However, for LA and FL teachers interested, some interesting new developments are taking place that will help inform teachers about global climate change and their impacts. First is the formation of the Coalition for Climate Literacy (http://serc.carleton.edu/ccl/index.html).

    Second is the development of a new document that can help guide planners and teachers to develop appropriate ideas and lessons, the Climate Literacy Framework Document (http://www.climate.noaa.gov/education/pdfs/climate_literacy_poster-final.pdf).

    Last but not least is the evolving Atmospheric Science Literacy Framework Document, now in 3rd and final draft (comment period is open through 30 June), at http://eo.ucar.edu/asl/.

    I hope that we in Florida can help lead in the development of extraordinary efforts to help our citizens understand vulnerabilities, and that by this leadership we can provide support for other coastal states that are just as vulnerable, if not moreso (e.g., Louisiana, where vulnerability can be defined both in terms of climate change as well as ignorance of the political class…of both parties there!).

  27. Skepticism says:

    So accusing people of sock puppetry is your way of escaping challenges on a public forum. Nice. Perhaps Patrick Henry, S.Scott, Firemancarl, Green Earth, Karl, etc. are all sock puppets of Wolfhound. Who knows? It really doesn’t matter. When you have a public forum like this it’s about the arguments, not the persons involved.

    [Please don’t troll. This message is a service of SlimeGuard]

  28. zygosporangia says:

    When you have a public forum like this it’s about the arguments, not the persons involved.

    Then either make a compelling argument or go away, McDonald. You are boring everyone here.

  29. PatrickHenry says:

    This forum doesn’t exist to host debates with creationists. The scientific debate about evolution ended generations ago. Our purpose here to keep them from teaching their religion in Florida’s public schools.

    Creationists can find a warm welcome at any of the many anti-science websites that flourish on the internet. They serve no purpose here. I can’t imagine why they’re tolerated.

  30. Wolfhound says:

    S. Scott, I have no actual, empirical evidence that the inappropriately named “Skepticism” is also John McDonald, Christian troll from the inbred region of Florida. What I DO have, however, is faith that they are one and the same. See, I believe in my heart that this is Truth. Even if I were to receive evidence to the contrary, something that proved Skepticism and John were not the same person, I would still hold fast to my belief that I am right because it FEELS right and makes me feel like I am special. And that’s all that matters, really, isn’t it? Feeling special, evidence be darned? 😉

  31. S.Scott says:

    LoL!! — I’m sure it’s him too!

  32. ABO says:

    MaryB

    Then we agree. Good science is what should be taught, not hate and fear And there are those who profit from religious indoctrination. The religiously motivated indoctrination of mystical theories should be removed from the education system.

    But I’m not sure what you mean by religion’s roll applying positive value systems to help us decide which way to go, are you referring to something like abortion.

  33. ABO says:

    Wolfhound

    You have faith and believe in your heart. That’s interesting, your are special, I thought evolutionist had neither faith nor heart, just facts.

  34. Noodlicious says:

    An ex-evilangel fundie once said on a forum somewhere that Lying for Jesus (TM) is considered as *righteous lying* by fundies.

    Supported by….

    Righteous Lying
    “prove that lying is not automatically a sin by showing examples where God commended lying in certain circumstances and even lied Himself.”

    http://www.fortifyingthefamily.com/Righteous_Lying
    .html

    However, apparently lying about lying is unacceptable.

    Skepticism did you previously post on this site as John McDonald?

    The question is, in the light of an obvious penchant for serial dishonesty, could a negative answer be accepted to be true?

  35. zygosporangia says:

    Skepticism isn’t even a good sock puppet. He regurgitates the same canards as McDonald, uses the same spelling and grammar errors, and even uses the same phrases.

    The likelihood of the two not being the same is remote.

  36. Wolfhound says:

    ABO can detect God but not sarcasm. Weird. 😉

  37. Skepticism says:

    Actually, this thread is about Mars. Also, this thread is made available to the public. It doesn’t matter who is who, only what is said. But you are right, this site is nothing more than a pep rally for evolutionists, thus anyone expecting to carry on an intelligent exchange will be sadly disappointed.

  38. Skepticism says:

    Correction, this thread is about Jindal. Please visit the Mars thread for other enlightening discussions…

  39. zygosporangia says:

    Geez, McDonald… You can’t keep your sock puppets straight, or your threads straight.

    You are way out of your league here.

  40. Skepticism says:

    You are right, I am way out of my league here because I don’t associate with those who hold to evolution even when science doesn’t provide what the theory requires. Yours is a league of sophistry, deception, and denial. I have never been well versed in any of these arts, so your statement is quite true. Now be a good cheerleader and shout out some Darwinian inspiration! Jindal can’t keep you down!

  41. Karl says:

    Yours is a league of sophistry, deception, and denial.

    So sayeth the liars and deceivers of the creationist lobby. Science doesn’t deceive. We make claims based on what ever evidence we find. If the evidence behind an observed phenomenon is lacking, we admit to its causes being unknown. Meanwhile, its been proven that most arguments against evolution produced by your religious think-tanks are baseless fabrications. Who’s deceiving who now?

    Looking back at trials such as Dover, it would seem that religious fundamentalism has a detrimental effect on the most basic of human learning abilities. At one point in life when I was around 2-3, I placed my finger into a damaged wall socket and got shocked. I knew from that point on to not do so ever again. Why would you tempt fate again in Louisiana? Some sort of martyrdom complex, except in this case, the children’s educational future gets the axe while your religious lobbyists go on to destroy the financial well-being of more school districts?

  42. Paul R says:

    From the Times-Picayune:

    http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1214717746129710.xml&coll=1

    F.U.D. rules are still in play – the script that plays out here was well revealed in Chris Mooney’s book The Republican War on Science.

    Also, with NSTA in New Orleans next year, that sets up some interesting potential interactions!

  43. S.Scott says:

    Well Skep – it does matter who you are because if I remember correctly – McD was banned from this site for constantly derailing threads. So if you are NOT him, you need to make sure the admin knows.

    We wouldn’t want you to get banned for something someone else did. Right?

    So – Please answer Noodlicious’ question …

    Skepticism did you previously post on this site as John McDonald?

  44. Wolfhound says:

    A bit far-ranging, but still on topic, I just got done reading Edward Humes’ most excellent account of the Dover trial, Monkey Girl. He really tried to give the asshats on the side of the defense a fair shake but the dishonesty, the outright Lying for Jesus, was just breathtaking. There’s some nice bits from Judge Jones at the end, too, where he talked about the death threats he received ftom the so-called “Culture of Life” members when he failed to rule on what they thought was pretty much a forgone conclusion. Funny how a conservative Republican judge appointed by Bush, recommeneded by the odious Santorum (may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his Underoos), and considered a slam-dunk by the defense for these reasons as well as his devout Christian faith, suddenly is a liberal, atheist, activist judge who received death threats and hate mail from the faithful to the point where he had to have armed guards assigned to him over the Christmas holidays.

    Yeah, McD, hope your side is proud of what your stupidity has wrought and is prepared for a repeat of the pummeling ID/creationism received. Heck, maybe this time those whores, Behe and Dembski, will testify for free instead of $200 an hour. Gee, maybe Dembski will actually show his face in the court room.

    If you’d keep your crapola confined to church and home, where it belongs, instead of trying to force mythology into the science classroom, your side would save considerable damage to yourselves.

  45. S.Scott says:

    Wolfhound – You might like to read Laurie Lebo’s book “The Devil in Dover”. It just came out last month.

  46. firemancarl says:

    Well Skep,

    You should be able to tell by the different writing styles, that we are not all the same people. We all know a lot about fundagelicals because it has not become the modern day version of wackaloon.

    ABO,

    no, we have faith. Faith that mankind can get over it’s obsession with mystical sky fairies and ancient religions that were an attempt to explain what the world was and what the stars were.

  47. I think I’m one of the only atheists who thinks this bill is a step in the right direction. Ultimately, I want to see religions and religious beliefs subjected to the same scrutiny we apply to all things, and I see no reason to keep that out of the classroom. A high school diploma should qualify a person to make educated decisions about the future of our country. An education about the relationship between religion and science should thus be mandatory.

    I’ve written two articles about this for American Chronicle:

    http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/66358

    http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/66101

  48. S.Scott says:

    Well Jason … I disagree with you. I have a son in 8th grade next year. I don’t need him to learn about this crap in science class. I can teach him about this crap at home.

    This bill has nothing to do with science. Do you get that?

    I see no reason to keep that out of the classroom.

    If your reasoning is that science teachers will put these religious theories under the microscope and subject them to the scientific method, then, I believe you are wrong. Especially in the Bible Belt.

  49. Green Earth says:

    I don’t have an issue with religion being taught in public school as long as it is an ELECTIVE course, and is in NO WAY affiliated with science. They have world religion classes in college. Hell, if they want a class about alternative creation STORIES/MYTHS, that’s fine, again- NOT in science class and it covers ALL of the worlds religious beliefs.

  50. David says:

    Gd cnnt b lmntd n mttr hw hd y tr. Hwvr thr wll b sprtn frm blvrs nd nn-blvrs n th nr ftr. S s nn-blvrs, yr wsh fr Gd fr xstnc wll b rlzd.

  51. S.Scott says:

    Does anyone else think that’s creepy??

  52. Spirula says:

    Does anyone else think that’s creepy??

    If you’re referring to the disemvoweled text, reminds me of Welsh.

    If you’re referring to the orignial text, it’s more like:

    D:”I’m going to tell my imaginary dad and he’ll beat you up”.

    FCS:”Sure kid, now run along. And be sure to change you’re Underoos.”

  53. zygosporangia says:

    I love disemvoweling. It’s such a brutal way to deal with a troll.

    I imagine the poor disemvoweled troll trying desperately to cling to his vowels as they spill out of his words.

  54. firemancarl says:

    Creepy? nah, juts a sign that the zombie invasion is nigh! Who else is gonna join me at the mall? We’ll make it our Alam… er… fortress!

  55. S.Scott says:

    “I imagine the poor disemvoweled troll trying desperately to cling to his vowels as they spill out of his words.”

    LMAO!!! 🙂

  56. Skepticism says:

    I bet you would like to know who I am. Well, let’s see, no one else is required to reveal their identity….hmm, guess I won’t either.

    Karl – you make claims based on whatever INTERPRETED evidence you find. You and I both know you don’t just “look at the facts.” You always interpret them. And that’s the problem. The assumptions modern science uses in this interpretation is where all the problems start.

  57. Karl says:

    There’s a line between liberal interpretation and outright lying that the creationist lobby crosses fairly frequently. AIG is an example of this type of blatant deception. I realize that it may come off as “uppity” to go on about the “right” way to interpret things, but its come a point where most of the claims being made by the creationists simply cannot fit into the available evidence. How would you still interpret the world as a flat, fixed, and unmoving plane orbited by the rest of the celestial bodies in the solar system given that in addition to mathematics and astrophysics all those probes, satellites, and manned spacecraft we’ve sent up pretty much disproves geocentricism?

    Fossil records have pretty much shown that the Eden scenario of Genesis could not have happened, even more so when you factor all the retconning in of vegetarian dinosaurs and the like by desperate creationists. If you want my “interpretation” on this whole sham controversy, the failure of religious fundamentalists to accept evolution demonstrates the greatest lack of faith.

  58. S.Scott says:

    Hey Skep! Nobody wants to know who you are (believe me) – just if you posted here as John McDonald. Yes or no?

    If you are not him – then how does that tell us anything about who you are? It doesn’t. So, your lack of direct answer leads me to believe that you are “the banned one”.

    I guess we need to call on admin.

  59. Spirula says:

    Ack! “Your” not “you’re”.

  60. Skepticism says:

    SS – you just contradicted yourself.

    Karl, here we go again, most of the claims being made by creationists simply cannot fit into the available evidence AS INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO EVOLUTIONARY ASSUMPTIONS. Isn’t it obvious that if you start with the assumption of a uniformitarian scheme of layers put down slowly (and thus over millions of years) that a claim of the world being only 6,000 years old certainly would not fit.

  61. zygosporangia says:

    Isn’t it obvious that if you start with the assumption of a uniformitarian scheme of layers put down slowly (and thus over millions of years) that a claim of the world being only 6,000 years old certainly would not fit.

    Here’s the problem, McDonald. When geologists test the different layers, they find results consistent with the law of superposition. Furthermore, biologists also find results consistent with superposition. There has never been a contradiction to this law.

    If creationists are right, we should find squirrel fossils along with pre-Cambrian fossils in the layers of sediment that pre-Cambrian fossils are found. Furthermore, we should find pre-Cambrian fossils in other layers. We don’t. There’s no way that a mystic “great flood” could explain the exact position that fossils are found in. Scientists have never found any data that contradicts superposition, ever. I challenge you to provide one example, just one, that contradicts superposition. If you can find this example, I can just about guarantee that you would get a Nobel Prize in Science.

    If you choose to interpret data by the Old Testament, and choose to ignore data that does not fit, then maybe the cruft at AIG might make sense. However, that is not science, and that appeal to emotion certainly does not belong in the science classroom.

  62. Wolfhound says:

    Precambrian rabbits, dude, Precambrian rabbits. 🙂

  63. zygosporangia says:

    Sorry, I was thinking of the squirrel stew I had last night when I wrote that. 😉

  64. S.Scott says:

    @Skep/McD – No I didn’t – learn to read.

  65. Skepticism says:

    SS – learn the law of non-contradiction. You stated that you did not want to know my identity (“Nobody [which includes you SS] wants to know who you area”), and then you put forth a question seeking to determine my identity, (“just if you posted here before as John McDonald”). You are assuming that John McDonald is a real identity. So you do want to know and don’t want to know at the same time and in the same way….that’s called breaking the law of non-contradiction. Now why would a person like you have any interest in education????

  66. Skepticism says:

    Zygosporangia, if we grant the possibility of a global flood, the potential it would have could easily explain the rapid formation of strata as well as the fruitbasket turnover we see in the fossil record. Let’s consider polystrate fossils. What is your (obviously uniformitarian) take on these?

  67. Wolfhound says:

    Sadly for you, John, we cannot grant the possibility of a global flood because there is no evidence of one. If you think you have a convincing case, please go on over to http://www.talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=23 and choose any one of the “Global Flood” threads in which to get your ass well and truly kicked by real scientists who know what they are talking about. There’s even a wonderful dissection of Whitcomb and Morris’ assinine “Genesis Flood” crapfest. Please, go participate or we shall be forced to put you in the “chicken kind” baramin! 🙂

  68. zygosporangia says:

    Moving right into the polystrate fossil canard, are we? I think you need to do some reading. Do you know that your global flood myth tie-in to these fossilized trees was disproved by one of your own (a creationist)?

  69. PatrickHenry says:

    zygosporangia Says:

    Do you know that your global flood myth tie-in to these fossilized trees was disproved by one of your own (a creationist)?

    The devil musta got’m.

  70. Karl says:

    heh.. if you want to talk about interpretations, then theoretically, every single claim/argument/idea ever made is a freakin interpretation. Some Christian sects “interpret” the symptoms of renal failure as punishment from God and pray to be cured. Others “interpret” them these symptoms as “your f*cking kidneys are dying! Go get medical help!!!” and go on dialysis. Everyone is free to make their own interpretations, but they must also live (or die) by the consequence of this choice.

    Bearing in mind, history has shown us that the consequences for the unrelenting insistence at literal interpretations of the bible has resulted in genocide, mass murder, racism, and other gross human rights violations, in addition to severely stunting the progress of human civilization at numerous points in history. This is not an interpretation, but a fact. You know how history tends to repeat itself? I “interpret” that allowing the fantasy of creationism to be taught as scientifically credible theory would ultimately corrupt the scientific process entirely to the point where if some time in the future, I were to get sick and go to a hospital, a “doctor” might use this corrupted scientific process to diagnose my sickness as being caused by a lack of spirituality. I make this interpretation based on, among many others things, statements issued by prominent members of your creationist movement demanding for the halt of research in to subjects solely for the possibility that they might not like the findings and the implications it MAY have on their particularly coveted interpretation of scripture.

  71. S.Scott says:

    Look Doof, I mean Skep, If you are not McD – how does telling us that you are not McD-tell us anything about YOU?

    Remember, you-SKEP-were the one complaining that we need to know your identy.

    Skepticism Says:

    July 1st, 2008 at 1:20 am
    I bet you would like to know who I am. Well, let’s see, no one else is required to reveal their identity….hmm, guess I won’t either.

    I don’t expect an honest answer but I’ll try one last time:

    Skep – have you posted here as John McDonald? yes or no.

  72. S.Scott says:

    Watch Skep-I’ll give you an example …

    I am not John McDonald.

    Does that statement tell you anything about me?

    Nope.

  73. Wolfhound says:

    I am not John McDonald, either. I have a real Bachelor of Science degree from a real university (UCF). Oh, and I’m a woman. Two things about me which really set me apart from Johnny McD.

  74. PatrickHenry says:

    Okay, everyone who isn’t John McDonald, raise your hand.

  75. Karl says:

    Well, now you’ve gone and put me on the spot. I’m definitely not racist Johnny McD. I’m a researcher/process developer of biopharmaceuticals with a reasonably well known biotech company. I have a B.Sc in bioengineering which is rather comical because it has actually very little to do with my line of work… I can however, tell you the finer design points of most prosthetic limbs out there…

  76. Green Earth says:

    I am a Biology student at USF, I’m female and I was raised with Judaism (Bat Mitzvah and all!) but do not practice or believe in god(s). I am definitely NOT McD.

    And I have some exciting news! I will no longer be a Florida Citizen for Science. The reason that’s exciting? I’m going to Michigan for graduate school!!!

  77. S.Scott says:

    Congrats!! Cool Beans!! 🙂

  78. Jonathan Smith says:

    Green Earth : Well done, I wish you all the best and I hope you find time to keep commenting on our site.

  79. firemancarl says:

    Hey GE, my grandfather vas a Cherman Jew who hid from the Nazis in WWII, his brother Helmut was a resistance member ( communist-go figure) -die Herbert Baum Groupe. My mom started out in Luthren school, then quasi jewish and now is not much of anything. me? Always a skeptic/atheist!

    Have fun on your trip to that cold cold place!

  80. S.Scott says:

    Hey fc – you’re not McD are you? 🙂

  81. firemancarl says:

    Heck no! I’m me! At least I think I am me, I mean, I could be the Doctor, but i’m pretty sure I am me.

  82. firemancarl says:

    Hey folks, I emailed Brandon and asked if he would make a thread about an FCS get together. I was thinking Friday July 11th @ the Ocean Deck in Daytona Beach, maybe starting around 8PM , thoughts????

  83. zygosporangia says:

    I could be convinced to come along…

  84. firemancarl says:

    OH look! Creationism gives up any pretense of not being an xtian ideal.

    http://rememberthycreator.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=26

    Come along Zygo, hopefully Brandon will make a thread for it!

  85. Skepticism says:

    SS – I know this – that you are almost obsessed with whether I am such said person or not.

    Z – last time I checked, which was today, polystrate fossils are still considered by creationists to be products of the global flood or post-flood activity. Besides, the question was how do you, as a uniformitarian, explain them.

    K – you admit that the evidence is interpreted. End of argument.

  86. S.Scott says:

    Skep/McD – I know it’s you. Just wondering whether or not you would own up to the fact . Chicken.

    fc – Here is something else you might want to know about …

    http://car54.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/id-doesnt-have-anything-to-do-with-religion-not-and-expelled-sucks-in-canada-too/

    Fri. the 11th looks like a good one (the only good one)

  87. Karl says:

    Evidence is always interpreted, but ask yourself this: what allows certain interpretations of the same collection of evidence to be accepted as fact while others to be dismissed as pure fantasy? We’ve already gone over the criteria in which a scientific claim has to fulfill in order to be considered a fact. The “interpretation” behind this claim is made based on the explanation that best fits the available evidence. During this process, new evidence can be introduced and old evidence could be disregarded if the new evidence provided shows that the old evidence was faulty or unreliable (i.e. limited by the technology used to obtain it at a time when newer and more accurate methods are available).

    The creationists disregard these basic principles by dismissing ALL the evidence because they don’t like the implications they had on what they already consider to be the unquestioned truth. And I say this because the “reasons” they give for dismissing or re-interpreting things like fossil evidence are outright lies that completely disregard the principles of basic geology and chemistry which prove the impossibility of their reasoning. Overall, this creationist “interpretation” denies many scientific fields beyond biology alone.

    I don’t really care WHO you are, but I would like to know WHAT you are. Are you a scientist like many of us hear? Some sort of business/industry professional? A student? Some loser “on the dole” as made by past trolling attempts? Director of Student Ministries and white supremacist?

    In a way, you and I are both “godless heathens” or whatever you wanna call non-Christians. But that fact alone doesn’t determine whether we are morally “good” or “bad”, so to speak. Some of us dedicate ourselves to the betterment of human civilization while others such as yourself go around burning down buildings and shooting people.

  88. Skepticism says:

    Karl, you have assumed that bettering civilization is something to be desired, yet you hold that humans are advanced pond sludge and totally biomechanical. There is no right and wrong, only cause and effect. You should know what I am by now. I am a skeptic of evolutionary theory.

  89. Karl says:

    So, what of it? Is there some sort of point you wish to make between the desire for the betterment of human civilization and recognizing our humble beginnings?

    Why are you hesitant to divulge your occupation? Are you afraid that your lack of qualifications and basic understanding of science will be revealed as the sole purpose of your “skepticism”? If this is one of the reasons into why you deny evolution, then the fact that your ignorance into the workings of the natural and your insistence on remaining ignorant makes you fail as a Christian under the criteria which you yourself established.

  90. Green Earth says:

    Thanks ya’ll! Yes, I really say ya’ll, I’m sure the northerners will look at me like I’m nuts! To be sort-of on topic- at least I’m not going to Louisiana!

  91. Wolfhound says:

    “Z – last time I checked, which was today, polystrate fossils are still considered by creationists to be products of the global flood or post-flood activity.”

    That’s because creationists are idiotic, scientifically illiterate reality deniers desperately trying to force-fit everything into a Bible-shaped hole. And failing miserably.

    Seriously, you trolls REALLY should check out Talk Rational (the link on my handle), go to the Evo/Creo forum, and read through the “Global Flood” threads. The REAL scientists there (geologists, archaeologists, biologists, and even a world-reknowned paleontologist (the one ABO calls a fraud, liar, and con-artist in his own special way)) waiting to answer questions and make you examine your narrow-minded, deluded, mythology-soaked cognitive dissonance.

    Bok, bok, bok!! 😉

  92. zygosporangia says:

    Besides, the question was how do you, as a uniformitarian, explain them.

    I don’t need to explain them. Creationists have done a better job of explaining how these fossils cannot possibly be linked to a global flood better than I ever could. The fact that there are creationists who disagree with you should be a sign of how far out in left field you are, McDonald.

  93. Skepticism says:

    Z – please provide this creationist of which you speak. Also, I will ask you again, how do you (as a uniformitarian) explain these polystrate fossils???
    Also, why do you call me McDonald?

    K – talk is cheap. We can all claim this degree, this experience, etc. It means nothing here. It is all about the argument here, nothing else.

    WH – I think you should be humble, given the fact of the numerous hoaxes evolutionists have presented over the years. Talk about trying to fit things in…

  94. Noodlicious says:

    Test

  95. Karl says:

    What kind of argument is made when the entire claim of one side can literally be summarized by a petulant child screaming “nah nah nah nah I’m right you’re wrong!!!” with eyes squinted shut and ears covered by hands? We can talk about interpreting evidence all day, but for the sake of this argument in which physical/empirical evidence are the heart of the issue, whatever material the creationists are interpreting to make their argument is NOT evidence.

    You may think degrees and experience are moot, but in this case, it’s the difference between getting that strange skin growth checked out by a doctor versus your neighbor “Bob,” who tells you that it’s probably nothing so go have a beer or two. Hell, maybe to you, it isn’t even about the argument, but about some fundie zealot troll getting his jollies off over his attempts at riling up the pro-science community with his ignorance. I suppose you would interpret our reactions to your willful stupidity as some sort of affirmation of your own faith. “Look at the those evil evolutionists trying to change me with their evil sciencey stuff, but my faith in Christ is strong so I will not believe them and instead repeat the same religious garbage 50 times to show them the strength of my convictions.” But hey, I totally understand why you would want to divulge as little about yourself as possible no matter how we goad you. You are smart, trying to keep your identity, even your religious affiliation a secret, no doubt after seeing McDonald getting ripped a new one over his “ethnic preferences” and all sorts of racist crap associated with his particular denomination of the Christian faith. Here, I’ll try to goad you again, faithless coward.

  96. Noodlicious says:

    John, since you appear frightened of info offered secular science sites, google “Answers In Creation” for a whole heap of wonderful YEC debunking by other creationists.

    Plenty of articles under the heading of “Radiometric Dating and Creation Science”

    Enjoy 🙂

    p.s. I tried posting a link….but post didn’t come up.

  97. Noodlicious says:

    In fact I think I’ll link to rebuttals on that site for the YEC fundis wherever possible.
    Really knocks out their “it’s all a conspiracy of atheist scientists” crap!!

  98. Wolfhound says:

    “WH – I think you should be humble, given the fact of the numerous hoaxes evolutionists have presented over the years. Talk about trying to fit things in…”

    I hate to break this to you, troll, but the hoaxes creotards love to trot out were debunked by…wait for it…SCIENTISTS! How about that? See, science is a very unforgiving field. It’s put up or shut up. Scientist “A” puts something out there and the rest of the professionals scrutinize it. If it isn’t kosher, it gets exposed. Nowadays it’s called “peer review”. But ID/creationists wouldn’t know anything about that…

    Sadly, people are people and “cheat” for reasons of fame, fortune, or to sometimes be pranksters. But other scientists find them out and expose them.

    If only religion were as honest. Even when the claims of creationists are shredded for the nonsense that they are, the adherents keep on lying, to themselves and others to keep the greatest of all con games going.

    For fun, I’ve put a link to the story of the creotrolls favorite scientific hoax, Piltdown Man. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

  99. zygosporangia says:

    Z – please provide this creationist of which you speak. Also, I will ask you again, how do you (as a uniformitarian) explain these polystrate fossils???
    Also, why do you call me McDonald?

    Come on, McDonald… Seriously? You suck at sock puppeting. Your sock puppet has the same exact writing style, pukes the same drivel, and makes the same exact grammar and spelling mistakes. Just fess up, admit that you’re John McDonald already.

    Giving any more explanation than I already have on polystrate fossils is a waste of my time. I have given you plenty to research on your own. You are not interested in learning, but of regurgitating talking points you have read on AIG. I grow bored of doing research for you McDonald. Five minutes with google will tear your talking point apart. I dare you to spend five minutes actually researching the things you spout before you actually spout them. Did your father never teach you to think before speaking?

  100. Skepticism says:

    K – you assume I am a creationist. That is not what I said now is it? I said I was a skeptic of evolution. So this goes to everyone here – your attacks on creation are irrelevant when it comes to addressing me.

    WH -right, like Heckel’s embryo diagram – something debunked in the 1800’s but still found in MODERN SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS. Don’t givel me that “science is unforgiving crap.” It would be if secular scientists would really practice science, but that’s the point. There not about the science- they are trying to back up a certain philosophy and will present anything, twist anything, and deny anything to maintain that philosophy.

    Z – You make an accusation, avoid a question directed to you, and then present some ad hominem to finish off your comment. Perhaps you should just read the comments instead of making any yourself.

  101. Skepticism says:

    sp – Haeckel’s embryo

  102. Wolfhound says:

    Psssst! John, stop believing the crap AiG spoon feeds the credulous. 🙂 I know it’s hard to break bad habits that have been pounded into your mind since birth and all but give it a try!

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

    PS– You’ve GOT to get that projection under control! 🙂

  103. PatrickHenry says:

    I am a spherical earth skeptic. But don’t call me a flat-earther! And don’t bother attacking flat earth theory. I’m just a skeptic, that’s all. I’m a skeptic because of all the spherical earth frauds — like Atlantis! Where is it? And how about that Northwest Passage? Where’s that?

  104. Wolfhound says:

    For others interested, the link is to an essay by the Great Satan himself, PZ Myers, who gives the history of the embryo fraud, states HOW and WHY Haeckel was wrong, and says that the embryo drawings in their original form shouldn’t be used in textbooks without mentioning the fraud. Perhaps Johhny McD and the guys at the Disco ‘Tute should talk to the publishers of the textbooks about this.

    And of COURSE you’re a creationist, silly-billy! The only people who object to ToE do so on purely religious grounds at the heart of it.

  105. zygosporangia says:

    McDonald –

    Here’s a link for you from TEN YEARS AGO:
    talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

    BTW, that was the first search result in Google when I typed in “polystrate fossil.” Like what I said, five minutes of google would make you sound like half of the idiot that you sound like.

  106. Skepticism says:

    WH – maybe you should contact the publishers since, after all, you are interested in promoting “sound science.” Or am I mistaken? Perhaps you like the fact that it has not been removed and continues to deceive. Why has the scientific community not addressed this years ago???? Why does it continue to appear????

    Z- I ask for explanations and you give me google. That’s called a cop out.

  107. James F says:

    Skepticism,

    You make the claim about “the fact of the numerous hoaxes evolutionists have presented over the years.” Wolfhound has already dealt with Piltdown Man and Haeckel’s embryos. Where are the numerous hoaxes? Where is any hoax in modern times? Modern scientific peer review has prevented publication of fraudulent work in the field of evolutionary science for decades.

    Now contrast this with the persistent dishonesty of the Discovery Institute. Their web site makes the outrageous claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory, when it has produced zero data in peer-reviewed scientific literature. They cite papers that they claim to be in favor of intelligent design that make no mention of intelligent design. DI fellow Stephen Meyer got a literature review paper (note: no data) published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004 only because editor Richard von Sternberg violated journal policies, and a month after its publication the society formally disavowed the article (http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html).

    The lies and deceptions of these evolution skeptics – who bend over backwards to distance themselves from traditional creationists – continue to this day and show no signs of slowing down.

  108. Karl says:

    Are we suppose to believe that you are a mere “skeptic” of evolution when the majority of your counterpoints are drawn from the same thoroughly discredited load of theological garbage used by the creationist movement? And I say CREATIONIST because intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and whatever scientific-sounding “theory” that DI whips up next are all incarnations of classic creationism, one way or another. Their own paper trail confirms it.

    It really doesn’t matter what you say about my accusations because when the basis of your counterarguments involve taking passages of Genesis at face value, you are a creationist. You don’t like being called creationist? Try working in aliens or giant planet-sized turtles into your arguments for hilarity.

  109. zygosporangia says:

    I ask for explanations and you give me google. That’s called a cop out.

    Why should I spend a significant portion of time responding to each and every one of your canards. I gave you a link to information that shows you that you are wrong. It is up to you to either learn or continue being a blow-hard creoTard. If you choose the latter category, then perhaps the admin should consider showing you the door.

    I have no problems with discussions, but you have to make an effort to educate yourself. Otherwise, you are merely being willfully ignorant.

  110. Wolfhound says:

    Wow, no need for me to wade back in here thanks to Zygo and Karl and James. 🙂

    Whenever there is fraud in science, other scientists pounce on it and expose it. Every. Single. Time. That’s called “peer review”. Whenever there is fraud in ID/Creationism, everybody in that camp shouts “Hallelujah! Praise Jes–um, I mean the DESIGNER!” When the fraud is pointed out to the IDiot/CreatioNuts, they scream, “Persecution”!

    Wee, wee, wee, all the way home.

  111. Skepticism says:

    JF – another form of evolutionary hoax is the classical “we have found another transitional fossil” claim. Consider Archaeopteryx. It is nothing more than a bird, but evo’s stretch it as far as they can. Such vivid imaginations you have!

  112. James F says:

    Skepticism,

    That does it, I’m calling Poe’s Law on you. You’re having us on! 🙂

  113. PatrickHenry says:

    James F Says:

    Skepticism,

    That does it, I’m calling Poe’s Law on you. You’re having us on!

    The essence of Poe’s Law is that you really can’t tell an intentionally over-the-top spoof from the real thing.

  114. zygosporangia says:

    That does it, I’m calling Poe’s Law on you. You’re having us on!

    I certainly hope so. I would like to believe that people aren’t this obtuse.

  115. Wolfhound says:

    This could really drag out but I would like for John to show me a bird with teeth and claws on its wings. And that’s not even counting the other non-birdy things about it. I seem to recall, at some point, putting the link up for a debate between a YEC moron and a bunch of scientists wherein the “it’s just a bird” idiocy was demolished. Dollars to donuts John never looked. Once again, you can’t educate the willfully ignorant reality deniers.

    Tiktaalik, anyone?

  116. zygosporangia says:

    Well, isn’t it obvious? His devil buried those fossils there to seed discontent… or, wait… maybe his god buried those fossils there during creation / flood / [insert biblical event here] to test our faith. After all, it’s in his bible… oh, wait… nevermind. His mystic book of history must not have covered something that important. You’d think there’d be something in Leviticus or Deuteronomy along the lines of “thou shalt not dig up unclean things from the earth, or date such things found with radiological instruments.”

    Oh well. I guess it’s something else the sheep herders forgot to write down. It doesn’t matter though. If they didn’t write about it, we should not spend our time thinking about it. After all, who needs biology, modern medicine, mathematics, or chemistry anyway?

  117. S.Scott says:

    Happy 4th of July! 🙂

  118. Green Earth says:

    After all, who needs biology, modern medicine, mathematics, or chemistry anyway?

    Don’t forget history, archeology, anthropology, geology…..

  119. Karl says:

    What with all the rising real estate prices and urban pollution, we should all just move back into caves club each others brains out with blunt sticks…

Comments are closed.