“Hamming It Up” in Florida

Ken Ham,Young Earth Creationist, the founder of Answers in Genesis-U.S. and the Creation Museum, will be holding a conference in Jacksonville Florida on Sunday August 17th through Monday 18th. Apart from the usual mind boggling topics such as:  College Outreach – Answers to Most Asked Questions In Genesis, Creation v Evolution and :Genesis: Key to Understanding Today`s World, there are several other topics that should raise concern in all of us.

Would you, as a parent, subject your children to such discourses that include: The Origin of Racism, Darwin`s Racist Roots (ages 11& up) and: Learning How to Think Only Biblically ( grades 7-12 ). It’s bad enough for adults to contaminate their minds with this 19th Century thinking, exposing young children to this type of hogwash is nothing less than criminal.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

239 Responses to “Hamming It Up” in Florida

  1. Wolfhound says:

    I’m sure John McD and ABO’s cults will bus the kiddies in for some good old fashioned reality-denial. More power to ’em, says I, since it’ll make it that much easier for MY kids to get into college and on to successful careers in science and medicine.

  2. Green Earth says:

    Subjecting kids to that CRAP should be considered child abuse!

  3. zygosporangia says:

    Well, that’s how fundies reproduce. They fill their kids’ heads with such nonsense, until their kids have the same flawed reasoning.

  4. ABO says:

    Yea, you would think 19th century hogwash would be criminal.

  5. firemancarl says:

    Yea, you would think 19th century hogwash would be criminal.

    Meh. You guys still follow stone age myths. Besides, science and time have proven evolution to be true. Religion on the other has proven to subjugate the weak minded and used be the powerful to keep the citizenry in check.

  6. Noodlicious says:

    “Subjecting kids to that CRAP should be considered child abuse!”

    It is by rational sane people!

  7. Kyle says:

    @ Noodlicious,

    Thank you so much for that link.
    Haven’t laughed so hard in months!!
    “The Beast” has truly been touched by his noodly appendage!

    RAmen!!

  8. S.Scott says:

    I’m having some fun … I’ve got someone actually arguing with me that the academic freedumb act PASSED here in FL.

    http://womenintheword.wordpress.com/page/2/
    Un-flippin believeable LoL 🙂

  9. PatrickHenry says:

    Why bother? I long ago gave up arguing with creationists. I post information and I post ridicule. But I never engage those people directly.

  10. Karl says:

    Incidents like these are why I suspect that this fundamentalist creationism poison has some sort of damaging effect on brain development, kinda like alcohol, cigarettes, and frequently abused pharmaceuticals. Poison such as this should only be administered by prescription only, or at the very least, have warning labels along the lines of “May cause permanent impairment of critical thinking skills and other cognitive abilities” and not sold to anyone under 18. Oh, and tax the sh*t out of it to fund real education.

  11. zygosporangia says:

    Oooh. With a little coaxing, she could be the new McDonald. 😉

  12. S.Scott says:

    This is the new dogma don’t you know? I wasn’t physically present when the bill died – I just watched it from a live feed so it must not have happened and I can’t prove it right?

  13. PatrickHenry says:

    Give her this link to a blog entry at the Discovery Institute, in which they lament that the bill has died:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/05/florida_house_republicans_kill.html

  14. S.Scott says:

    Thanks – I did that already but my comment is “awaiting moderation”. LoL!

  15. Skepticism says:

    If Creationists wish to hold a conference and attendance is voluntary, why do you object? You don’t have to go and your kids are safe at home watching the Discovery Channel and learning about how marvelous death is. Sounds like to me you guys are nothing more than religious terrorists. Not only do you want religion censored from the public, you want it destroyed. Your views are extreme and remind me of the political history of Russia. Good thing we know how that turned out.

  16. Karl says:

    Oh hey, you found a way pass the devoweling. Welcome back I suppose (even though I’ve probably been talking with the same person for the past few months.)

    Voluntary conferences are fun and all, but we can still voice our opinion about it. I’m sure a lot of us would have strong feelings if the Klu Klux Clan were to hold a conference on the inferiority of non-whites, or if Neo-Nazis had a conference on their latest Jewish conspiracy nonsense.
    Personally, I don’t want religion to be destroyed or entirely censored from the public. I just think it could use some pruning around the edges. Tone down the militant fundamentalism a bit and we can all be friends and everything will be happiness and sunshine.

  17. Jonathan Smith says:

    Skepticism,ABO and others who wish to jump on the “science wants religion censored from the public” bandwagon.
    The post was not a slight on religion or personal religious convictions(I might add that the greater majority of the FCS members are religious)
    The point is,informing very young children that Darwinism(Evolution) is the cause of racism is simple false. Also,asking 7 year olds to only think biblically and that this book has all the answers for all you will ever need to know and that any science that conflicts with scripture is simple false, without question,does a grave diservice to those children.

  18. MaryB says:

    Telling children lies does not contribute to society even if they are not our own children. If everyone was only concerned about me and mine what kind of society would we have? Public education is a part of America’s civic values and most people believe it is the foundation of our democracy but it is only as good as the information provided to children. Without democracy freedom of religion would be at risk along with all our other freedoms. That includes the freedom to lie to your children for religious reasons (?) but don’t expect this group to keep our mouths shut when we see that happening.

  19. Skepticism says:

    Creationists have the same case against you, yet they have one additional charge: evolutionists lie to children everyday in the public school system yet these children are INVOLUNTARILY forced to accept it. When creationists protest against this evolutionists get alarmed and aggressive. You want to attack creationists but you don’t want creationists attacking you. Oh yeah, Mary B, don’t forget that in America public education was instituted with a religious motivation in mind. Just consider the New England Primer. You like to leave that part out don’t you as a historical revisionist.

  20. Skepticism says:

    JS – Creationists do not teach that Darwinism is the cause of racism, but rather that it serves as one excuse for racism. Yes, recent scientific discoveries have shown that genetically the human race is one (which actually confirms what the Bible teaches) the actual foundations of Darwinism assume that some things are more evolved than others and therefore considered superior.

    Creationists do not teach that the Bible contains everything one needs to know, only that it contains everything one needs to know concerning salvation. Yet everything that it does speak about, whether in regards to God, man, the world, etc., is infallible, certain, and true.

    Creationists do teach that if science conflicts with Scripture (accurately and correctly interpreted) then that scientific assertion should be rejected.

    If the Bible is the Word of God, it gives man a “one-up” in regard to understanding the world around him. Thus it could not be a disservice to children to learn it but rather a great blessing.

  21. S.Scott says:

    Karl, Carl (fc) – I need some help – are either of you willing to be a guest contributer?

    Stacy

  22. zygosporangia says:

    If the Bible is the Word of God…

    Wow. That’s a big if. That’s a hole in your logic large enough to drive a dump truck through. At least you are willing to admit that there’s a good chance that your bible is not the word some god.

    There’s hope for you yet.

  23. Karl says:

    Skepy: The “Darwinism” that you perceive to contribute to racism is NOT the same evolution theory developed by Charles Darwin. In fact, in his later works, Darwin actively attacked the notion of racial inferiority and eugenics programs as being contrary to the principles of evolution. The racist aspects you speak of are a product of classical Judeo-Christian bigotry complemented by Social Darwinism, a product of philosophers like Malthus, Haeckel, and Galton, much of which based on material preceding Origin of Species. To hold evolution theory on the same level as Social Darwinism is to hold mainstream Christianity on the same level as those obscure child-abusing polygamous suicide cults that the ATF and FBI love to raid.

    The disservice of the unyielding literal interpretations of the bible has been well known and documented throughout history. Even if we ignore all the fun things the Catholic church were known to do and have only recently started to recant, some of the grossest examples of human rights violations such as slavery and racial discrimination were based on literal interpretations of Genesis 9:25-27. There are incidences even today where people(especially children) have died from being denied medical care due to this kind of unyielding literal interpretation on the power of prayer over conventional medical procedures. We’ve already shown the level of disservice that holding YEC beliefs will have on the possibility of higher education and scientifically-oriented careers, not to mention the shining examples of intolerant and militant personalities we have the pleasure of experiencing here.

  24. Jonathan Smith says:

    Skepticism :Please read my post again before you make your unfounded remarks. I never accused creationist in general on this issue,my remarks were directed only towards Ken Ham and his lectures,which do reflect his personal prejudices.
    You presume to speak for all creationists and people of faith when you know that not all of them share your convictions.

  25. PatrickHenry says:

    Speaking of Ken Ham, here’s a link to his website: 500,000th Visitor at the Creation Museum.

  26. ABO says:

    MaryB

    “Telling children lies does not contribute to society even if they are not our own children.”

    There’s a difference between telling a lie and believing the wild suppositions of evolutionist. With much of the theory being based on imagination, for those who don’t fully except the imaginary parts, most consider it a lie to declare it as genuine truth. The believers in it don’t think there lying, but every one knows that it’s really not true, there’s just nothing to replace it with. So is this to say, that every thing that doesn’t fit your theory as it reads today, is a lie and if the theory changes tomorrow all views that contradict it tomorrow will be lies also. Foolishness.

    “ Without democracy freedom of religion would be at risk along with all our other freedoms. That includes the freedom to lie to your children for religious reasons (?) but don’t expect this group to keep our mouths shut when we see that happening.”

    Our freedom of religion is not only at risk, it’s being replaced by a false religion, fanatical evolutionists call it science. If you want to lie to your kids for religious reason’s or whatever, don’t expect everybody to agree with you.

    Monkeys are monkeys, people are people.

  27. firemancarl says:

    If the Bible is the Word of God, it gives man a “one-up” in regard to understanding the world around him. Thus it could not be a disservice to children to learn it but rather a great blessing.

    Yeah, about that. The bible cannot even get the real historical figures correct. Ya know that Herod the Great dude? Yeah, seems he died in 4BC.

    Nevermind about the non science in the bible. Just think how great it would have been in your god actually said something that could be used by future generations to explore the world around them. The bible could have had complex math and science ….. but there isn’t any….

  28. Wolfhound says:

    Blah, blah, blah, ABO. I’m sick and frickin’ tired of you godbots bitching and whining about being oppressed and losing your religious freedom. Your stupid mythology is the majority delusion in our intellectually benighted country. Our moron President and his lackeys are firmly in your camp. Your childish beliefs pervade nearly every facet of what should be a secular government. What you ARE losing is your ability to ram your horseshit down the throats of the rest of the citizenry who don’t subscribe to your fantasies. Tough titty. Until your churches are shut down, your doors kicked in and your Bibles ripped from your hands you have no cause for this ridiculous victim complex.

    And, again, your constant parroting of your masters at AiG and the DiscoTute regarding science as a religion is moronic. Not that I expect anything more from you and your “kind”.

    Once again, why is what you believe true, again? And why are you here since you have no interest in science?

    And you did NOT just use “if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys”, did you? !!!

  29. James F says:

    Monkeys are monkeys, people are people…and they share a common ancestor! 🙂

  30. Spirula says:

    Wolfhound says:

    you godbots bitching and whining about being oppressed

    I believe the correct word is fauxpressed.

  31. MaryB says:

    ABO et al,
    When I teach evolution to my students it is taught for understanding only – I had a student ask me this year (yes they do ask lots of questions!) if I believed in evolution and my answer was no – that I understood the concept and thought that it was an important part of our present understanding of biology but it is not a belief. I expect my students to gain an understanding of evolution and natural selection and to begin to understand its importance. Their beliefs are their own business and my classroom contains everyone form iranians to native americans to evanglical baptists. This misconception about belief and science goes to understanding the nature of science itself. this constant insistence that science is religion is ridiculous when you consider the millions of church going believers, myself included, who both understand and practice science and hold personal religous beliefs. Like the teachers at Dover I would refuse to lie to students by telling them that the theory of evolution is flawed and that it can be replaced with the religious theory of intelligent design.
    I think of scientific theories more as tools with a limited scope that affects only the physical world and are value neutral. My favorite metaphor is a hammer. The evolution hammer would be used to build vaccines and biotech life saving drugs just as a real hammer can build furniture or a house to shelter against the storm. You don’t worship a hammer! However you don’t throw it away when the hurricane is off the coast and you need to put up shutters.
    You seem to be terrified of science but you are still using the internet. I bet you use cell phones, digital watches, wear synthetic clothing, drive automobiles and I bet you and your children take advantage of modern medicine (Evolution!). If science is so terrible you better start looking for a cave and leave all the stuff listed above behind you!

  32. Skepticism says:

    Firemancarl: the issue of Herod’s death has already been addressed on this very site – seems no one pays attention to answers to objections because the objectors here don’t really want the objections to be answered. I’ll let you search around and see if you can find the answer here on your beloved site.

    Also, in regard to the Bible, it does not claim to be a science textbook. It only claims to give man infallible knowledge regarding salvation and what man needs to know about God and what God requires of him. It makes statements about God, man, and the world which are infallible and inerrant. With these truths man does indeed possess a “one-up.” For example, it tells man that God is logical and orderly. Thus man expects to find order in the universe…and he does. He expects to find laws in operation in the universe…and he does. Let’s don’t forget the multitude of scientists who had a Biblical worldview and made incredible discoveries and contributions to scientific inquiry (Newton, Pasteur, et al.). No, the Bible doesn’t give you a schematic of the circulatory system of man, but it does provide a framework through which to view the world and its purpose, as well as the foundations for scientific inquiry.

  33. Skepticism says:

    Mary B: I have two challenges for you:

    1). You cannot consistently believe what the Bible teaches and what evolutionary theory teaches to be true at the same time.

    2). You say science is a neutral tool – then what is to be used to tell you how and when to use that tool? Instead of destroying cancer, maybe we should use science to create destructive biological weapons. Science cannot tell us how to use scientific information. So now you are in a pickle. What is to guide us as to how to use science? Is it merely pragmatism? Science gives you no guidance in these areas. But you personally can’t turn to the Bible, because if you can’t trust it to teach the truth regarding man’s origins, you can’t trust its teaching regarding anything.

    Well teach, what do you have to say?

  34. Karl says:

    Skepy: From the way you describe the bible as such a wonderful contributor to the sciences, it’s almost like we are arguing over two different books. The one problem that is conveniently ignored by your fantastic claims of bible-science love is what happens when the same scientific methods which have contributed to so many scripture-compliant discoveries uncover something that contradicts scripture. Historically, the way it was handled was an inevitable change to the interpretation. The militant denial we are seeing now is just the first stage of the revision process. I wonder what does the bible say about history repeating itself? Also, this kinda answers the first of your challenges. Even fundamentalist interpretations such as your own have suffered this indignity many times before evolving in to its present form.

    I’ll let Mary answer the second challenge, but I will tell you that the answer involves debunking the laughable notion that your religion somehow has the monopoly on morality.

    From the behavior of the Creationists around here, MaryB is right to label you science-phobic because when it comes down to it, science is valid AS LONG AS IT DOESN’T CHALLENGE YOUR CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW. There is a big problem with this way of thinking as the scientific method does not allow this to be used as a criteria to dismiss evidence and its interpretation. This is on the same level of what can be considered a milder form of racism where you can accept that people of color have a right to exist as productive members of society but God help them if one of them marries into your family. You can’t have science without the scientific method, and part of what makes science science is that you won’t always get the results that you were expecting or hoping for. Since you agree that the bible does not claim to be a science textbook, then what is the logic of supporting a movement that intends on using it as a science text book in a science class? Would it aggravate your science-phobia if I told that the scientific method has its roots in Epicureanism. I’m sure ABO can tell you how Paul feels about their materialistic and borderline atheist ways.

  35. MaryB says:

    Our decisions on how to use science are guided by beliefs and values – so you see religion and ethics do have a role here. Take the hammer analogy and think of what you could do with that hammer. You could hit someone on the head with it or you could build a beautiful house for your family. Who decides how to use that hammer? You do and that decision rests on your cultural world view and your religious and ethical beliefs. So the applications of science are guided by what we believe. I think you are still thinking of science as a religion instead of a tool. There is no conflict between the bible and a hammer!

    As for the first question I will add to Karl’s comments that millions of Christians have no problem with this issue – look at the clergy project letter which states such a position and look at the Popes statement on evolution and religion (51% of the worlds Christians are Catholics) and a number of mainstream protestant groups have done the same. If we expand this to other religions Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and mainsteam Muslims (fundamentalist Muslims are antievolution) you have billions of people who can live with these two different ways of knowing. Since I am teaching in a public school I teach children from most of these faiths and I respect their right to their personal beliefs – I certainly am not going to teach them religious belief – that is their parent’s jobs.

    Hope this helps!
    Mary Bahr

    Ps – the only place I have heard of no questions allowed in the science classroom was in Dover when the Administrators went into the classrooms to read the citique of evolution because science teachers refused to do so – the students were not allowed to question that statement.

  36. S.Scott says:

    McD said:
    1). You cannot consistently believe what the Bible teaches and what evolutionary theory teaches to be true at the same time.

    Tell that to the Pope. — You know – the one who is in the unbroken line of succession from Jesus Christ himself.

  37. S.Scott says:

    Let’s see what McD has to say about catholics and all of the other main stream Christian dominations that have no problem with evolution.

    Most recently – the Methodists.

    The “fundies” (SBC-Bible churches-and non-denominational) that are run by the KKK.
    (of course, they won’t admit it – and the sheep may not know about it)

  38. Skepticism says:

    S. Scott – that’s easy. You assume that the Pope is what he claims to be, and that liberal denominations within Christianity are correctly interpreting the Bible. Deny these things and your objection fails. The Pope is not what he claims to be, and liberal denominations are not interpreting the Bible correctly according to the grammatico-historical method.

    Mary B – therefore you must appeal to something ABOVE science in order to determine how to use it. So what is wrong with appealing to something ABOVE science in order to determine whether its (science) findings are correct or in error? Another pickle for you.

  39. Nancy says:

    Hey, Stacy thanks for the traffic to my site!

    Florida Citizens for Science is a psuedo-citizens group that only exists to battle any and all opposing views. You lobby to eliminate the presentation of evidence that contradicts your view and promote hatred and discrimination. So naturally you accuse parents of poisoning children’s minds if what is taught contradicts your point of view.

    Hey, I can’t blame heathen for behaving as heathen, but I can continue to teach my children to examine the evidence themselves. I know you hate that generations are being raised up to analyze and evaluate the evidence. You would rather they all swallow the opinions of groups such as yourself without asking questions or thinking for themselves. You prefer to herd kids like cattle through the pulic education system for the intent of indoctrinating them to your naturalistic worldview rather than teach critical thinking and logic.

    As long as they cannot think logically, you still make sense.

  40. Ivy Mike says:

    “You lobby to eliminate the presentation of evidence that contradicts your view”

    That’s funny. Lady, we’ve been BEGGING creationists to present this alleged “evidence for Biblical Creation” for years. They never seem to find any, as recent court cases show. But, if you have some, please provide it. Make sure it’s not on this list, though…

    http:// http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

    …because if it is, we’ve already seen it and it’s been debunked.

    We’re not talking about “conflicting opinions”, here. OUR side actually has scientific, verified evidence in our favor, whilst creationists have one 2,000+ year old book of ancient myths.

    I find it interesting that you consider it “critical thinking” and “logic” to swallow those millennia-old myths whole, with no evidence whatsoever, and to discard scientific theories that DO have mountains of such evidence.

  41. James F says:

    Analysis and evaluation of evidence for decades has resulted in modern evolutionary theory. So far, it has never been disproved in peer-reviewed scientific literature, and more evidence that supports and further elucidates the theory accumulates every week, thousands and thousands of papers in total. To claim that there are alternative theories when movements like ID have failed to present data in peer-reviewed scientific research papers is to be utterly dishonest. It’s not a matter of presenting an atheistic worldview, it’s a matter of presenting science.

  42. PatrickHenry says:

    Ivy Mike Says:

    That’s funny. Lady, we’ve been BEGGING creationists to present this alleged “evidence for Biblical Creation” for years. They never seem to find any, as recent court cases show. But, if you have some, please provide it.

    The evidence exists. But the Darwinists have hidden it away in Area 51, along with the 100 mpg carburetor and the proof that the moon-landings were fake. Teach the controversy!

  43. Ivy Mike says:

    “Hey, I can’t blame heathen for behaving as heathen,”

    And once again, we have a science-denier motivated by religion. Like there’s any other reason these folk so despise science, and wish that it not be taught to their kids…they like having nice little brainwashed Warriors For Jeezus.

    And I like getting my pizzas delivered on-time, so I guess it’s not a total loss…it’s all these kids will be good for in the real world.

  44. Ivy Mike says:

    “I can continue to teach my children to examine the evidence themselves. I know you hate that generations are being raised up to analyze and evaluate the evidence.”

    I’ll wager that you couldn’t state the Theory Of Evolution, explain any of the evidence for it, or even manage to properly discuss it if your life depended on it. In fact, I’ll just bet that you think that the fact that monkeys still exist is evidence against the ToE.

  45. Nancy says:

    Ivy-
    Modern evolutionary theory finds its roots in Darwinian naturalism. Darwin deduced that natural selection must inevitably bring about the “improvement” of organisms always in relation to the conditions of life (Origin of the Species, 11). The universe resulted from a big-bang explosion forcing stars, planets and galaxies through space expanding from an originating point such that all that exists is the result of chance.

    The origin of life by natural processes asserts that several billion years ago (although the earth is only 150 million years old) chemicals in the sea, acted on by sunlight and cosmic energy, formed themselves by chance into one or more single-celled organisms, which have since developed through beneficial mutations and natural selection into all living plants, animals and people. All life exists merely by chance and as a result of vast amounts of time. The necessity for great amounts of time to sustain the theory of evolution is quantified by Julian Huxley when he wrote that time is the “only effective agency of evolution.”

    The idea of natural selection or changes over time within a species is widely accepted and referred to as micro-evolution, while macro-evolution is still widely debated. It is now the duty of the scientist to explain all effects through natural causes.

    You lose.

  46. Wolfhound says:

    Holy crap! Projection, thy name is Nancy. Please, do tell how belief in the supernatural is “examination of evidence” and “critical thinking”.

    Once again, you and your ilk are free to teach whatever superstitious nonsense you want, to your own children, in the comfort of your own homes and tax-exempt houses of delusion. That you consider a couple of hours, at most, spent on ToE in public school science class to be “indoctrination” speaks volumes as to the insecurity of your belief in your cherished fairytales.

    Macro evolution is only “widely debated” by reality denying creationists, BTW.

    Please present proof, beyond your collection of Bronze Age goatherder myths plagiarized from earlier cultures, that a magic man in the sky poofed everything into existence.

    You lose.

  47. PatrickHenry says:

    The earth is only 150 million years old? Who knew?

  48. Wolfhound says:

    Not ABO or John McD/Skep, among others. They think the whole universe is 6k years old, give or take a few k. Let’s watch Nancy and the YEC’s try to determine which one of them is more bibliciously correct. HA!

    …goes to get popcorn…

  49. S.Scott says:

    She better not say that to McD! He’ll accuse her of not being a “true” Christian!

    Ummm … also, Did Charles Darwin have anything to say about the Big Bang? I don’t seem to recall. But I think I remember reading that Saint Augustine pondered that in the 4th century. And Sir Isaac Newton and Charls’ gramps too (Erasmus).

  50. S.Scott says:

    We need some Catholics in here!

  51. Nancy says:

    Children educated in private Christian schools consistently score better than their counterparts in public school. Mine, for example, scored 91-99% on standardized tests.

    Delivering pizzas is an honest profession. And you are probably right about those working menial jobs to support a family rather than surrendering to criminal activity. In many cases people must opt to swallow their pride and choose to accept a position that draws little respect.

    We all grow old and dependent on the generation that we directly influenced. When you are weak and sick in a hospital bed, Florida Citizens may get their wish and be at the mercy of a caregiver who does not fear God.

  52. Ivy Mike says:

    Nancy,

    Exactly as I suspected…you are wrong on almost every point.

    Simply put, the ToE says,

    “The frequency of an allele will change over time as a result of environmental pressures; due to the effects of random mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift”.

    Note, no mention of life’s origin…it’s not part of the theory. No mention of “chance” as the only mechanism, nor of any specified amount of time necessary.

    Your final paragraph, asserting a difference of some sort between “micro” evolution and “macro” evolution, is nonsensical, as no “barrier” between the two exists, and no debate in science rages about it.

    The ToE makes no mention of the Big Bang, as it was compiled nearly a century before the Big Bang theory, and besides, the BB is a cosmological theory, not a biological one.

    Oh, and the Earth is, in fact, 4.6 billion years old, as is firmly established by the sciences of geology, physics, and radiometrics among others. “150 million years” is patent nonsense.

    In short, you hold to a strawman, cartoon-version of the ToE which has little bearing on reality. And you presume to teach this to your children? Don’t you at least wish to teach them what it actually says, and inform them of the actual evidence? In the interest of “critical thinking” and “logic”, of course?

    Or, as I suspect, are you simply giving them the incorrect, cartoon-quality half-assed version you stated and then telling them “it’s all lies…the Bible is the TRVTH!”?

  53. Nancy says:

    Belief in the supernatural is not examination of the evidence nor does it constitute critical thinking. You are the one projecting. I never even mentioned God.

    The fossil evidence lacks any transitional forms, never a living organism been observed evolving from matter, and naturalists fail to explain how DNA information evolved from non-living matter. Evolution theory hinges on the ability of life to reproduce. Please explain how a rock produced life.

    Those who profess that evolution theory doesn’t have anything to do with origins, fail to follow their reasoning to its conclusion or trace it to its beginning.

    What does the forensic evidence reveal? That life suddenly appeared on earth in abundance, not that it slowly evolved in 150 million years.

    Patrick –
    Francis Collins, retired leader of the Human Genome Progect wrote, “No current hypotheses comes close to explaining how in the space of a mere 150 million years, the prebiotic environment that existed on planet Earth gave rise to life.” (The Language of God, 90)

  54. Wolfhound says:

    Well, this is most excellent for your children, Nancy! Teaching whatever you consider to be science in a private Christian school is perfectly fine by me although, naturally, I think your beliefs are incredibly stupid and illogical. But since your kids go to a private Christian school, what is your interest in destroying science education in the public schools by injecting woo, then? It’s not like YOUR kids are being indoctrinated or anything.
    Oh…wait… 🙂

  55. Wolfhound says:

    Nancy, YOU are the one who mentioned “heathens” in your first post here. A heathen, as defined by Websters, is: “an unconverted individual of a people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible; a person who is neither a Jew, Christian, nor Muslim; pagan.”

    You want kids to learn “opposing views” to evolution. Now, what, pray tell (little joke), are “opposing views”? There is the ToE and there is…what? Please tell me what your “opposing view” is. If your answer is “Intelligent Design” or “creationism” or anything along that line, it is, clearly, supernaturalism.

    But I do appreciate you admiting that belief in the supernatural is not examination of the evidence or critical thinking. We’ve been saying that for years! 🙂

  56. Wolfhound says:

    Psssssst…Nancy, look here to find out why your oft-refuted creationists talking points are really boring for those of us who have seen this trash regurgitated time and time again by trolls such as yourself. I know it’s real science so is like garlic to a vampire for you but anybody lurking who hasn’t drunk the Kreashunist Kool Aid might appreciate the link: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

  57. Nancy says:

    “Or, as I suspect, are you simply giving them the incorrect, cartoon-quality half-assed version you stated and then telling them “it’s all lies…the Bible is the TRVTH!”?”

    Ivy – I am absolutely telling them the Bible is the truth. And I make no apoligies for it either.

    “I think your beliefs are incredibly stupid and illogical.”

    Wofhound -I think your beliefs are incredibly stupid and illogical.

  58. Wolfhound says:

    When your kids talk back, I’m sure you’ll stone them to death then. 🙂

    And you believe in talking snakes and talking donkeys and flying people and giants and unicorns and people turning into mineral deposits and people living 500+ years and such stupid things. Pardon me if I giggle at you calling my thought processes illogical.

    Well, guys, I’m off to go transport a 6 month old baby whose good, cross-wearing, church-going mother neglected to the point that we had to remove him from the home. Of course, I’d much rather the good Christian folks do their drugs and beat their spouses than deal with the incestuous home-schoolers I’ve had to remove children from. >:(

  59. Nancy says:

    Wolf-
    Of course it is boring, they are the same old questions that evolution theory cannot answer. I have seen your little website before and much of that dribble has already been refuted. Evolutionist have a roadblock called “refusing to speculate” and they trip on it often by not thinking through the inadequacies of the theory. Evolutionists have to assume the theory is true to prove the theory. That is not scientific it is a house of cards that comes crashing down when analyzed, which is why you fight so hard to keep that from happening.

    Ivy -I see you rejected the definition as presented by the father of your theory. Figures, most evolutionist have never even read Origin of the Species, but they would stake their life on the “truth” of it.

  60. PatrickHenry says:

    I, for one, welcome Ronda Storms (or “Nancy” as she styles herself) to our website.

  61. Ivy Mike says:

    “Ivy -I see you rejected the definition as presented by the father of your theory. Figures, most evolutionist have never even read Origin of the Species, but they would stake their life on the “truth” of it.”

    Nancy, it will probably come as a shock to you, but those of us who accept evolutionary theory do not “worship” some book. The fact is, evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin first published his work. What I posted was the CURRENT theory. Oh, and the quote mine you posted does not in any way negate the factuality of the theory itself.

    “The fossil evidence lacks any transitional forms, never a living organism been observed evolving from matter, and naturalists fail to explain how DNA information evolved from non-living matter. Evolution theory hinges on the ability of life to reproduce. Please explain how a rock produced life.”

    All of this nonsense was presented by Wolfhound’s link, and it has NOT been refuted…in fact, talkorigins has a link on its pages to the alleged “refutation”, along with their devastating rebuttal. Which you would know had you actually looked at the page.

    The fact remains, you are far too ignorant of the ToE to have ANY meaningful comment about it, pro or con. I find it frankly perverse that you would nonetheless presume to be able to teach it to young minds. Even if you wish to trash it, you should at least be able to offer a sound, scientific critique, one a bit more substantial than,” the Bah-bul says diffrent!”

    Unfortunately, your willful ignorance and presumptuous “teaching” of falsehoods are typical of every creationist I’ve ever met.

    “Evolutionists have to assume the theory is true to prove the theory. ”

    No, they examine the available evidence from multiple scientific disciplines, and then make predictions based on that evidence while attempting to explain the totality of it. They then go back and develop potential falsifications of the resulting theory. That is how science works, another fact you are ignorant of (but still, presumably, teach).

    Does it not bother you even a bit that you teach outright lies to children? That you do not have the knowledge to even speak in an informed manner on the subject? What am I asking…of course it doesn’t. Kowtowing to an imaginary friend is so much more important that something like honesty and humility.

  62. Ivy Mike says:

    “What does the forensic evidence reveal? That life suddenly appeared on earth in abundance, not that it slowly evolved in 150 million years.”

    And I suppose you can present such evidence. You know, peer-reviewed, confirmed scientific evidence?

    There’s a reason we keep asking for it, you know. It’s because without it, nothing else has any bearing.

  63. Ivy Mike says:

    “Delivering pizzas is an honest profession. And you are probably right about those working menial jobs to support a family rather than surrendering to criminal activity. In many cases people must opt to swallow their pride and choose to accept a position that draws little respect.”

    So, you are willing for your children to have to scrape by on the meager pay offered by such minimum-wage labor, rather than achieve their full potential, so long as they share your devotion to your favorite invisible friend?

    Interesting. Sad, but interesting.

  64. Nancy says:

    The fossil record is the only forensic evidence that could support macro-evolution, but the record shows not only the sudden appearance of species, but the disappearance of life forms in much the same way as they appeared without any evidence of transitional life forms. Even Darwin recognized this flaw when he wrote, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” (Origin, 298-299)

  65. Nancy says:

    “So, you are willing for your children to have to scrape by on the meager pay offered by such minimum-wage labor, rather than achieve their full potential, so long as they share your devotion to your favorite invisible friend?

    Interesting. Sad, but interesting.”

    Tsk, tsk, . . . projecting again, seems to be a nasty little habit you have.

  66. Ivy Mike says:

    Except, there ARE such transitional forms, Nancy. In your extensive search through the actual evidence for evolutionary theory, you didn’t encounter Tiktaalik? Archeopteryx? All the transitionals listed on the talkorigins site that you claimed to have read?

    You’ve missed the voluminous DNA evidence supporting the fossil record as well?

    Oh, and give up the Darwin quote mines…as I said, evolutionary theory has come quite far since 1859, and the evidence he spoke of has indeed been found. Unlike those who worship the Bible, we on the scientific side do not think that prior works must always stand unmodified and inviolate.

  67. Nancy says:

    “we on the scientific side do not think that prior works must always stand unmodified and inviolate.”

    Which is why evolutionist so eagerly welcome any critical examination of their theory as is evidenced by their enthusiastic acceptance of dissenting views presented by their peers.

  68. vibise says:

    Nancy,

    Professional scientists accept the theory of evolution; we use it in our work. You can confirm this by simply looking at the latest issues of Nature or Science or PNAS.

    Don’t you think that science classes should focus on what scientists are actually doing?

    Science courses need to teach cutting edge science, and this includes evolution — that seems to be the goal in Florida.

    In response to your statements:

    What “evolutionist” ever said that a rock produced life?

    Define what you mean by “transitional” forms.

    What forensic evidence shows that life in its current diverse forms appeared as is, suddenly?

    Why should science classes include religious objections that are not supported by scientific observations?

    You can certainly teach your kids about the Bible, but unless you can demonstrate how it has any direct relevance to science, it should not be included in science classes.

  69. S.Scott says:

    Name the dissenting views – and name the peers please.

    You must follow the guidelines for “Peers” of course – and don’t bother to mention Behe – he’s been obliterated by other scientists and the courts too many times to count. Although, he was your best shot. 🙁

  70. Nancy says:

    It takes more than one or two fossil that appear to be hybrid to support evolution theory. You have to show how it got from one to the other.

    Archeopteryx is not the transitional form it was once celebrated to be. It is a bird with feathers similar bone structure, lungs, weight, muscle structure and breeding system. It is a strange looking bird, that’s all. And we have strange looking animals today, the duck billed platypus for one. But no one suggests that it is part mammal and part bird.

    The very interesting thing about Archeoptryx is that the fossils that look most like the reptilian ancestors of birds occur tens of millions of years later in the fossil record. So evolutionist are stuck still looking for a fossil to fill in the gaps.

    For a detailed evaluation of the tiktaalik go here. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/tiktaalik_roseae_wheres_the_wr.html

  71. PatrickHenry says:

    Nancy Says:

    It takes more than one or two fossil that appear to be hybrid to support evolution theory.

    No reason to spend much time debating this. There’s plenty of information out there for anyone who wants to learn: List of transitional fossils.

  72. vibise says:

    Nancy,

    The fossil record is not the only evidence supporting evolution. Are you aware of the massive genome sequencing work? Dozens of species have been sequenced so far and all this data fits into an evolutionary framework.

    You claim that scientists do not welcome criticism. In fact, all of us have to deal with criticism every time we submit a paper or a grant. These are serious criticisms, not remotely like the unfounded objections voiced by creationists.

    It is good that your own children score well on standardized tests, but if you are not providing them with a proper education to go along with their aptitude, what is the point?

  73. Nancy says:

    “Don’t you think that science classes should focus on what scientists are actually doing?”

    Absolutely! Refer to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism signed by scientists and educators all over the US. “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection ot account for the complexity of life. . . Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

    “What “evolutionist” ever said that a rock produced life?”
    The very first evolutionist and his assertion has not changed altered in the course of 150 years that living matter evolved from non-living matter.

    “What forensic evidence shows that life in its current diverse forms appeared as is, suddenly?”
    That would be the fossil record as it appears in the concurrent strata.

    “Define what you mean by “transitional” forms.”
    A transistional form of life in the fossil record or as observed today would demonstrating a species (either plant, bird, fish, mammal, etc.) emerging into a higher life form.

    “Why should science classes include religious objections that are not supported by scientific observations?”
    The Bible is not a scientific textbook and I am not arguing for scripture to be taught in the classroom. Nor do supporters of the Freedom of Education bill that was presented in FL and other states. We are in agreement with these educators and scientists who are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection ot account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

  74. Nancy says:

    “It is good that your own children score well on standardized tests, but if you are not providing them with a proper education to go along with their aptitude, what is the point?”

    They score well because they have learned and have a clear understanding of the material presented in the classroom. But they also have been exposed to the inadequacies present in the evidence.

  75. Nancy says:

    Patrick, even I can publish an article on Wikipedia. Don’t believe everything you read on the web. Try another source.

  76. vibise says:

    You say that no one suggests the platypus is part mammal and part bird and yet when the platypus genome sequence was reported last spring the abstract included this sentence:

    This monotreme exhibits a fascinating combination of reptilian and mammalian characters.

    And then went into detail to dissect the genome from this standpoint.

  77. PatrickHenry says:

    Nancy Says:

    Patrick, even I can publish an article on Wikipedia. Don’t believe everything you read on the web. Try another source.

    You’re complaining about Wikipedia as a source? After you cited an article on the Discovery Institute’s blog by Casey Luskin about Tiktaalik?

  78. Nancy says:

    “The fact remains, you are far too ignorant of the ToE to have ANY meaningful comment about it, pro or con. I find it frankly perverse that you would nonetheless presume to be able to teach it to young minds. Even if you wish to trash it, you should at least be able to offer a sound, scientific critique, one a bit more substantial than,” the Bah-bul says diffrent!”

    Gee, Ivy, my feelings are hurt. Mah Bah-bul says u rnt sposed to be ugly to peeple.

  79. Nancy says:

    What have you got against Casey Luskin?

    Oh, that’s right! He disagrees with you!

    As an evolutionist you have the duty, nay, the obligation to squash him like the little insect he evolved from.

  80. vibise says:

    What inadequacies in the current evidence? Where do you and your children’s teachers get this information? From the National Academy of Science? From other professional science organizations? Or from religious groups?

    That Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is meaningless. It criticizes a strawman of evolution. No mainstream biologist thinks that modern evolutionary theory is limited to mutation and natural selection as the statement suggests! What about natural drift? And of course, every scientist understands that science must be subjected to critique. So this Dissent from Darwinism statement says nothing on its face that any scientist would object to. It is, however, being used to claim that there is a serious objection to modern evolutionary biology, and that is just not the case.

    So you say that life did not come from a rock, it came from non-living matter. Perhaps you could describe the distinction between life and non-living matter. Are viruses living? What defines a living thing?

    Can you identify the scientists who object to the theory of evolution? Where is the data that suggests that evolution might be invalid? Are there mainstream, productive scientists who espouse this view, or do these views come from religious objectors who couch their biblical arguments in scientific jargon and mathematical terminology?

  81. PatrickHenry says:

    Nancy Says:

    What have you got against Casey Luskin?

    I don’t know the man. I’ve seen his blog articles. He knows nothing about science. Nothing at all. My understanding is that he’s a lawyer, and a full-time paid blogger for the Discovery Institute — a public relations outfit pushing creationism. You like them? You look to them for intellectual leadership? That’s up to you.

  82. vibise says:

    Casey Luskin seems to know very little about biology and yet that does not stop him from pontificating on the subject.

    Really, Nancy, if you wanted to learn about dark matter, would you read the publications of MIT scientists, or Answers in Genesis?

    If you had a brain tumor would you go to a neurosurgeon or the Discovery Institute for medical advice?

    If you wanted to learn about any natural phenomenon would you look up papers in Nature or the Institute for Creation Research?

  83. Theropod says:

    Nancy,

    You have no idea what the hell you are talking about in telling us that Archeopteryx is just a bird. NONE! Do you know that there is more than one Archeopteryx specimen? Do you have any evidence at all that Archeopteryx is a hybrid? Of course not. All you have is a stupid opinion devoid of facts or even based on a basic understanding of paleontology and probably all earth and life sciences. Do the world a favor and actually attempt to educate yourself before displaying such weapons grade ignorance. Does your bible tell you to display such public stupidity?

    Please tell us just what bird alive today has a vertebrate filled tail? How many birds have teeth? How many birds have claws at the end of their fingers, not feet? When you can formulate a response based on reality instead of dogma your position might have a little merit. I expect none here will be betting the farm this will ever happen.

    How sad.

  84. ABO says:

    MaryB

    “When I teach evolution to my students it is taught for understanding only – I had a student ask me this year (yes they do ask lots of questions!) if I believed in evolution and my answer was no – that I understood the concept and thought that it was an important part of our present understanding of biology but it is not a belief.”

    You seem to be a bag of contradictions. Wile every one may have a different view of evolution, you were ask a reasonable question, your answer was deceptive at best. Evolutionary science is a useful tool, but there is much more going on here than scientific usage.

    One problem that has arisen from the convoluted meaning appointed to the word evolution, is the amount of change which actually takes place within a species. Once a viable description of this controversial aspect of the theory, micro and macro evolution does suffice the explanation. But today hard core religious evolutionist denounce that there is such a concept and simply say that the accrual of change , many small changes or micro evolutionary events equals a macro evolutionary step. Denying that there are variables or lying as you like to put it.

    It is important to note that there is the General Theory of Evolution and the Special Theory of Evolution

    According to the General Theory of Evolution, all living things have arisen from a single, one-celled organism that in turn had arisen from a dead, inorganic world. George Kerkut, the famous British physiologist/evolutionist who wrote: “On the other hand, there is the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’…” George Gaylord Simpson, formerly of Harvard, defined evolution by stating that it “is a fully natural process, inherent in the physical properties of the universe, by which life arose in the first place and by which all living things, past or present, have since developed, divergently and progressively”

    According to the Special Theory of Evolution , which states that limited
    changes within groups may be observed but that such changes always remain within what biologists call “phylogenetic boundaries.” Dr. Kerkut, who first coined the phrase, “Special Theory of Evolution,” defined it in these words: “There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments” In other words, this is limited variation within groups. In all cases we start with life, the seed produces after its basic kind, and there are limits to the variations. None among us denies the fact that the Special Theory of Evolution is true. Change does occur. And in this sense everyone believes in evolution. The real question that must be asked, however, is this: Does that change cross phylogenetic boundaries? Or, put another way, is organic evolution true?

    Another issue which helps to confuse the subject is radical evolutionist an other retards which insist that science is evolution and to question evolution is to question science. So questioning science means you’re a religious fruitcake. Evolutionary science is ‘a’ science, it is not the definition of science.

    The General Theory of Evolution is a belief system. It cannot be tested, it cannot be observed, it cannot be repeated. The General Theory of Evolution really doesn’t qualify as a hypothesis let a lone a theory. There is no description or purpose which can adequately describe this concept other than mythological propaganda. To actually believe in this nonsense requires a level of faith which surpasses any mainstream religion an nearly every whacko religious cult.

    On the other hand The Special Theory of Evolution is a scientific fact, observable, repeatable, and testable. Profitable for medical research, farming and on and on.

    So do I believe in evolution? Yes and No.

  85. Skepticism says:

    It seems odd that Wolfhound goes on and on about how its ok for Christians to teach their children privately about creationism, etc, yet this very thread from FCS is basically a protest against Ken Ham’s conference which is voluntary. The thread is proof that when Wolfhound and everyone else here plays that little game of “its ok if you teach it to your children in your home” , it is just a lie the size of Ivy Mike’s arrogance. If you guys really felt that way then you would never have posted this thread. You would not care if Ken Ham was holding a conference. The truth is that you don’t feel that way, so stop pretending that you do.

    S.Scott-btw, I did not say that such persons were not Christians. I said that they were not correctly interpreting the Bible according to the grammatico-historical method. There is a difference.

  86. S.Scott says:

    So McD,

    So is the Pope Christian? Yes or no?

    Do you presume to know the teachings of Jesus Christ better than the Pope? Yes or no?

  87. vibise says:

    ABO,

    You claim that to question evolution is not to question science. Depends on your questions. Evolution relies on evidence from multiple disciplines in biology, from physics, from geology, etc. If you deny the findings of all of those disciplines, then you have to either specifically discredit each and every observation, or you have to reject the methods used to collect all that data. Are you in the latter category?

    George Gaylord Simpson died 25 years ago. Not sure who George Kerkut is, but a google search suggests he is popular among creationists.

    What is this distinction between the special and general theories of evolution? Not aware of this distinction.

  88. deadman_932 says:

    Nancy Says:
    Modern evolutionary theory finds its roots in Darwinian naturalism. Darwin deduced that natural selection must inevitably bring about the “improvement” of organisms always in relation to the conditions of life (Origin of the Species, 11).

    ——————————————————-
    1. The title is “On The Origin OF Species”
    2. The claim that you posted is not found on page 11 of my facsimile of the first edition. Nor do I find it in the complete online version here: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F373&pageseq=26

    Chapter one is on “Variation Under Domestication.” What page is this alleged comment by Darwin on in your copy?

    I’ll be frank, Nancy; you appear to be clueless regarding science, particularly when you are citing a non-scientist (Casey Luskin, a cheap propagandistic lawyer…hah!) on science.

    Or when you make the patently false claim that “the first evolutionist” claimed that life came from a rock…which is laughable.

    I presume you are trying to pin that on Darwin, which makes it wrong on three counts: (1) Darwin was far from the first evolutionist…he just got it right (2) Darwin never made the claim you try to attribute to him. His phrase was “a warm little pond”…which wasn’t bad for 1859. (3) Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution proper, which deals with the changes in allele frequency in an interbreeding population over time.

    Let me guess that you weren’t a science major.

    Oh, and this little bit is also amusing:

    Nancy wrote:
    “A transistional form of life in the fossil record or as observed today would demonstrating a species (either plant, bird, fish, mammal, etc.) emerging into a higher life form.”

    “Higher?” Are you still suffering under the 19th-century notion of the “Great Ladder of Being?” I hate to tell you this, but that view was outmoded and tossed aside long ago. “Higher” has no real meaning until you specify what you mean by it precisely. Can you?

    Regardless of that…the existence of fossils like H. erectus (tell me …is that an anatomically modern human, Nancy? Or is it a chimp in your fantasy world? ) and the hundreds of clear examples laid out at TalkOrigins and other online sites…show you wrong. It’s not my fault you’re not informed enough to debate it yourself, but have to vomit up fakery from creationist sites.

    And on a final note:

    It’s only your typical american fundamentalist that rejects this common-sense view. But that’s fine, it means that your views will fade as did the geocentrists. Science marches on and grinds you in the dust.

    Most sane Christians — from Catholics to Lutherans and Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. — accept the factuality of evolution, and the notion of a God wise enough to set it in motion. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7445_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp

  89. ABO says:

    Dear Theropod

    It would appear you have been hurt by the outlandish an disrespectful clames of the religious lunatic called Nancy. We know that this religious icon is not just a dead bird, but rather a foundational pillar supporting the faith based teachings of the Prophet Charles Darwin.

    Please allow me to share with you the type of respect which should be given all such religious artifacts.

    From the Kansas Citizens for Science.

    Tribute to Lucy

    Today I visited Lucy.

    She lies in state at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. Her room is darkened. The conversation is hushed. There is much reverence felt as people gaze into the 4-foot long case that holds her remains.

    I was struck by her teeth. Much like mine, except her wisdom teeth came out straight and I had to have mine extracted. Her teeth were free of cavities and, not surprisingly, braces. Her front teeth were very small, but so was her jaw.

    There were two other exhibits in the room worth noting. First, Lucy was depicted as she might have existed taking into account guesses as to how much hair she might have had and where it was placed. However, that said, she was very small, but proportional to an upright, walking, hominid. If you stand to the left of her she gazes into your eyes almost smiling as if glad to see you.

    I stood in the exact spot where Lucy’s gaze meets yours for quite some time imagining the life she might have led. She must have played as a child as all mammals do and she must have suffered the weather and hunger considering she lived in a hunter-gatherer tribe. How she met her death is speculation.

    The second exhibit that was very cool was a vertical 3-D replica of her skeleton. (There are two displays. One, with Lucy’s bones laid out on a flat mat, and the other with replicas of her bones positioned vertically as they would have been with her standing up.) The replica showed how each bone would have been carried by Lucy when she was standing up. Her skeleton is 40% complete and you can see her little ribs, little fingers and little toes.

    As I said, there wasn’t much talking in Lucy’s room. People respected this most ancient of relatives.

    THE END

    Now it’s easy to tell this isn’t just a dead monkey, but a messenger for the faith, speaking loudly, that she, he or it is worthy of worship.

    There are those here who have put the destiny of their souls in the care of Natural Selection. So to the non-believer Nancy, how dare you defame and degrade this most sacred transition.

  90. Skepticism says:

    S.Scott – I presume you are speaking to me. First you should define what you mean by “Christian.” I define a “Christian” as someone who loves and trusts the person and salvific work of Jesus Christ. and because of their love and appreciation for salvation seek to please Him in all things. Now we can never see into a person’s inner-man to know if one’s profession is true or not, but we can certainly examine their life to see if it is in accord with their profession. So far I do not see anything in the life of the current Pope which would bring doubt upon his profession. Certainly there have been popes in the past who were not Christians as defined above (consider many of the medieval popes, especially near the time of the Reformation).

    Also, define what you mean by the “teachings of Jesus Christ.”

  91. Skepticism says:

    deadman_932 – you state that some Christians accept evolution to be true. But this means nothing because acceptance of an idea does not make that idea true. Such an argument has no compelling power upon Christians who do not accept evolution. What are you trying to achieve by this form of argumentation?

  92. firemancarl says:

    Yeah Skepy. I good news, ExtantDodo are back and they’re gonna slice up Kent Hovind once a week. Second, you say that you want science taught. You fully admit that the Bible isn’t a science text book. Maybe you want John Wells to teach. you do know he’s a Moony right? His “father” is the not so very Rev. Sun Yung Moon. Meh, what do I know.

  93. firemancarl says:

    <blockquote.deadman_932 – you state that some Christians accept evolution to be true. But this means nothing because acceptance of an idea does not make that idea true. Such an argument has no compelling power upon Christians who do not accept evolution. What are you trying to achieve by this form of argumentation?

    Wow Skep, thats a reach, even for you! Evolution is not an “idea” it is indeed, a fact.

  94. firemancarl says:

    damn! I didnt close the HTML tag!

  95. deadman_932 says:

    Skepticism: I was pointing out a fact concerning accepted Christian doctrine in multiple denominations. They (the denominations I listed whose official statements are available at the site given) accept evolution as part of what they view as God’s great plan. Even “Intelligent Design” writers like Dembski and Behe accept evolution.

    Many American fundamentalists do not.

    I realize that that acceptance of an idea doesn’t make the idea “true.” It is the evidence for the validity of evolution that makes it valid and true.

    It’s certainly not my fault if people are either uninformed or subject to creationist propaganda that they are incapable of determining the quality of.

  96. Skepticism says:

    firemancarl – let’s extend the principle of accepting ideas does not make them true – claiming that something is a fact does not make it a fact. You of course want evolution to be a fact, and so you interpret the evidence to fit the theory. You start with certain unprovable and nonfactual assumptions and using that as your foundation move on to construct an entire theory which of course is no better than its foundation. That is an exercise in wishful thinking. Your so called scientific facts are no better than their foundation. If you start with unproved assumptions, you can never arrive at certainty.

  97. Skepticism says:

    deadman – one must define his terms. Depending upon how you define evolution, people will accept or deny. If someone says evolution is change over time, no one could deny that. If someone says evolution is natural selection, no one should deny it. However, if someone says evolution is change due to an increase in beneficial genetic information brought about by purely naturalistic and materialistic causes, questions would be raised by many at that point in both scientific and religious circles. It all depends upon your definition.

  98. deadman_932 says:

    Oh, and by the way, ABO: There is no “Special Theory ” and “General Theory” of Evolution.

    You are confusing evolution with Special and General Relativity. In other words — making things up. Redefinition = a fallacy, as are so many of the claims here from the anti-science crowd.

  99. deadman_932 says:

    Skepticism: I already gave you a textbook definition of evolution as a change in allele frequencies in an interbreeding population over time. Your point is moot.

    If you’d like to discuss the science, please do. If not, then don’t pretend you have any great insights into what is and is not evolution.

  100. vibise says:

    deadman_932 – you state that some Christians accept evolution to be true. But this means nothing because acceptance of an idea does not make that idea true. Such an argument has no compelling power upon Christians who do not accept evolution. What are you trying to achieve by this form of argumentation?

    The point is that some Christians accept evolution and some do not. Therefore acceptance of either position is not a defining characteristic of being a Christian.

  101. deadman_932 says:

    Vibise wrote:

    “The point is that some Christians accept evolution and some do not. Therefore acceptance of either position is not a defining characteristic of being a Christian.”

    ———————–

    Quite so. Yet this false and utterly groundless dichotomy ( again, a fallacy) is a major point of Creationist propaganda.

    The implication is inevitably that one cannot be a “real ” Christian and accept evolution (The “No True Scotsman” Fallacy). It’s cliche creationist propaganda at this time.

  102. Skepticism says:

    Vibise – that is true if you define a Christian as I have above. However, you cannot consistently believe what the Bible teaches regarding origins and what evolution teaches about origins at the same time. No one is claiming that Christians who believe in evolution are not Christians. What is claimed is that Christians who believe in evolution or not consistent with what the Bible teaches on the subject of origins.

  103. Skepticism says:

    or not = are not

  104. deadman_932 says:

    I dislike having to walk fundamentalist religionists through what science/fact/theory/hypothesis , etc. are — each time I hear this “Evolution is ‘just’ a theory” bit.

    I keep the following as a pasteable remedy:

    From the National Academy of Sciences—-

    Theory:
    In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

    In science, a theory is an explanation. It is not a guess. It is not the end point in science. All laws have accompanying theories, however not all theories have accomanying laws. Theories, in science, NEVER become laws. They explain them.

    Fact:
    In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

    Hypothesis:
    A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

    Law:
    A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

    ————————-

    Evolution as fact and theory:

    “Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves… it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.” – Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

    “The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors–the historical reality of evolution–is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth’s revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved “facthood” as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled “New evidence for evolution;” it simply has not been an issue for a century.” – Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

    “…evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome … Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.” – Stephen J. Gould, ” Evolution as Fact and Theory” http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

    “Facts and theories are not to be used interchangeably. Facts are the world’s data; theories are explanatory ideas about those facts. An explanatory principle is not to be confused with the data it seeks to explain.” –1986 Supreme Court Case of Edwards vs. Aguillard

    Here’s the bottom line on the fact and theory of evolution. In biology, “evolution” is commonly defined as the differential success of alleles and their frequencies in populations:

    ” Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. “- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

    “In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.” – Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

    *********************************************************

    Okay, that is the FACT of evolution. Allelic frequencies DO change and we DO see speciation outside of the lab and in it.

    The THEORY of evolution is Neodarwinian Evolutionary Theory (Or , today, the “New Synthesis” incorporating notions of gene regulation and epigenetic factors, among others) .

    Essentially, The Theory is descent with modification via the genetic code, natural selection, etc. See the Talk Origins pages if you’re confused on this point. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.htm

    Try to learn the nuances, Creationists. God is in the details, right?

  105. Skepticism says:

    You have defined your terms. This is helpful since our definitions differ in many details. I really like the part where facts today might not be facts tomorrow. It’s almost like the National Academy has created its own language in order to represent the make believe world it embraces – a complete escape from reality, almost a molding of reality to fit one’s fancy. Come on. In the real world facts are certainties and do not change. Now the Academy creates a new meaning for the term so that facts don’t have to remain fixed and certain realities. According to the Academy’s definitions, you evolutionists should be the most uncertain people on earth, for tomorrow may hold the deathblow to your beloved theory of evolution. One single discovery could end your evolutionary party. According to these definitions you hold to something that MAY be true, but never can you know that it is true in reality. It’s that philosophical pickle of appearance v. reality. You can’t get to reality with such theories as defined by the Academy, only appearances. Thus you can never arrive at truth. You are stuck in the world of appearances.

  106. deadman_932 says:

    Apparently reading for actual comprehension isn’t your strong point, Skepticism.

    Your statement that:
    ——————

    Skepticism wrote:

    “It’s that philosophical pickle of appearance v. reality. You can’t get to reality with such theories as defined by the Academy, only appearances. Thus you can never arrive at truth. You are stuck in the world of appearances.”

    ———————
    is remarkably naive in philosophical terms, but also irrelevant in terms of the actual science itself.

    The facts exist. They are best explained via the existing “New Synthesis” and none of your attempts at semantic-apologetic squirming will change that.

    The only thing you can do is either deny the facts as they exist or show a scientifically superior theory that is in fact subject to all the constraints (testability, falsifiability, etc. ) that Evolutionary Theory is.

    If you don’t have that, then all you have are vapid pronouncements on what “truth” can be interpreted as. I’m also sure that you *THINK* you can point to absolute truths, but that is neither here nor there for me.

    The facts exist. Yes, the interpretation of them may in fact change tomorrow as the Modern Synthesis is overtaken by the New Synthesis that incorporates a larger and more robust explanatory framework.

    Your mindset fears that, because you like pretending that you already have “eternal and immutable truths” even if you can’t demonstrate it at all.
    It is you that are immutably stuck in the world of superficial appearances, son.

    You’re just not smart enough to see that.

  107. deadman_932 says:

    Oh, and by the way, Skepticism: don’t try to tar-brush me with some label of “relativist” or whatever — I’m not. I recognize and generally adhere to a correspondence view of “truth” in many things.

    But, here, we are discussing the philosophy of science and it would be a category mistake to attempt to import absolutist truth-claims into an axiomatic system that doesn’t claim absolute truths.

    You do, because you are attempting just that — to import metaphysics into the discussion.

  108. Skepticism says:

    Seems like I’ve got you rolling in your grave, deadman. Thanks for your Hegelian sounding nonsense. The problem is that you know that your particular philosophy of science doesn’t allow you to obtain absolute knowledge or truth about anything since tomorrow everything might change. That makes it easy for me to say all that you claim to know now is really meaningless, because you can never and thus will never arrive at absolute truth. Also, there is no need to use terms such as “son.” In true Hegelian fashion there is yet a better way to discuss such issues. And then another, and then another, and then another, and then another, ad infinitum….

  109. Skepticism says:

    Thank you for that admission – since science does not allow for absolute truth claims, please quit acting as if evolution is an absolute truth. You have no reason to critique creationism since all that you know now and currently use to attack creationism might be proven false tomorrow.

  110. deadman_932 says:

    Again, your skillz in actual comprehension are lacking. Theories don’t become facts. They explain facts.

    The “fact” that the Modern Synthesis (theory) may change tomorrow is not the same as saying that the fact of allelic change will somehow disappear. That remains a truth, it corresponds to reality. It is measurable, testable and falsifiable.

    For all I know, Newton’s Third Law may fail tomorrow and an action may not instantiate a reaction. This is the problem of induction and it, too, exists. Observations regarding many things are “theory-laden” and determined by your view. But Allelic change remains existing.

    Allelic change is the fact (and truth) of evolution. The Theory is a different matter. Stop conflating them. K? Thnx.

    By the way, can you falsify creationism? Nope…that’s because it ain’t science, and that’s why creationists will continue to lose in court. It’s also why Intelligent Design “theorists” accept evolution as fact and pay creationists lip service.

  111. firemancarl says:

    Deadman, if you like arguing with Skepy, you might also enjoy tapping your forehead against large metal poles. We all have, and no matter what you do or say, he and his ilk are of the goddidit! frame of mind.

  112. Wolfhound says:

    Wow, came back late from taking that baby to the ER (he checked out okay and went to a foster home near Ocala for the night), poured myself into bed, and woke up to find a LOT of the typical nonsense from the usual cast of characters plus our newest troll4jeezus.

    Good on ya’ DM. So nice to see you here! Now, we just need Mung Bean and Cali, too, for the creo-crushing trifecta. 🙂

  113. Theropod says:

    ABO wrote:

    “It would appear you have been hurt by the outlandish an disrespectful clames of the religious lunatic called Nancy. We know that this religious icon is not just a dead bird, but rather a foundational pillar supporting the faith based teachings of the Prophet Charles Darwin.”

    “Please allow me to share with you the type of respect which should be given all such religious artifacts.”

    Firstly you need to check your spelling before posting a massively ignorant view for the entire world to observe. Clames (as is presented above) I assume, is supposed to be claims, but I suppose we’ll never know. Such basic errors do not lend great credibility to your position because it shows us you lack the intellectual self control to make sure you present a well formed argument. The rest of your “contribution” is equally revealing in this regard.

    Why is it that all these great defenders of faith present such consistent failures of both grammar and spelling? Is it a badge of honor to display such failure to possess a working knowledge of the English language? Or is it evidence of a vast ego mania that runs through the fundamentalist movement which allows a complete disregard for rules not set down in their holy book of fairy tales?

    Your attempt to equate a real field of science, paleontology, with religion is typical of those unable to offer any facts in the debate. When all else fails, which these sorts of efforts always do, erect a blatantly false comparison to religion. In so doing it appears to allow religion an equal footing with science, but alas this is an obvious fabrication and is totally devoid of either supporting evidence or the moral fabric such supporters CLAIM to hold. It is a failed illusion.

    Charles Darwin is nothing overly special to me, and I do not recall ever seeing a shrine erected to him so that his followers may fall prostrate before it. No one has sacrificed another in his name. He is surely not a prophet or spiritual guide for me or anyone I know. He presented the world with a collection of his observations of the natural world. He made several mistakes that have since been corrected, and not by idiotic bible followers, but by other scientists. What religious fanatics attempt to do is present a twisted version of reality based on their own lack of ability to think for themselves.

    Your snide rebuttal is indicative of one devoid of any understanding regarding science, and you feel superior because you have such a vast ignorance. Were this not so sickeningly sad it would be amusing, but you insist on spreading your own intellectual failures and that boarders upon the criminal.

    That “dead bird” is only one of literally millions of fossils that confirm both the extreme age of the earth and of the progression of simple to more complex life over time. These facts alone are enough for a rational person to understand that fairy tale stories of special creation are no more than fabrications of those too ignorant to understand the truth. What makes it all the more revolting is the blind acceptance of these ancient fairy tales in light of the evidence before us and the accumulation of data supporting evolution.

    By all means you should continue in your willful ingnorance because

    Nice

  114. S.Scott says:

    Yay! I agree with Wolfhound!

    BTW-Wolfhound, that’s got to be draining. I’m very thankful for what you do. That takes a special skill that I do not posess – I would be bawling uncontrollably all the time.

    fc –

    if you like arguing with Skepy, you might also enjoy tapping your forehead against large metal poles.

    You owe me a new computer screen now … mine just got spittle all over it! 🙂

  115. Theropod says:

    ABO wrote:

    “It would appear you have been hurt by the outlandish an disrespectful clames of the religious lunatic called Nancy. We know that this religious icon is not just a dead bird, but rather a foundational pillar supporting the faith based teachings of the Prophet Charles Darwin.”

    “Please allow me to share with you the type of respect which should be given all such religious artifacts.”

    Firstly you need to check your spelling before posting a massively ignorant view for the entire world to observe. Clames (as is presented above) I assume, is supposed to be claims, but I doubt we’ll ever know for sure. Such basic errors do not lend great credibility to your position because it shows us you lack the intellectual self control to make sure you present a well formed and concise argument. The rest of your “contribution” is equally revealing in this regard.

    Why is it that all these great defenders of faith present such consistent failures of both grammar and spelling? Is it a badge of honor to display such failure to possess a working knowledge of the English language? Is this an indicator of quality home schooling? Or is it evidence of a vast ego mania that runs through the fundamentalist movement which allows a complete disregard for rules not set down in their holy book of fairy tales?

    Your attempt to equate a real field of science, paleontology, with religion is typical of those unable to offer any facts in the debate. When all else fails, which these sorts of efforts always do, erect a blatantly false comparison to religion. In so doing it appears to allow religion an equal footing with science, but alas this is an obvious fabrication and is totally devoid of either supporting evidence or the moral fabric such supporters CLAIM to hold. It is a failed illusion. We see the man behind the curtain.

    Charles Darwin is nothing overly special to me, and I do not recall ever seeing a shrine erected to him so that his followers may fall prostrate before it. No one has sacrificed another in his name. He is surely not a prophet or spiritual guide for me or anyone I know. He presented the world with a collection of his observations of the natural world. He made several mistakes that have since been corrected, and not by idiotic bible followers, but by other real scientists. What religious fanatics attempt to do is present a twisted version of reality based on their own lack of ability to think for themselves.

    Your snide rebuttal is indicative of one devoid of any understanding regarding science, and you feel superior because you have such a vast ignorance. Were this not so sickeningly sad it would be amusing, but you insist on spreading your own intellectual failures and that boarders upon the criminal.

    That “dead bird” is only one of literally millions of fossils that confirm both the extreme age of the earth and of the progression of very simple to more complex life over time. These facts alone are enough for a rational person to understand that fairy tale stories of special creation are no more than fabrications of those too ignorant to understand the world around them. What makes it all the more revolting is the blind acceptance of these ancient fairy tales in light of the evidence before us and the continuing accumulation of data supporting evolution. You would have us remain in the dark ages and blindly accept that doctrine trumps reality. Don’t get exposed to drug resistant TB, as these bacteria haven’t heard that evolution is a myth.

    By all means you should continue in your willful ignorance because it comforts you when things get too complicated for your limited intellect to deal with rationally.

    Screw Lucy! I have seen primate fossils that date from the late Cretaceous. The FACT that these early primates are 6.5 million times older than the bible claims for the age of the earth and mankind.

    Instead of presenting a mocking, error filled and content-free posting here why don’t you try to actually present a case based on facts and evidence? Oh, that’s right, you have no other course open to you and these sophomoric tactics make you feel like you’re scoring brownie points for your sky daddy. Guess what? You failed.

    RS

  116. Noodlicious says:

    ROFLMAO at Nancy’s epic fail in quote mining Francis Collin’s, The Language of God to support sudden creation..

    Nancy Said [August 4th, 2008 at 5:55 pm]

    “What does the forensic evidence reveal? That life suddenly appeared on earth in abundance, not that it slowly evolved in 150 million years.

    Francis Collins, retired leader of the Human Genome Progect wrote, “No current hypotheses comes close to explaining how in the space of a mere 150 million years, the prebiotic environment that existed on planet Earth gave rise to life.” (The Language of God, 90)

    Hehehehe…
    Collin’s not only argues against “special creation” in his book, but also points out the compelling genomic evidence supporting common descent!

    “Review of Francis Collins (2006) The language of God”

    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm

    “The lessons of the Human Genome” (ch5), paragraph “Surprises from the first reading of the genome” (page 124-141).

    His first example starts easy with a simple and straightforward question: What is the likelihood of finding a similar DNA sequence in the genome of other organisms, starting with a human DNA sequence? (page 127).

    A human gene can be found with 100% certainty in a Chimpanzee and with 99% probability in a dog or a mouse. This is predicted and explained by common descent (in outline).

    More than that, common descent not only predicts that human genes can be found with different probabilities in other species, but more specific that the likelihood should be smaller for insects and worms.

    This example is presented by Collins as “even more compelling evidence for a common ancestor”.
    So if the reader wants to understand the best evidence for common descent, he must understand this one.

    His evidence has two aspects: how it supports common descent and how it makes independent origin an unreasonable alternative explanation. This example is not about true genes and not about truly random DNA, but about damaged copies of genes (jumping genes).

    “Jumping genes produce several copies that are inserted at random places in chromosomes. In the past and in the present.
    The order of genes along a chromosome is often the same in humans and mice. This has been known for some time.
    This is true also for some jumping genes (Ancient Repetitive Elements). They are often found in similar chromosome locations in human and mouse. More remarkable, damaged copies also occur in the same place in human and mouse. This is new.

    Collins: “Finding a precisely truncated ARE [damaged copy] in the same place in both human and mouse genomes is compelling evidence that this insertion event must have occurred in an ancestor that was common to both the human and the mouse.” (p.135).

    “Unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed these decapitated AREs (1) in these precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable. This kind of recent genome data thus presents an overwhelming challenge to those who hold to the idea that all species were created ex nihilo.” (p.136-137).

    I must say, I for one, really appreciate the way creationists display their ignorance and dishonesty so blatantly for all to see.

    Thanks Nancy 🙂

  117. Wolfhound says:

    As has been pointed out to me, Nancy is using the “toolkit for trolling science blogs” released by AiG. The quote mines and Gish gallops are part of the scheme. When the science is against you and observational reality disproves your biblical version of, well, EVERYTHING, pulling stuff out of your ass is all you have left.

  118. Noodlicious says:

    Wolfhound
    “Nancy is using the “toolkit for trolling science blogs” released by AiG.”

    Hehehehehe….
    If that’s the case she (/he) is getting their propaganda BS all ballsed up…as in..

    Nancy Says: August 4th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
    “(although the earth is only 150 million years old)”

    Love it! 🙂

  119. Skepticism says:

    Theropuke: Perhaps you also should brush up on comma placement before you attack the grammatical skill of others:

    “Instead of presenting a mocking, error filled and content-free posting here why don’t you try to actually present a case based on facts and evidence?”

    Do you see some missing commas in this sentence which you published for all the world to see? You are lacking a dash as well. Basdd on your own argumentation above, I guess that makes you ignorant and unworthy to post here as well.

    Deadman – your statements above that facts are true flies in the face of the Academy’s own definition:

    Fact:
    In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

    Notice the “for all practical purposes” it is considered “truth.” And then, “truth in science is never final.” I love that one. It seems you are confused over the very definitions you offered as defining your position. Or perhaps you are intentionally being inconsistent. Let me know.

    YES, PLEASE, MAY ALL FCS MEMBERS FIND THE NEAREST METAL POLE AND KNOCK SOME SENSE INTO YOURSELVES!

  120. S.Scott says:

    McD – Are semi-conductors better than tubes?

    We didn’t use semi-conductors 50 years ago did we?

    Think about it. Scientists have made improvements to technology.Isn’t that a fact?

    Isn’t it true that tubes were the cat’s meow 50 years ago?

    Scientists have also made improvements and gained new knowledge pertaining to ToE.

    Is that too hard to understand?

  121. Wolfhound says:

    Awwwww, John/Skep is so darned CUTE when he resorts to schoolyard “nanny-nanny-boo-boo” twists on posters’ names. Theropod is an actual field worker so any criticisms you have of his profession are laughable, Mr. Youth Minister for a backwoods, cult church. You’d understand why his chose his handle if you had the slightest idea what a theropod was. Ah, I can hear the sounds of mad Googling right now… Deadman is likewise a real, live fieldworker. Go ahead and ask him and Theropod for their credentials. Dare ya’. Not that it really matters to you since a pastor/preacher/whatever knows more about science and the related disciplines in your mind.

    I almost envy you and your kind the simplistic, child-like beliefs you hold. It’s all in your book and since your book is Truth (with a capital “T”) ’cause it SAYS it is, there is no need to strain your cute, little brains looking any further than a particular line of scripture.

  122. S.Scott says:

    OH BTW – this is shameless self promotion, but I have a cool video posted!

    ABO – you liked the fish video … you’ll like this one.

  123. Wolfhound says:

    “why HE chose his handle”, not “why HIS chose his handle”. Bleh. Sorry.

  124. deadman_932 says:

    firemancarl — eh, no worries, I don’t consider “Skepticism” to be amenable to rational discussion. He’s a run-of-the-mill fanatic/apologist; all semantic dodges and pretense. In the words of Elvis Costello: “I used to be disgusted, but now I’m just amused.”

    Skepticism — You wrote:

    Notice the “for all practical purposes” it is considered “truth.” And then, “truth in science is never final.” I love that one. It seems you are confused over the very definitions you offered as defining your position. Or perhaps you are intentionally being inconsistent. Let me know.

    I realize it may be a shock to you — but reality is not binary yes-no, true/false, true and untrue, black and white.

    For all intents and purposes, I can treat the Earth as a sphere in most calculations, but it is not a perfect sphere. It’s flattened at the poles and the circumference is greater at the equator. So when you ask “Is the Earth a sphere?” I can say, sure, it is…while knowing that I may have to change that when I warn you about climbing equatorial mountains without oxygen supplies.

    The reason I called you “son” (which you seemed to dislike) is that you appear to be quite young and naive. Maybe it’s the basic lack of comprehension you demonstrate. Maybe it was the shallow freshman-level Philo-sophistry you try to misapply. It could be a lot of things, but mostly I think it’s your narrow views that scream out your mental adolescence. This is shown in your black-and-white view of “true facts”

    Some things are completely untrue.
    Some things might have been true in the past or might be true in the future.
    Some things are slightly true.
    Some things are half-truths, or very nearly.
    Some things are mostly true,
    some things are almost completely true,
    some things are “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” as to their being true facts.

    The framework of science is not based on eternal, immutable TRUTHS with capitals. It is based on the notion of truths that are subject to change. What is true today may not be true tomorrow, hence there are no immutable truths, not even if I’m dealing with the fact of Newton’s 3rd Law. There are only “truths” that are confirmed, can be confirmed and tested, and replicated, and falsified, and subject to all the other things that science requires. This seems beyond your immature, naive view of reality.

    But none of those things afflicting you are my fault. It’s your fault for being the way you are, when you have a computer at your fingertips that could cure your ignorance. Yet you seem to refuse that. That’s your fault. Fix it, son.

  125. zygosporangia says:

    Heh. I go away for a couple of days, and the CREOtards / god bots return. Why do I always seem to miss them?

    Well, at least McDonald admitted the possibility that his god does not exist. After all, way up towards the top of this thread, he used “if”. I think this should give indication that he is, at least at a subconscious level, questioning his fundamentalist beliefs. Of course, I’m sure he won’t admit to that.

  126. zygosporangia says:

    deadman is correct. While reality is most likely objective, objective truth is largely unknowable. Epistemologically speaking, what we understand as truth is what we can confirm to the best of our knowledge. Everything else is pure metaphysics at best, or fairy tales (e.g. bibles) at worst.

  127. deadman_932 says:

    Like others, I’d prefer to discuss the science rather than being distracted by the only thing that people like “Skepticism” knows, which is semantic gamesmanship.

    This use of shallow sophistry and simplistic binary thinking seems to be essential to the fundamentalist mindset. He’s used to making claims of absolute truth. He’s used to “interpreting” words to mean only what he wants them to mean. But when it comes to science, he’s ignorant.

    So…he goes back to that which is the only thing he really knows…playing with language as though his pronouncements on it can change an axiomatic system or create immutable “Truths” (capital ‘t’) about a dynamic natural world that moves through time, changing as it goes. He lives in a mental world of imagined Platonic ideals and pretends he’s *not* stuck in a world of superficial appearances. It’s a hoot.

    Fundamentalist absolutism is why Fundamentalists/ Inerrantist/ Literalists are a detriment to the human race — They retard the advance of knowledge and human understanding.

    For Rational Christians, they represent additional concerns –
    (1) the destruction of Christianity’s reputation
    (2) the disdain of non-believers that are threatened with “damnation.”
    (3) the threat to essential parts of Christian doctrine that *might* be tossed aside when a fundamentalist claim is refuted.

    Fundamentalist absolutists are anti-intellectual, dishonest, hypocritical, manipulative, cult-like, and repulsive.

  128. Theropod says:

    Skepticism wrote,

    “Do you see some missing commas in this sentence which you published for all the world to see? You are lacking a dash as well. Basdd on your own argumentation above, I guess that makes you ignorant and unworthy to post here as well.”

    So as the supreme authority, as you now claim to be, of the proper use of the English language your use of the word “Basdd” means what exactly? Maybe you new word means “Blinded And Stupid Dogma Devotee”? There are more awkward keystrokes involved than if you had actually typed out the entire word “based”, if I read between the lines correctly. Judge not lest ye be judged (your rules not mine). So you are one to point out errors? I think not. I left off an “and” and did not make the KIND error you so kindly point out. Thanks for playing. Game over. Inset another coin to play again. Same ole same ole.

    I never claimed to be an authority on anything aside from plaeontology, but was rather pointing out that a BASIC SPELLING ERROR instills an impression that the author made no effort whatsoever to impart care into the presentation of his point, as is evidenced in your post as well. My position has been made and confirmed that defenders of creationism have no motivation to communicate in a rational manner. Do you have the same condescending critique of the other poster? No? Why? Do you have a dogma driven directive to attack that which you lack the intellectual or factual basis to refute? It appears so. The pattern is intact. Thanks for making my point for me. You make my case too easily.

    You also wrote out of complete and total ignorance:
    “In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.”

    And this is a problem how exactly? Unlike dogma driven bullshit which demands absolute conformity to doctrine which FORBIDS individual interpretation to account for the facts as they become available? Pot-Kettle-Black much? Jesus nailed on a stick Christ. You are a loser in the game of life and your own words defeat you. Read your own words and see if you have the ability to see where you need to try a more logical angle of attack as this one has failed on an epic scale.

    I also notice you do not address the meat of my point. What a surprise! NOT!

    It is always the same with those unable to defend creationism. Attack the person and not the position. When you have the ability to reconstruct the past based on evidence and not doctrine you may begin to play the game. As things now stand you are among those unable to form an educated opinion without direction from you spiritual guide, or sheep herder. How does it feel to be a sheep? Why don’t you defer to this guide and stop attempting to think for yourself? Do you copy and paste directly from AiG or are you allowed to mangle these words to suite the situational needs? I’ve always wondered how the dogma is handled on a personal basis. What freedoms are allowed and which are not?

  129. firemancarl says:

    Stacy,

    You’ll have to get a Mac then! Yep, I just love teh trolls. Their arguments lack such…..intelligence.

  130. Skepticism says:

    S. Scott – I am glad that scientific inquiry has added to the amount of useful technological knowledge, but I am skeptical about the increase of data supporting evolution because this data is being interpreted according to unproven assumptions – so of course it can be used to support the overall theory when thus interpreted.

    Wolfhound – I always knew you had a thing for me…

    Deadman – reality is one and can only be one way – the way it is. It cannot be one way and a completely different way at the same time (Law of Non-contradiction). So reality is absolute. It can never be relative. It is objective, not subjective.

    “I realize it may be a shock to you — but reality is not binary yes-no, true/false, true and untrue, black and white.”

    Your statement above IS shocking. You are trying to live outside the law of non-contradiction, but the REALITY is that you can’t. Quit the crack and come live in the real world where there is one reality.

    Zygo – you sound even more pathetic with your “reality is probably objective…” How about reality is obviously objective by definition. You guys are trying to redefine reality. Nice try but it doesn’t work. And btw, since you love to twist my words, when I said “If the Bible is the Word of God” I meant “If the Bible is the Word of God (AND IT IS THE WORD OF GOD). You see now? I was forming an argument, not questioning whether the Bible is the Word of God or not. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD.

    Therapod – Really? Again? Check it out everyone –

    “I never claimed to be an authority on anything aside from plaeontology, but was rather pointing out that a BASIC SPELLING ERROR instills an impression that the author made no effort whatsoever to impart care into the presentation of his point, as is evidenced in your post as well”

    So, since you can’t spell your own profession correctly, which is a basic spelling error, does that instill the impression that you as the author made no effort whatsoever to impart care into the presentation of your point????

    Think about it this way – if truth in science can never be finally true, then it can never be considered to be really true at any time. Take that to the field.

  131. Wolfhound says:

    Dude, you believe in a friggin’ TALKING SNAKE. We need delve no further to understand the untennable vacuousness and illogic of your position! 🙂

  132. deadman_932 says:

    Skepticism wrote:

    Deadman – reality is one and can only be one way – the way it is. It cannot be one way and a completely different way at the same time (Law of Non-contradiction). So reality is absolute. It can never be relative. It is objective, not subjective.

    “I realize it may be a shock to you — but reality is not binary yes-no, true/false, true and untrue, black and white.”

    Your statement above IS shocking. You are trying to live outside the law of non-contradiction, but the REALITY is that you can’t. Quit the crack and come live in the real world where there is one reality

    Like I said, first-year Philo-sophistry, and really, REALLY badly applied.

    I especially like the irony of an addicted fundamentalist absolutist saying that others should “quit the crack.”

    I’ll start out by noting that reality is not binary. This is a true statement. Reality isn’t exclusively “true or false” As is noted in the Bible itself, there are degrees of truth and human approximations of “Truth” with a capital “T’

    ———————-
    In his ” Metaphysics, ” Aristotle wrote that :

    “It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections.”
    ————————

    This is ONLY an axiomatic statement within a given propositional logic. It is also inherently contradicted in the real world by wave-particle duality, and other aspects of Quantum Mechanics, among other things.

    This duality is an instance of the “violation” of your naive, sophomoric view of The Law of Non-Contradiction.

    See, the issue here is twofold. By your misapplication of Aristotle, you apparently hold that the “Law” is “universallly applicable” and that a glass can never be 1/3 full, or 1/2, but must rather be full or empty — binary opposites with an excluded middle.

    An issue in the “Law of Non-Contradiction” was famously pointed out by Frege and Bertrand Russell (among others) long ago:

    Russell: “This sentence is not true.” (the Liar Paradox) is true if and only if it is not true. This is an instance of the “violation” of The Law of Non-Contradiction in a given propositional framework (read Russell, kid)

    ——————————-
    Or how about The Paradox of the Stone:

    One begins by stating a basic binary set of two mutually exclusive properties, as an evident instance of the Law of the Excluded Middle:

    “Either God is omnipotent or God is not omnipotent.”

    With omnipotence, He can do anything — and in particular He can create a stone x so heavy that even He cannot lift it.

    But then there is something He cannot do: lift x.

    This is an instance of the “violation” of The Law of Non-Contradiction in a specified propositional framework — God can lift x and God cannot lift x.
    ———————————

    The “Law of Non-Contradiction” only applies to a given propositional logical construct, not just anything that you might dream up. It has to be specified.

    Then there’s the issue of “AT THE SAME TIME.” : The Earth is not a perfect sphere. It is not perfectly flat either. It can’t be considered perfectly round because it is not. But neither is it flat. It is, however, a flattened sphere – an oblate spheroid.

    Truth is even more negotiable because it is interpreted by the fallible, theory-laden mind. Your claim that reality is only one way is simply a result of your silly notion that the “Law of Non-Contradiction” is somehow universally applicable in any formulation you imagine.

    This notion of yours is false. As is your notion that you somehow have anything definitive to say about the truth or falsity of Evolution in fact or theory.

    I advise you try to read a bit on Logic:
    http://www.stanford.edu/~bobonich/glances%20ahead/IV.excluded.middle.html
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/

  133. S.Scott says:

    McD – You missed my point entirely.

    FC – Mac … Aauurrgghh! We bought a brand new windows machine for what it would have cost to fix the power cord on our 3yr. old mac.

  134. deadman_932 says:

    By the way, “Skeptical,” I’m not really posting *for* you, but rather any amused onlookers that might be interested.

    You’ve shown already that you know diddly-squat about evolution, evolutionary theory or even logic. You’re not a “challenge.” What you are is a minor propagandist trying to sell your particular brand of snake-oil. Great. The Bible warns about people like you: wolves in sheep’s clothing that try to “creatively interpret” scripture according to your need for attention or power.

    You try to deny God the ability to create and set evolution in motion — though the evidence is all around you (which you have yet to even try to gainsay). But you blasphemously try to lie about it. Nature is THE word of God. The Bible may have been divinely inspired, but it was men that wrote it and copied it, and you idolatrously try to elevate *your* “creative interpretation” of a Book written by men…into scripture itself

    You try to deny the word of God written in the rocks…and in his creatures’ evolving DNA.

    See, the way to fight your propaganda is with facts and truth, which is the best “propaganda” of all. Facts and truth that speak of the glory of God, not the petty ego of sonny-boy McDonald — AKA “Skepticism “

  135. deadman_932 says:

    I should add this, in the interest of full disclosure: nothing that I have written should be taken as indicative on my belief/lack of belief in God or Gods. My views on that are irrelevant in regard to science. I was writing from the perspective of a rational theist, but that doesn’t mean I hold those views personally.

    What I think on that is not the business of anyone else but me.

  136. Karl says:

    So, down to personal insults and character attacks now. I’ll tell ya now, skepy, you don’t do it all too well. Maybe you should drop all that Judeo-Christian morality crap that’s been holding you back and really rip into us here. I know there’s a foul-mouthed self-loathing heathen just waiting to break out that Christian candy-coated shell of yours. Maybe you despise evolution because through your own twisted perception, evolution somehow justifies your existence as a loser is both necessary and inevitable. <–(That’s how to bring the verbal sass right there)

    I suppose it’s of great comfort to believe that some super-powered invisible entity still considers you special despite all your flaws, but to make it your mission to force everyone to know about it gets a bit annoying. So, Mr. “I’m just a skeptic of evolution,” are you ever going to tell us who/what you are or continue hiding behind that innocuous decaying mystique of yours. Imagine a missionary preaching to an audience about God and all He can do for their lives, but refusing to acknowledge his own connection to God. That’s some kind of broken right there…

  137. Theropod says:

    Yes, I misspelled PALEONTOLOGY.

    No, i didn’t take proper care to insure I was accurate. I made a mistake.

    See this is something that creotard idiots cannot do. Admit there is a possibility of being wrong. I’ve never seen it yet.

    Take this to the field. Creotard doctrine had never been right.

    RS

  138. zygosporangia says:

    How about reality is obviously objective by definition.

    You have missed my point entirely, as usual. Objective reality is unknowable. You cannot say “this is most certainly true” and “this is most certainly false”. You can only base your conception of reality on observation. I challenge you to provide how you can conceive reality by any other means. This is basic epistemology, McDonald. I know that your knowledge of philosophy is sophomoric at best, but bear with me here, you might just learn something.

  139. Jonathan Smith says:

    Please ease up on the ad hominem attacks, it really does little to support your positions. I know it can become a little “heated” in the course of a debate,so this is just a gentle reminder to cool down a little.

  140. Noodlicious says:

    S.Scott Says:
    “I have a cool video posted!”

    Bah! Sinful birds! Pelicans only ate eat coconuts before the fall!
    Dey iz not saved!!

  141. S.Scott says:

    Gross – wasn’t it!! 🙂

  142. Skepticism says:

    Deadman – sorry, you won’t be able to rescue your argument by appealing to Bert. When he says “this sentence is not true” he is saying nothing. A sentence is true or false depending upon the relationship between subject and predicate. In this case, being true or false is not a real predicate but a state. If he had said, “This sentence is not in English” then he would have an untrue sentence. Nice try, but the more you try to clobber the law of non-contradiction the more it clobbers you.

    Btw, quantum physics, etc. is not a valid objection to the universal application of the LONC. Just because you don’t understand the behavior of particles doesn’t mean that there is not a cause and effect relationship that as of yet has not been detected. I know you wish to use qp to support spontaneous generation so you can preserve your little big bang cosmology. Sorry, but if you start spouting that then do not pass go but proceed directly to your nearest mental institution.

    Besides, since you dismiss the LONC, then I can suppose the opposite of your own statement at the same time:

    “This notion of yours is false. As is your notion that you somehow have anything definitive to say about the truth or falsity of Evolution in fact or theory.” So, what you really mean is this notion of mine IS TRUE and that I do have something definitive to say about evolution.

    Now why don’t you run along and read some Dewey, because as we all know tomorrow the laws of logic might evolve further!

    Zygo – if objective reality is unknowable, evolution is unknowable. So why do you devote so much time to something that in the end is unknowable? Not only that, why do you use your unknowable tenets to attack others who don’t agree with you? And why would you attack them, seeing that they too are unknowable. Just go back into your closet with Hume.

  143. Skepticism says:

    Zygo – also, just think for a moment about your statement. If objective reality is unknowable, there is at least one thing we can know about it: that it is unknowable. Also, how do you know that it is unknowable?

  144. zygosporangia says:

    Nice try, but the more you try to clobber the law of non-contradiction the more it clobbers you.

    I only hope that you learn enough some day to be embarrassed by this sentence.

    if objective reality is unknowable, evolution is unknowable.

    Objective reality is unknowable. I understand that I am getting into a deeper level of philosophy that you do not understand with your cow college education, but I’ll attempt to simplify it in the same way that I explain this to children. Hopefully, that will be enough for you.

    Let’s see where I lose you.

    We can only base our understanding of the world on our observations, and the conclusions that we can draw from these observations. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? If you disagree with this statement, then please refine it in a way that you do agree with.

    Objective reality is still unknowable. It is not possible to know the position of every subatomic particle in the universe, nor of the state of the matter that makes up those particles. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? If you disagree with this statement, then please refine it in a way that you do agree with.

    There is more information than we could ever possibly filter, and it exists in places that are impossible for any single person to observe completely. Therefore, any observation we make is based on incomplete data. While we may obtain knowledge, we can not obtain complete knowledge. Without complete knowledge, there will always be gaps in our understanding of objective reality. Therefore, objective reality is unknowable. Do you agree or disagree with these statements? If you disagree with these statements, then please refine them in a way that you do agree with.

    I’m glad that I get the opportunity to teach you basic epistemology, McDonald. Perhaps once I fix your flawed interpretation of the basics, we can tackle something more relevant, like the empirical method. From there, we can get back to why your bible does not make a good science text book.

  145. zygosporangia says:

    I think that you should change your moniker back to your old moniker, John McDonald. “Skepticism” really doesn’t fit you. If you don’t like your name, then you should change your moniker to something more fitting.

    “Mulder” would fit, as you obviously “want to believe” in creation fairy tales. 😉

  146. Skepticism says:

    Zygo, if objective reality is unknowable, then all that you said above is unknowable. Btw, the clobbering the LONC remark was actually first made by Ravi Zacharias. I would love to see you say the same thing to him.

    Also, Skepticism suits me fine. I am very skeptical as to the “truth” claims of evolutionary theory.

  147. deadman_932 says:

    “Deadman – sorry, you won’t be able to rescue your argument by appealing to Bert. When he says “this sentence is not true” he is saying nothing. A sentence is true or false depending upon the relationship between subject and predicate. In this case, being true or false is not a real predicate but a state.”

    ———————
    Subject:

    Grammar.
    The noun, noun phrase, or pronoun in a sentence or clause that denotes the doer of the action or what is described by the predicate.

    Logic.
    The term of a proposition about which something is affirmed or denied.

    —————————-

    Predicate:

    Grammar.
    One of the two main constituents of a sentence or clause, modifying the subject and including the verb, objects, or phrases governed by the verb, as opened the door in Jane opened the door or is very sleepy in The child is very sleepy.

    Logic.
    That part of a proposition that is affirmed or denied about the subject. For example, in the proposition We are mortal, mortal is the predicate.

    *****************************************************

    So, it took you all day to come up with that pathetic evasion? Uh-huh. Again, your lack of basic comprehension skills shines forth – not to mention your willingness to completely fabricate. Not only do you fail to grasp what the Law of Non-Contradiction is, you also fail to grasp arguments such as the Liar’s Paradox

    Since you apparently refused to actually read the links I gave you, allow me to point out yet another one on the same topic:

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/par-liar.htm

    The Liar Paradox is an argument that arrives at a contradiction by reasoning about a Liar Sentence. The classical Liar Sentence is the following self-referential sentence:

    (1) This sentence is false.
    Experts in the field of philosophical logic have never agreed on the way out of the trouble despite 2,300 years of attention.

    Here is the trouble–a sketch of the Liar Argument that reveals the contradiction:

    If (1) is true, then (1) is false. But we can also establish the converse, as follows. Assume (1) is false. Because the Liar Sentence is saying precisely that (namely that it is false), the Liar Sentence is true, so (1) is true.

    We’ve now shown that (1) is true if and only if it is false. Since (1) is one or the other, it is both.

    The argument depends upon a few more assumptions and steps, but these appear to be as uncontroversial as those above. The contradictory result apparently throws us into the lion’s den of semantic incoherence. This article explores the details of the principal attempts to resolve the paradox. Most logical paradoxes are based on circular definitions or self-referential statements, and the liar paradox is no exception.

    Many people, when first encountering the Liar Paradox, will react by saying that the Liar Sentence must be meaningless. This popular solution does stop the argument of the paradox, but it isn’t an adequate solution if it answers the question, “Why is the Liar Sentence meaningless?” simply with the ad hoc remark, “Otherwise we get a paradox.”

    (1) Demonstrate the validity of your claim that the truth-content of a sentence is determined by subject -predicate “relationship” alone

    (2) AND that the verb “is” in the Liar’s Paradox statement is “not a true predicate” and

    (3) that verbs denoting states are not predicates.

    (4) Now do the same with the Paradox of the Stone, which was also given to you as an example. Don’t forget this one, k, son?

    Make sure you cite proper references for each one. Make sure that you present your case for each one in a non-fallacious manner, using valid logic and argumentation, because I plan on showing you in excruciating detail just how false you really are… If you can’t do that for each example, TRY being honest and dealing with that reality.

    ” Btw, quantum physics, etc. is not a valid objection to the universal application of the LONC. Just because you don’t understand the behavior of particles doesn’t mean that there is not a cause and effect relationship that as of yet has not been detected. ”

    The issue in the Law of Contradiction is that a thing cannot be P and Not-P simultaneously. Yet that is the case in wave-particle duality and Schroedinger’s Cat and all the other nice outcomes of Heisenbergian Uncertainty. Duality is not a guess, it is a fact at the Quantum Mechanical Level. “Cause and effect” doesn’t have any bearing here in terms of Non-Contradiction at instant T.

    Again, this is you making “stuff” up as some bizarre attempt to…what… pose? Pretend you’ve made a valid point?

  148. Skepticism says:

    Deadman, I will let Gordon Clark share some insight on the Liar’s Paradox, etc. tomorrow. The book I need is in my office at work.

  149. deadman_932 says:

    While you’re doing that assignment, “Skepticism” (and consulting Gordon Clark)

    I’d like you to keep in mind your statement that led to this point.

    I said this:

    Deadman_932 wrote:

    I realize it may be a shock to you — but reality is not binary yes-no, true/false, true and untrue, black and white.

    For all intents and purposes, I can treat the Earth as a sphere in most calculations, but it is not a perfect sphere. It’s flattened at the poles and the circumference is greater at the equator. So when you ask “Is the Earth a sphere?” I can say, sure, it is…while knowing that I may have to change that when I warn you about climbing equatorial mountains without oxygen supplies.

    The reason I called you “son” (which you seemed to dislike) is that you appear to be quite young and naive. Maybe it’s the basic lack of comprehension you demonstrate. Maybe it was the shallow freshman-level Philo-sophistry you try to misapply. It could be a lot of things, but mostly I think it’s your narrow views that scream out your mental adolescence. This is shown in your black-and-white view of “true facts”

    Some things are completely untrue.
    Some things might have been true in the past or might be true in the future.
    Some things are slightly true.
    Some things are half-truths, or very nearly.
    Some things are mostly true,
    some things are almost completely true,
    some things are “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” as to their being true facts.

    The framework of science is not based on eternal, immutable TRUTHS with capitals. It is based on the notion of truths that are subject to change. What is true today may not be true tomorrow, hence there are no immutable truths, not even if I’m dealing with the fact of Newton’s 3rd Law. There are only “truths” that are confirmed, can be confirmed and tested, and replicated, and falsified, and subject to all the other things that science requires. This seems beyond your immature, naive view of reality.

    Your response:

    Skepticism wrote: “Deadman – reality is one and can only be one way – the way it is. It cannot be one way and a completely different way at the same time (Law of Non-contradiction). So reality is absolute. It can never be relative. It is objective, not subjective ” https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=670#comment-90520

    Which said nothing about

    [A] “reality is not binary yes/no, true/false, black/white” particularly the “reality” that the Earth is neither a “perfect” sphere or flat as a pancake. It is a flattened sphere, however. There are a VERY LARGE range of examples here that CANNOT be broken down into “This is ONLY P or NOT P AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME SENSE”

    Let’s look at what Aristotle himself said:

    In his “Metaphysics,” Aristotle writes:

    “Now, in the first place, this is evident to those who define what truth and falsehood are. For indeed, the assertion that entity does not exist, and that nonentity does, is a falsehood, but that entity exists, and that nonentity does not exist, is truth. ”

    To put Aristotle’s definition simply: truth is that which corresponds to reality.

    And guess what? ALLELIC CHANGE, THE VERY DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION USED IN BIOLOGY TODAY…EXISTS IN REALITY

    As I said, you can measure it, replicate it, test it, falsify it..all the things science requires.

    Your misapplication of Aristotle’s L of N-C simply evaded this as well:

    [B] (1) True with a capital T (eternal, immutable) and (2) “true” as in “demonstrated to such a degree that refusing provisional acceptance would be perverse”

    As I said, I hold to a correspondence view of truth in most things. I am not a relativist. But I also know that the Law of non-contradiction does NOT apply here. This is because the Law states that S cannot be both P and non-P AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME SENSE.

    Truth with a capital “T” is not the same sense as provisional truth. Truth is that which corresponds with reality. Or to put it in the words of C. S. Lewis, “Truth is always about something, but reality is that about which truth is.” This is the Correspondence Theory of truth.

    You simply don’t know what you are talking about, regardless of your flawed apprehension on the meanderings of “Ravi Zacharias” You simply misapply the concept, as I said in a previous post. https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=670#comment-90523

    —————————–

    But, I like where this has led to, so I gave you lots of rope to hang yourself with your false claims about the Law of Non-Contradiction, The Liar’s Paradox, and QM.

    Now it’s your job to dig yourself out of your own pile of conceptual manure. Oh, but it’ll stick to you.

    You’re screwed no matter which way you go, son.

    Allelic change is the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of evolution, as I cited specifically previously. It exists.

    What corresponds to reality is that evolution (E) exists… Not(E) is your position… contradicting reality, son. *wink*

  150. zygosporangia says:

    Zygo, if objective reality is unknowable, then all that you said above is unknowable.

    Once again, you are stumbling over the basics. Are you telling me, that for all of your claims of being an expert in philosophy, that you don’t even know the definition of knowledge?

    Surely, you’ve heard of regress? At some point, all systems of knowledge must be based on some axioms. These axioms may not be knowable, but they are assumed for the sake of the conclusions drawn from them. For instance, modern mathematics is based on axioms, as is science.

    From here, I can come completely around to a relevant point. Science, although based on incomplete knowledge, allows for acquired knowledge to be adapted as new information comes to light. As far as systems of knowledge goes, it is quite pragmatic (there’s another term for you to research). In fact, one could say that the process of science itself could be described as a working system based on pragmatic epistemology. Of course, with your poor understanding of philosophy, I’m sure that you’ll attempt to quote mine Charles Pierce or William James now. 😉

    What is interesting about the refinement of knowledge in science is that once something has become a scientific theory, it is rarely shown to be false. Generally speaking, most theories are still true within proper context. This gets back to deadman’s point (and he can correct me if I’m paraphrasing him wrong here) that truth is in many cases contextual. In fact, that rings true with pragmatic epistemology. For instance, we still teach Newtonian Physics in school, even though Newtonian Physics has been shown to be false in Relativistic situations. This simpler model of physics is still true, in the right context, when dealing with things such as apples falling from trees or tracing the conic sections of the rotation of planetary bodies (when accuracy is not necessarily required). However, when extended to black holes or near light speeds, this simpler set of equations breaks down.

    Perhaps some day evolutionary theory may be shown to be wrong. However, this will not mean that biblical creationism is correct (as it has already been shown to be false). What would happen is a small refinement of the theory to deal with a special case that has been discovered. For instance, if we discover a form of life that is a true chimera (e.g. half man half horse), this would not be explained through current evolutionary theory. It does not mean that everything else that evolutionary theory does explain is suddenly false. Instead, it means that a special case has been discovered that must be addressed.

    So, despite how so-called “skeptics” like you may confuse windmills with giants, harping on “teaching the controversy” or all of the other nonsense that you crank on about will not make that which has already been shown to be false (e.g. biblical creationism) become true. If evolutionary theory is ever refined, it will not result in a gap that you could hide your god in.

  151. deadman_932 says:

    Zygosporangia: Sure, pragmatism is fine with me. I’m a touch eclectic; I’ll take my Quine, Pierce and Putnam with some Hempel and Wittgenstein, etc.

    ———————–

    Eh, to hell with this: I’ll just post this now, “Skepticism,” rather than waiting for your next diversion/avoidance of the central issue of evolution as fact.

    I’ll be honest with you: I placed a few ambiguous trails in my posts just for shoots and giggles. Here’s a clue, “mister philosophy” :

    When I write something like this:

    Deadman_932 Wrote:
    Russell: “This sentence is not true.” (the Liar Paradox) is true if and only if it is not true. This is an instance of the “violation” of The Law of Non-Contradiction in a given propositional framework (read Russell, kid) https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=670#comment-90523 (my emphasis)

    And I INCLUDE QUOTES around the term “violation” — what does that mean in your world?

    See, in my world, it DOES NOT mean that I hold the referent “violation” to be some absolute Truth with a capital “T”. It means that I am questioning the truthiness of the operant term in quotes, much as if I were to write that “John McDonald is a real ‘genius’ ”

    (1) You could have just responded to that particular “instance” (The Strengthened Liar’s Paradox) by simply saying it held no truth-value *and demonstrating it.* since it’s not self-evident that you were even vaguely right. Instead, you tried to bluff your way through it. This is irrelevant, though, a false trail. If you’d read Russell, you’d know what I meant by “Read Russell, kid” (see my block quote above)

    (2) Similarly, you simply ignored the Paradox of The Stone (another “violation” of the Law of N-C…psst — see the quote marks now? ) and avoided it entirely.

    (3) On the real problem of Quantum Duality/complimentarity, you appealed fallaciously to Argumentum ad Ignorantiam AND Begging the Question…that maybe there was some hidden cause and effect at work “that hasn’t been detected”…which really is laughable, too — that’s not valid argumentation, son.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

    ——————————————-

    The truth is, “Skepticism,” that after watching your incredible desperation to avoid any actual discussion of the scientific data concerning evolution, I decided to see what you’d come up with on your own preferred battle-ground of philo-semantic-mental-masturbation. I’ve dealt with people like you before. I know the Gish-gallop and the hand-waving avoidance that you folks employ. So, I said this:

    Deadman_932 Wrote:
    Like others, I’d prefer to discuss the science rather than being distracted by the only thing that people like “Skepticism” knows, which is semantic gamesmanship.

    This use of shallow sophistry and simplistic binary thinking seems to be essential to the fundamentalist mindset. He’s used to making claims of absolute truth. He’s used to “interpreting” words to mean only what he wants them to mean. But when it comes to science, he’s ignorant.

    So…he goes back to that which is the only thing he really knows…playing with language as though his pronouncements on it can change an axiomatic system or create immutable “Truths” (capital ‘t’) about a dynamic natural world that moves through time, changing as it goes.

    ————————————————-

    I gave you a shovel, all nice and gift-wrapped — and then you dig up the gem of Non-Contradiction , right as you’re burying yourself ( !!! ). This is what you said:

    “Skepticism” Wrote:
    “Deadman – reality is one and can only be one way – the way it is. It cannot be one way and a completely different way at the same time (Law of Non-contradiction). So reality is absolute. It can never be relative. It is objective, not subjective.”

    Notice that this is right after I kept REPEATING that allelic change is not *just* the Textbook definition of evolution in biology/genetics(and giving you the citations!), but also that it’s verifiable, even by YOU, if you had the honesty to try.

    ————————————————-

    I really don’t care about anything else you (okay, not YOU, really, but Gordon Clark) might have to add about the Liar’s Paradox. I’m not interested in the absolutist claims of some presuppositionalist @#$% that can’t tell the difference between eternal, immutable Platonic Truths (see the CAPITAL “T?”) and the provisional approximations of “truth” that are employed in Science .. and the category error of attempting to pretend one is the other, in differing frameworks.

    It’s come down to YOU faced with the cruelly amusing fate of either (1) Claiming that Allelic change is NOT a valid definition of evolution in bio/genetics (2) Claiming that Allelic change doesn’t exist or (3) Denying the validity of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

    My entry post in this thread was on the topic of evolution. You deny it, saying it doesn’t exist — at least in your caricatured redefinition. That’s my focus, and that alone.

    Seriously, “Skepticism,” the irony is palpable.

  152. Skepticism says:

    Deadman – the moment you challenged the LONC you lost. Because if you are right, you are also wrong at the same time. Plus you should stop talking about your wife/husband like that publically. Since words can have multiple meanings in any given context without the LONC in operation, I suggest you stop writing because it will mean whatever one desires. You must really hate your wife/husband!

    I know you don’t care what Clark, myself, or others think. You are much like D.M.S. Watson when he said, “The theory of evolution itself [is] a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative is special creation, which is cearly incredible” (Nature, vol. 124, p. 233). You also remind me of another, Sir Arthur Keith, who said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable.”

    Zygo – why quote James when I could quote John Dewey’s pragmatic ideas regarding science with much more effect. Btw, the quotes above apply to you also Zygo and the other members of FCS.

  153. zygosporangia says:

    As usual, Skepticism completely dodges actually responding to my posts. Maybe he realizes just how over his head he is here.

  154. Wolfhound says:

    Jesus-jumping-christ-on-a-pogo-stick! John, are you even capable of forming your own opinion of anything or is your only course of action to c&p quote mines from AiG?

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

    They are #80 and #81, respectively.

    Lots of grade A creotard mendacity exposed. The Keith “quote” is an outright 100% pure fabrication, just like the Darwin Deathbed Confession from “Lady Hope”. Perhaps you should check your sources? Nah, too much bother, I know. Lyin’ fer jeeeezus is good for the soul, I guess.

  155. PatrickHenry says:

    PatrickHenry remains aloof! In fact, all this contentious posting has caused me to climb a tree and fling poo, in the manner of my ape ancestors. Oook, oook!

  156. Wolfhound says:

    PH, are you a Librarian? 🙂

  157. PatrickHenry says:

    No. What gave you that idea?

  158. Wolfhound says:

    Oook!

    Terry Pratchett reference. Sorry. 😉

  159. deadman_932 says:

    That was precious, Johnny McD “Skepticism.” No, no — Srsly. Thanks for the laughs.

    Now, choose one of these Aristotelian contradictories:

    (1) What corresponds to reality (truth) is that evolution as defined in biology exists.

    (2) What corresponds to reality (truth) is that evolution as defined in biology does not exist.

    Remember, you said you can’t avoid reality as Truth and the “Law of Non-Contradiction,” right? Gotta choose! Say hi to Heisenberg and Schroedinger for me, too. K? Thnx. Mwah!

  160. Noodlicious says:

    Wasn’t it Johnny Mac who was outed on that same Keith quote on one of the threads here a month or so back?
    He does have a habit of repeating the same crap even after it has been exposed as BS repeatedly!

  161. Wolfhound says:

    You betcha’, Noodles. I pointed out that bullpucky to him back on that thread, too. What are the odds that ABO or Johnny McD will bring up the bogus Darwin “quote” again at some future date? The creotard playbook is pretty limited.

  162. zygosporangia says:

    Old lies often are limited in creativity.

    It’s ironic that a Creationist would have little creativity. 😉

  163. firemancarl says:

    Skep and ABO. You, by way of this video, have been ; dumoed, crushed and most of all dahooned!

  164. Karl says:

    When you suppress all those higher brain functions in a desperate attempt to retain such a fantastic worldview when evidence to the contrary is literally in your face, creativity is usually the first to go. You’d think that with the failure of each incarnation, McD would try a different approach for each new username, but sadly, such a strategy is beyond his mental capacity.

  165. Skepticism says:

    Deadman – since I do not hold to a “correpondence view” of reality I choose neither. As is the usual around here, you guys love to put up false either/or situations. But my position would be similar to your #2, that reality (truth) is that evolution as defined in modern secular biology does not exist.

    fireman – PLEASE…. I don’t claim Hovind any more than you claim Watson, Dawkins, or Hitler. Appealing to authorities (whether from a positive or negative perspective) doesn’t win arguments.

    Karl – I am glad you have made so many references to brain functions, mental capacities, and creativity. The problem for you is that your evolutionary theory cannot sustain any of it since you are just a biochemical machine pecking on a keyboard. If you are going to attack someone in terms of the mental, you might want to have someone adjust your environment so that the right mental computations and responses can be initiated – i.e. you “realize” that as a biochemical machine you cannot truly think or create. Please see your nearest Skinnerian therapist for some truly “scientifically grounded” counseling. He or she will adjust your environment and by cause and effect relationship reprogram you.

  166. Karl says:

    So, if I’m reading your convoluted rambling about biochemical machines correctly, Skepy, I’m suppose to be some kind of uncreative lump of proteins slumped in front of a computer terminal and this is due to evolution how??? Now compare this with yourself, who has demonstrated the inability to make any argument against evolution beyond a myriad of copy/paste jobs from AiG, all of which were revealed to be either carefully edited to so they will intentionally be taken out of context, or outright fabricated accounts. And to present the exact same lies again and again under each new identity with all the same mannerisms and diction speaks volumes for the degenerative effect this creationism poison has on your mental state. The challenge has been made again and again to show us scientific evidence that contradicts evolution. This challenge has yet to be met. So, as a self-proclaimed skeptic of evolution, if you choose to reject evolution on scientific grounds, of which there are none, then technically, you don’t exist. Hence why we have been rolling around with philosophical and religious issues all week.

    I’m sorry if you perceive that evolution somehow made your life crappy by deeming you unfit to meet the challenges, and if, by finding God, your life was made a little better, good for you. Unfortunately, a belief in God is not a one-size fits all solution for all the suffering in the world (in fact, in some cases it is known to actually cause more suffering), and even among the faithful, not everyone chooses to worship Him with the same degree of fanaticism that you do. If you were honest to yourself and others, you wouldn’t be here trying to destroy the reputation and credibility of Christianity with your outed lies. Instead, you would be here whining about how evolution made your world a cruel and heartless place, and get all indignant when some of us make fun of you, not because of evolution, but because you are posting on an internet blog.

  167. deadman_932 says:

    “Skepticism” : You used the Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction and YOU said that “the more you try to clobber the law of non-contradiction the more it clobbers you.”

    Well, you’re right, it clobbered you.

    In his “Metaphysics,” Aristotle writes:

    “Now, in the first place, this is evident to those who define what truth and falsehood are. For indeed, the assertion that entity does not exist, and that nonentity does, is a falsehood…”

    In biology and genetics textbooks, which I cited, evolution is defined as allelic change. It exists, it is testable, measureable, quantifiable, repeatable and falsifiable, even by you, IF you had the ethics and morals to do so.

    But you say — based apparently only on misguided religious grounds and self-imposed ignorance — that evolution is false and does not exist. Yet it does. You ran right into the very Law of Non-Contradiction you claimed is universal. It clobbered you.

    End of story. You lose, on your own home turf.

  168. deadman_932 says:

    By the way, “Scepticism,” your use of quotemines — even after they were pointed out to be quotemines — is pretty low.


    Quote mining
    is defined as presenting “mined quotes” which are deliberately taken out of context, altered or otherwise twisted to fit the agenda of the person citing the alleged quote.

    As Wolfhound pointed out above, you were already told that the “Sir Arthur Keiths” quotemine that you used…was false. But you used it again, anyway. This is a form of lying. It is deliberate deception. But you did it anyway.

    Creationists usually claim the “quote” is (Keith, Arthur, forward to 100th anniversary edition of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, 1959). I have a copy of that anniversary edition. It’s not there.

    So, if you’re going to USE that quote, where is it from? Where did you read it? If YOU claim it WAS infact said by him…SHOW IT. Try being honest. Try being ethical. Try having some morals. Try being a Christian that adheres to Biblical concepts of personal responsibility.

    Why would YOU use it if it is shown to be a fabricated faked “quote” that was never said by Sir Arthur Keiths?

    ——————————

    After you manage to correct YOUR anti-Christian use of twisted words (lying), you can always take up this issue of the actual evidence for evolution at a site devoted to discussion and debate. There are many such sites, some of which are deliberately set up to be neutral.

    Examples include
    EvC Forums
    and
    Theology Web,
    or if you’re *really* bold, you can try
    Pandas Thumb’s “AtBC”,
    ,
    Internet Infidels Science Forums
    ,
    Richard Dawkins forums
    , or Talk Rational

    Heck, for you, I’ll even register at an evolution-unfriendly site like
    CARM
    just to get you to have the courage of your convictions.

    So, whaddya say there, “Skepticism?” Do you ACTUALLY have the ethics and honesty to debate these matters openly? Or are you typical of your Creationist, quote-mining, lyin’ for Jesus kind?

    You let me know, snookums.

  169. TwistedTensor says:

    Hai Nancy!

    you said

    “The universe resulted from a big-bang explosion forcing stars, planets and galaxies through space expanding from an originating point such that all that exists is the result of chance.”

    that’s pretty interesting i wonder how you would model an originating point like that given the considerations of the Friedman-Robertson Walker metric, which itself implies the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, which itself is quite contrary to what you just said.

    can you expand on this rather fascinating point that you have reaised plese?

    k thx

    oh could you also learn some grammar because the sentence of yours that I quoted is quite a mess.

  170. zygosporangia says:

    I think Nancy ran away, when she realized just how over her head she was here. She is yet another example of someone desperately attempting to look intelligent, despite having a deeply rooted anti-intellectual belief system.

  171. S.Scott says:

    Hey fc – did u get the info I sent?

  172. Skepticism says:

    Zygo’s remark “despite having a deeply rooted anti-intellectual belief system” is quite amusing when we stop and consider that evolutionary theory says his brain is the product of undirected cause and effect.

    Deadman, et al. – sorry to disappoint, but the quotes were taken from the book “Does God Believe in Atheists?” by John Blanchard. It’s funny that you guys only focus on the Keith quote but avoid the Watson quote claiming it is taken out of context. There is no way to take that statement out of context! It means what is says and says what it means. If only you guys were honest enought to say, “yep, one of our own said that and meant it.”

    Also, Deadman, if science can never arrive at absolute truth (because it uses incomplete induction and thus cannot arrive at an absolute) you must stop claiming evolution to be absolutely true. The concept could be shown to be false by the end of the day. Why do you keep insisting that evolution is absolutely true? And if it is not absolutely true, why do you insist at all?

  173. zygosporangia says:

    is quite amusing when we stop and consider that evolutionary theory says his brain is the product of undirected cause and effect.

    For the nth time, McDonald, evolution does not state that. It doesn’t even come close. Natural selection is a directed process.

    Creationists love to call evolution “random chance”, when natural selection is anything but random. If evolution were random, we would not see a bias towards fitness. We’d see complete Brownian motion, a distinct lack of progress. Evolution is not random. Mutation and change may be random, but that does not make evolution itself random.

    Likewise, the motion of charged particles between clouds is random. However, lightning is not random. Lightning may not necessarily be predictable, but it is anything but random. Lightning always connects between two areas of opposite potential. Likewise, mutations may be random, but evolution and natural selection is anything but random. It may not make a predictable choice. For instance, we have vestigial structures, just like lightning may have a zig-zag pattern. Some species or variants of a species go extinct, just like lightning has branches that don’t connect to anything.

    Your statement is made in willful ignorance. We have attempted numerous times to explain how your position is wrong, but you bleat on like a goat.

  174. Wolfhound says:

    So, you pulled your bullhockey quote mines from a Christian propaganda book published by “Evangelical Press” vanity press? Well, color us impressed with the argument from authority that rag must contain! NOT! I imagine it’s as useful and “truthy” as the garbage you c&p from AiG.

    Since you are incapable of following links, I’ll remove one more for you and give you the direct link to the Watson takedown: http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie031.html

    That you and your ilk think that finding a rather obscure person who said something over 70 years ago which was a small part of a more extensive explanation of a position as some sort of “proof” for your side is pathetic. If I had the inclination, I could likely find some religious figure somewhere saying that Jesus and the Bible are a bunch of fantastical rubbish. But arguments from authority (or obscurity) really don’t impress us pro-science/anti-nonsense types much. Fundiegelical anti-intellectual godbots are the ones who trot quotes and (more commonly) quote mines out like they are some sort of talisman to hold back evil. Also notable is the fact the creotard quote mines and context-benders are nearly always used after the death of the source so that clarification cannot be obtained. There have been some exceptions where a scientist was quote mined and/or his words taken out of context and the Liars For Jesus were publicly called out by the still-living author. I LOVE those!

    Now, about you trotting out the Keith quote, AGAIN, after it is shown to be patently FALSE and ABO’s “Lady Hope” crapola: If only you guys were honest enough to say, “yep, we pulled that out of our asses and are lying for Jesus”.

    BTW, John, you really should take DM’s advice and go to a real discussion board, like Talk Rational or any of those others. There are actually some people of like mind as you (scary thought) who are having fun there. Put your ass on the line and enter some real debates instead of peeing in our pool, wouldja’? Bok-bok-bok!!!

  175. Skepticism says:

    Zygo – you can only say that natural selection produces biological life better suited for survival. This in no way requires that those life forms are able to reason better or even apprehend reality better. It just requires that these life forms are more suited for surviving their environment. Life forms with greater strength could still survive better than more intelligent life forms. So what that means is your intelligence is not connected with natural selection. Intelligence is not a real factor when it comes to which life form can survive better than others.

    Wolfhound – you should read that book; it would benefit you immeasurably.
    BTW, when you stop attacking creationism and talk only evolution and science then I might bow out. But your attacks and remarks against creationism deserve to be answered as along as you make them.

  176. deadman_932 says:

    John McDonald, AKA “Skepticism, and an apparently unrepentant liar, wrote:

    “Deadman, if science can never arrive at absolute truth (because it uses incomplete induction and thus cannot arrive at an absolute) you must stop claiming evolution to be absolutely true. The concept could be shown to be false by the end of the day. Why do you keep insisting that evolution is absolutely true? And if it is not absolutely true, why do you insist at all?”

    Anyone who bothers will be able to scroll back in this thread to investigate the words bolded above…and see that John McDonald, AKA “Skepticism” is merely lying again.

    Readers will also notice that “Skepticism” expresses no repentance at all for his knowing use of false claims (lies).

    Readers will also notice that Creationists like “Skepticism” have no choice but to lie in such a manner.

    I have no problem with honest believers, I don’t attack honest believers. But I will always confront people like John McDonald who abuse religion to push for a political agenda — while using lies in a manner that Jesus would condemn.

    Creationists MUST use lies, because what they seek is stated right in the 1998 “Wedge Document,” an internal memorandum outlining creationist strategy and goals. What Creationists want is nothing less than a fundamentalist Christian Government in the United States — essentially a theocracy.

    Don’t believe me? Read about it here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

    And here, a .PDF of The Wedge Document itself:
    http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

    I will not stand by while the Bill of Rights AND The Constitution are spat upon and trampled by religious fanatics.

    Lies in the misguided name of religion remain lies.

  177. deadman_932 says:

    By the way, John McDonald, I can easily see why you’d avoid my invitation and debating me on the science — even in a forum like CARM that is hostile to evolution.

    You claim to be a philosophy major? I’m not. I’m just an ordinary archaeologist. But I have the facts on my side, and I wiped the floor with you in your own arena.

    That’s gotta hurt, so I understand your frantic yapping and attempts to save face.

    I also understand your fear of dealing with the facts…even in a neutral site or one that favors YOU…because YOU are clearly not capable of even a vague sort of competency.

  178. Wolfhound says:

    John, you should try reading “The God Delusion” to sort out your misguided belief in nonsense and any college level biology text (I recommend Miller’s) to sort out your ignorance of science. Both would benefit you immeasurably.

    When you stop attacking science by pushing forward supernatural woo-woo like creationism on a science blog, we’ll stop treating you like the troll you are. Your attacks and remarks against real science don’t deserve to be answered because they are asinine but we’ll continue to do so as long as you make them.

    Your failure to grasp scientific principles and refusal to admit that your deeply held religious delusions are all that you have to prop up your denial of reality are NOT valid reasons for rejecting universally accepted scientific facts. Religiously biased perceptions of “gaps” or “flaws” in ToE does NOT make supernaturalism/creationism correct. That you try to conflate the two is your own failing, not that of the science. Naturally, the clear thinking will “attack” creationism since it’s NOT science and not a valid substitute for science in the real world.

  179. zygosporangia says:

    So what that means is your intelligence is not connected with natural selection. Intelligence is not a real factor when it comes to which life form can survive better than others.

    BZZT! Wrong.

    As any anthropologist could tell you, intelligence is THE reason why primitive humanoids survived. In fact, there was a strong selection bias to make us more intelligent. Intelligence can be seen as a meta-adaptation. The more intelligent a life form is, the quicker it can adapt to changing situations. We are so able to adapt that we can live in environments that would have been hostile to our ancestors.

    The reason for this is intelligence. We learn from experience, we can reason, we can grasp abstract concepts, we can devise strategy, we can memorize what is edible and what is toxic, we can make tools and shelters, we can transfer our ability to adapt to others through communication.

    That gives us a distinct evolutionary advantage.

  180. Skepticism says:

    Deadman wrote:”By the way, John McDonald, I can easily see why you’d avoid my invitation and debating me on the science — even in a forum like CARM that is hostile to evolution. You claim to be a philosophy major? I’m not. I’m just an ordinary archaeologist. But I have the facts on my side, and I wiped the floor with you in your own arena.”

    Deadman, you must be back on the crack if you think you have in any way, shape, or form wiped the floor with me. You only embarrassed yourself when you challenged the LONC. You got called on it, and then had to tap dance all the way backstage for a breather. You then turn around and like a 5 year old claim that the LONC clobbered me. If you really want to argue do it right here so all your FCS buddies can see that you are not as competent as you are prideful. Btw, I never claimed to be a philosophy major. Once again, if you can’t be absolutely sure that evolution is absolutely true since your whole rationale is based upon incomplete induction, then please drop the absolute confidence and other absolute assertions because you do not know what a day will bring forth. If you were unbiased you would already know inductively that evolution as a theory can’t stand. DNA and other irreducibly complex biological mechanisms have sealed the fate of the theory.

    Wolfhound – looks like we have reached an impasse.

  181. Skepticism says:

    Zygo – sorry dude, but one good case of E. Coli could wipe us all out, and E.Coli isn’t very intelligent.

  182. Wolfhound says:

    Dear Silly Person:

    You believe absolutely that creationism is factual. Your completely biased basis for this is perceived “gaps” and “flaws” in ToE which you attempt to prop up with your ancient book of Bronze Age goatherder myths plagiarized from earlier primitive cultures. Yes, the one with the talking snake in it. And the zombie.

    Irreducible complexity is bollocks, as anybody who is not drinking Kreashunist KoolAid is aware. This bit of jolly good silliness has been dismantled by actual, working scientists who have taken Behe behind the woodshed and whupped him but good. I know it’s difficult to let go of cherished fairy tales fed to you at your mama’s knee since birth but Santa Claus ain’t real ’cause reindeer don’t fly, among other proofs. Please go educate yourself, not that I think it’s possible for you to do so since you are so far down the rabbit hole: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

    Actual science has sealed the fate of MagicManInTheSkyDidIt.

  183. Wolfhound says:

    Index to Creationist Claims, or, Why we All Laugh At You When You Recycle the Same, Tired CreoCrap
    http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

  184. ivorygirl says:

    If you were unbiased you would already know inductively that evolution as a theory can’t stand. DNA and other irreducibly complex biological mechanisms have sealed the fate of the theory.

    Oh No !!!, not the “irreducibly complex” mantra, Skept you have hit a new low, ROTFLMAO
    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html

  185. deadman_932 says:

    And once again, John McDonald, demonstrated liar…

    (1) Avoids public repentance for his public lies (doesn’t even TRY to refute that)

    (2) Claims “victory” despite using demonstrated lies and multiple fallacies in his “arguments”… (Again, unacknowledged/unrefuted by him. Yo, ever deal with that QM point *without* using a fallacy, junior? No? Of course not… that’s apparent from the thread).

    (3) Avoids any agreement to my direct challenge to debate — even on an anti-evolution site.

    Color me unsurprised. A dishonest creationist. Shocking!

  186. deadman_932 says:

    So, you weren’t a philosophy major John McDonald (“Skepticism”)…what’d you major in ? Personally, I’m kinda glad it’s not philosophy, because you’d have to ask for your money back.

    I like this claim of yours, “Skepticism” :

    John McDonald “DNA and other irreducibly complex biological mechanisms have sealed the fate of the theory.”

    Care to show how DNA is demonstrably “irreducible?” This is science, baby, you have to put some evidence up and support it completely .

    Ever hear of RNA? It works just fine. Do you even know what “irreducible” means IN CONTEXT?

  187. deadman_932 says:

    By the way, John McDonald AKA “skepticism,”… I really hope you stick around on this thread.

    You’re a fine example of a willing-to-lie creationist, which makes it easier all the way around when you’re advertising it here.

  188. zygosporangia says:

    Zygo – sorry dude, but one good case of E. Coli could wipe us all out, and E.Coli isn’t very intelligent.

    Be that as it may, it still does not mean that intelligence does not confer a serious evolutionary advantage.

    Your response isn’t even a valid refutation of my point. Could we be hit by a new predator or parasite? Certainly. However, whereas most species would require thousands of years to evolve a valid response to a new threat, our evolved intelligence gives us the ability to adapt quickly.

    Don’t believe me? We have vaccines for viruses, we’ve discovered how to use penicillin and cipro. That’s using our intelligence, our supreme evolutionary advantage.

  189. Noodlicious says:

    “DNA and other irreducibly complex biological mechanisms have sealed the fate of the theory.”

    You know about DNA Mac? Good let’s hear your evidence on how “DNA and other irreducibly complex biological mechanisms have sealed the fate of the theory.”

    Johnny Mac is a creation religion salesman who is here throwing out unsupported statements in an effort to stop the current customers from learning factual information and straying.
    He has little to no scientific knowledge, but based on the premise that his target customers/readers will be uneducated and ignorant of the relevant concepts, he continues to make vacuous unsupported statements on subjects he knows nothing about.

    So let’s have some evidence from you to back up your statements Skep!

    If creationism is so intellectually honest, why is it necessary that it’s proponents continually deceive and lie in the effort to defend it?

    Why is it necessary for creationists to resort
    to twisting and misrepresenting the facts if creationism is the *Truth*? Why all the deceitful quote mining?
    Why all the straw men? Why Skep?

    How is it that proponents have to lie so much to tell the “truth”?

    Was Nancy one of your sheeple in training Skep? Out for her first science site trolling expedition maybe?

  190. Noodlicious says:

    Few posts came in while I was typing. 🙂

  191. Noodlicious says:

    Wolfhound

    “This bit of jolly good silliness has been dismantled by actual, working scientists who have taken Behe behind the woodshed and whupped him but good.”

    Then there was Dr. Dr. Dr. Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter”……… LOL 🙂

    deadman_932
    “You’re a fine example of a willing-to-lie creationist, which makes it easier all the way around when you’re advertising it here.”

    My sentiments too 🙂

  192. PatrickHenry says:

    Still remaining aloof. Lurking …

  193. Noodlicious says:

    Hehehehehe…
    Any spare room up on that branch Patrick?

  194. deadman_932 says:

    Watch out, Noodlicious! He’s a poo-flinger.

    Not to be confused with the unrelated Creationist “POOF-Lingers”

  195. Noodlicious says:

    Speaking of DNA, another question for the anti-evilution creos:

    How is it that biomedical researchers are (very successfully I might add!) elucidating genetic aberrations underlying genetic diseases, including cancers, via comparative genomic analysis guided by evolutionary theory?

  196. Noodlicious says:

    Poo-flinging sounds like fun :p

  197. Noodlicious says:

    After all, billions of babies can’t all be “wrong”!

  198. Karl says:

    If it were McD/Skep’s true intention to promote his religion, he wouldn’t make such a scummy and dishonest representation. His contributions are solely limited to spectacular displays of broken logic and habitual lying and not the scientific evolution-refuting evidence which for now, simply does not exist. Maybe he’s just getting his persecution fix for the day… or is a closet atheist getting off on the religion bashing…

  199. Skepticism says:

    Wolfhound – please, don’t even pretend that the argument from irreducible complexity has been refuted. You can claim it all day long and appeal to whatever evolutionary quack on crack you desire, but the sad truth is that even in the instance of the flagellum, just like Darwin tried to explain the gradual formation of the different parts of the eye, it is impossible to imagine the various differing parts coming together gradually and to fit and serve one another perfectly for a specified and unified purpose. You know that DNA is a complete language system with intact code reader. There is NO WAY that happened without direction, without intention, and without information from intelligence. It’s time to take off the mask of atheism and confess, ok?

    Deadman (or woman, since you use terms like “snookums” and other terms of endearment) – you claim I make fallacious arguments, but guess what? They are fallacies only if the LONC is presupposed. Since you don’t presuppose the LONC, you have nothing to say in regard to possible fallacies. Furthermore, the claim that my arguments or logical fallacies must be proven by demonstrating false premises, invalid conclusions, etc. I haven’t seen you provide those (because you can’t in that my arguments are not fallacies and because if you refuse to admit the LONC you can’t do logic anyway)….

    Noodle – please see comments above. It’s not really hard to understand unless you don’t want to face the evidence and pretend that there is no such thing as irreducible complexity. I suppose if you looked at a car engine you could, with your ways of argumentation, conceive of a way that the engine and its parts came together gradually over time yet are still perfectly in sync with one another so that the combustion of gasoline can be achieved. Go ahead. Let’s hear your explanation for a car engine. Or better yet, explain the slow and gradual evolution of my computer. Come on, the flagellum and DNA are just biochemical machines. Guess what? A car engine and my computer are machines. Go ahead. I can’t wait to hear this!

    Zygo – you have admitted my point. Yet intelligence cannot prepare for the unknown, and how many times has the unknown wiped out the evolutionary advances of intelligence over the past 4 billion years or so?

  200. deadman_932 says:

    Oh, man, you really are just a little pinata of tard-iliciousness. You get smacked and it just pours out of you.

    Making claims like “DNA is irreducible” is YOUR statement to support with …y’know…evidence. YOU saying it doesn’t make it so.

    I’d love for you to cite the Intelligent Design literature supporting your claim…because even THEY are not stupid enough to say what you did.

    Oh, and hey, genius…a fallacy is still a fallacy whether I accept your premises or not. That’s the nature of LOGICAL fallacies.

    Man, you really don’t have ANY business arguing anything except maybe how badly mommy tied your shoes this morning.
    s

  201. zygosporangia says:

    On that note, I think this thread is dead. 😉

  202. deadman_932 says:

    Here…TRY to actually learn something BEFORE you shoot your mouth off about things that you DON’T know about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

    Here’s a phrase I know find useful: “FIRST understand, THEN criticise”

    For any Christian readers — what “skepticism” (John McDonald) is doing is PRECISELY analogous to a person wanting to argue about some Bible passage…when they’ve NEVER READ IT.

    It would be clear to anyone who’s read the Bible that Psalm 23 is not about baseball. If a person like “Skepticism” decided to come up to you and make some outrageous claim like this — and REFUSED to deal with what it DOES say… you’d know they never read it.

    Similarly, because I DO know the arguments from the Creationist/ID camp AND the actual science…I know that “skepticism” isn’t JUST lying here, as I showed previously…he’s lying about stuff that he’s CLEARLY never read on.

  203. deadman_932 says:

    Above should be: “Here’s a phrase I know to be useful” and the comment (“FIRST understand, THEN criticize”) was by Per Ahlberg over at Talk Rational. Cheers.

  204. PatrickHenry says:

    zygosporangia Says:

    On that note, I think this thread is dead.

    Wouldn’t hurt to lock it up. There are over 200 comments here, and from what I can see up in my tree limb, nothing much has been accomplished. The blog has about five newer articles.

  205. Jonathan Smith says:

    I agree with Patrick, perhaps it’s time to move on to another thread,I think we have worn this one down to the bone.

  206. Noodlicious says:

    Skep is asked to present evidence to support his claims of “irreducible complexity” of biological systems and instead starts waffling on about cars and computers! Surprise surprise!

    Yawn…

    So Skep, exactly how is a car engine or computer
    equated to meiotic recombination (in sexual reproduction) and resulting heritable genetic information passed to offspring in biological reproductive systems?

    Simply using the “machines analogy” doesn’t cut any scientific mustard.

    Massive FAIL!

    You’re obviously getting desperate!

  207. Noodlicious says:

    “I think we have worn this one down to the bone.

    Yep! Same old, same old!

  208. Wolfhound says:

    Skep, are you a druggy? You seem obsessed with “crack”. Lots of references to using crack, getting off of crack, being on crack, etc. Is that how you became a liar for Jesus? Replaced one unhealthy, mindless addiction (drugs) with another (Jesus)? It’s okay; I actually work with a woman who was drug user, had three illegitimate kids, shop lifted, all sorts of bad little things. Now she’s a morally superior, holier-than-thou, born again hypocrite who backed into a car in a parking lot (while I was a passenger) on company business and took off like a bat out of hell, rationalizing that since it was a Lincoln she damaged, the owner could afford to fix the car. Her real reason was that she didn’t have auto insurance, which is not only against company policy but also against Florida law. When I discretely mentioned it to our boss, so that he could quietly get her to insure her car without the corporate head-honchos finding out, she had the gall to confront me and say that “God told her to forgive [me]”. See, instead of following the law and insuring her car, she was spending her money on Christian “retreats”. Such wonderful priorities and morality and honesty. Which, I assume, she gets from her Creator. Snort!

    But I digress…Your “arguments” are, predictably, the same old moronic AiG regurgitation of libeling real, working scientists who are light-years beyond your gnat-like intellect, and arguments from incredulity. “I don’t get it, therefore, Goddidit”. PA-thetic!

  209. Skepticism says:

    So funny. You guys look at a car engine, a computer, or your own watch (to go back to Paley – his argument is still great) and say these things are designed by an intelligence, complete with blueprints, intended functions and goals, the whole nine yards. Then you look at a flagellum and say, oh, yeah that happened by random mutations and natural selection. Now that is truly pathetic. It is nothing more than an attempt to excuse yourself for denying an Intelligent Creator.

  210. Wolfhound says:

    Once again, what is pathetic is you looking at something in nature, scratching your head, and saying, “Me no know how that come to be here. Big man in sky must make!” Very credulous. Very intellectually lazy. Very typical for an anti-science creotard. You run along and go talk to your imaginary friend, now, kbye.

  211. Skepticism says:

    Oh, let me change the analogy. When you look at your bike engine, you know someone designed it. Now all you have to do is carry that over into your biology. And the one about Deadman’s “wife”, it’s not that hard. Language requires the LONC. Because of the LONC, words can have only one meaning in a given context. Deny the LONC, and words can mean whatever you wish in a given context. Hence, I read the words as Deadman’s shameful criticisms of his “wife.” But since words can have other meanings at the same time once the LONC is denied, then he was also critical of himself as well as you also. Now you get it? Too bad I sold my 1100. I could dust you on the street like I did here 🙂

  212. zygosporangia says:

    Dust whom where?

    I think McDonald has gone off the deep end. His ability to make any sort of coherent statement is failing.

  213. zygosporangia says:

    Yet intelligence cannot prepare for the unknown, and how many times has the unknown wiped out the evolutionary advances of intelligence over the past 4 billion years or so?

    Hmm… I think McDonald is getting confused. He has apparently forgotten that he believes that the earth is less than ten thousand years old.

    As for whether intelligence can prepare for the unknown or not… do you wear a seatbelt? If so, why? You don’t know whether you are going to need it.

  214. deadman_932 says:

    The HONEST reader will note the strawMEN inherent in “Skepticism’s” posts :

    He has stated in this thread that *I* have denied the validity of the Law of Non-Contradiction in ALL cases, especially whenever he wants to pretend to make a point.

    There is no way for any rational reader to look back in this thread and come to this conclusion that I have denied the validity of the LoNC in ALL cases — yet “Skepticism” is attempting to assert this (false, Strawman, fallacious) “conclusion.” Here he says:

    Skepticism” Wrote:
    “since you dismiss the LONC, then I can suppose the opposite of your own statement at the same time”

    This is just yet another example of dishonesty on his part,like so many others in this thread.

    Read back through my posts paying close attention to my statements and the standard writing tools I used. The HONEST reader will remember that I used examples of “VIOLATIONS” of the LoNC… ( with “violations” in quotes, meaning I didn’t neccessarily accept them)

    But “skepticism” chooses to lie–saying that I HAVE simply rejected the Law of Non-Contradiction, period.

    From this strawman, John McDonald (“Skepticism”) leaps to another fallacy: that it would then AUTOMATICALLY invalidate any points I might make in English!!

    In straightforward terms: “Skepticism” is ONLY operating by fallacy. He created a strawman to slay and pretends to have drawn great meaning from this.. as he proceeds on to yet another derived strawman-fallacy.

    One can question the validity of the law of non-contradiction in a given case *without* rejecting the axiomatic use of the LoNC in ALL cases. If I point to a SPECIFIED set of problems for the Law of Non-Contradiction it does not mean that one somehow AUTOMATICALLY rejects the utility of the LoNC in ALL CASES
    —————

    I’m in the process of writing up an examination of this thread, just for giggles, to point out just HOW dishonest John McDonald (“Skepticism”) is.

    I’ll be finished in a little bit, then post it up today, to be used for others to to link to to show the duplicity and sheer intellectual ugliness of the Creationist program.

  215. deadman_932 says:

    In regards to the Law of Non-Contradiction — For anyone interested in the LoNC, there are 3 “Laws of Logic”. Accepted notation for each : Law of Non-Contradiction is ~ (p & ~p) ; the Law of the Excluded Middle is (p or ~p) ; the Law of Identity is (p -> p)

    These are all are logical truths (tautologies) that are therefore logically equivalent ( and the expression of their equivalence is ALSO a tautology or logical truth).

    (1) I said that epistemologically, I am *generally* a “Correspondist” — I believe that things can be known “true” must accord with reality. This is Aristotle’s position as well.

    (2) I said that Aristotle developed the Law of Non-Contradiction as an axiom within propositional logic, to be used in specified propositional frameworks. Other rules are possible in other Logic systems– and are used when it necessary. There are three-valued logics that allow for undecided, both, neither, etc., and probabilistic logics that allow for degrees of truth.

    Just because human cognition has an inherent tendency to categorise in an ‘either/or’ fashion, (it’s either p or it’s not p) doesn’t mean that this is the way of the universe itself. What would be needed is for John McDonald to actually deal with the problems I gave him.

    In a related issue that is VERY relevant to this notion of a “universally applicable LoNC — notice that “Skepticism” has consistently refused to deal with the problematic example of of wave-particle duality — WITHOUT resorting to fallacies, like his laughably irrelevant claim that “there MIGHT be some hidden cause and effect at work that we haven’t discovered” (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, begging the question). This notion of his is completely irrelevant to an electron in the process of passing through the famous “Double slit” experiment at time t

    The HONEST reader will also remember that I used examples of “VIOLATIONS” of the LoNC… (“violations” in quotes, meaning I didn’t neccessarily accept them) as I stated in the previous post.

    I believe that it is true that most contradictions (paradoxes) arise via linguistic vagueness and can be avoided through PRECISE definition – i.e. looking at only a subset of the problem, or using a highly refined, technical definition of the problem.

    BUT…I would argue however that specific contradictions are *not* vague at all, such as light being both a particle and a wave at some time t. It is this example, and related examples like Schroedinger’s Cat, etc., that point to the potential limitations of the “LoNC” as universally valid.

    On a relevant aside: Godel had some interesting things to say about formal axiomatic systems that can generate “problems” that are not resolvable within that system — I’ll set this aside as I strongly doubt little “Skepticism” could handle that in any meaningful way, either.

    Additionally, there are problems called “sorites” that I could have used to illustrate “problems” with the Law of Non-Contradiction. Example: if I draw a circle on the ground and put one foot in it…I am both “in” the circle and “outside” the circle simultaneously.

    Some would argue that the instances when my body is fully OUTSIDE the circle is 1. Instances when I am INSIDE the circle = 1.

    BUT, the Number of possible instances when I am BOTH = essentially infinite (one hair outside, one toe nail tip, more of a toe nail, most of one toe nail). This can be really funny when people believe in “spirits” and what that might mean if your body is in one place and “you” are not.
    ————————-
    As I stated, these are merely “violations” of the LoNC that are meant to explore how well a person can reason — how they use logic and reject the use of fallacies or avoid the pitfalls of language.

    “Skepticism” has failed in all regards. The list of fallacies he’s employed in discussions here include equivocation, Argumentam ad Ignoratiam, Strawman and Begging the question, among others. He’s shown a direct and knowing willingness to lie. He’s demonstrated a real lack of ability in just comprehending his own language.

    In other words, he’s a Creationist.

  216. PatrickHenry says:

    deadman_932 Says:

    I believe that it is true that most contradictions (paradoxes) arise via linguistic vagueness and can be avoided through PRECISE definition – i.e. looking at only a subset of the problem, or using a highly refined, technical definition of the problem.

    Probably true. Wave-particle duality used to drive me crazy — until I decided that those are not necessarily mutually-exclusive categories. We had always assumed that light’s nature was to be either wave or particle; but it now appears (at least in the case of light) that a wave can be a kind of particle, and vice versa.

    A true contradiction would be if light were simultaneously light and not-light. But we must conclude that being simultaneously wave and particle isn’t such a contradiction.

  217. Wolfhound says:

    I’m not DM’s wife but I can say that I looooove him. 🙂 Excellent take-down, sir. I can hear the “whooshing” noise of it sailing harmlessly over Johnny Mac’s head, though.

    Regarding the silly argument from design and Johnny Mac’s lamenting the fact that he sold his bike: Johnny Boy, I happen to own a 600cc bike. I know exactly who created it. It says “Yamaha” on the tank AND on the faring. No mystery there. Naturally, you will then, in what you perceive as an “Ah-HA!” moment, proclaim that DNA is your “Creator’s” form of product labeling. Very, very silly.

    BTW, I also own a Dodge Magnum SRT-8 (the BIG Hemi!) and will gleefully smoke you with that’un. Right after I spend $80 filling it up. 🙁

  218. deadman_932 says:

    Okay, back to “Skepticism’s” (John McDonald’s) last post. I’m amused.

    “Skepticism” Says:
    “Language requires the LONC. Because of the LONC, words can have only one meaning in a given context. ”

    This is indicative of the shallow, dishonest way in which John McDonald (AKA “Skepticism “) operates.

    I’m going to do something here, just for fun. I’m going to summarize the thread, up to the point of the discussion on “The Law of Non-Contradiction.”

    I’ll be noting instances of John McDonald’s Creationist Tactics. I’m going to do this so people can always link to this post and the ones above to show how dishonest and duplicitous this guy is, and to illustrate Creationist tactics.

    (1) Scroll back in the thread and note the numbers of direct questions and critical observations that “Skepticism” has deliberately avoided. Instead, he presents this bogus argument above as though it has some great deep meaning or relevance

    (2) Ask yourself why “Skepticism” would do this.

    This thread was originally about discussing the dishonesty of Ken Ham in trying to brainwash children with his propaganda. It then degenerated into claims about Logic and the Law of Non-Contradiction. (LoNC). So, how did we get to there?

    STAGE I.
    Skepticism Says: https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=670#comment-90298
    “You cannot consistently believe what the Bible teaches and what evolutionary theory teaches to be true at the same time.”

    ————————-

    STAGE II
    I then posted up definitions from the National Academy of Science on evolution and what science IS : https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=670#comment-90462

    ————————

    From there, “Skepticism’s” first move is to imply that Science is somehow incapable of arriving at “truth”

    HE DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS, IMPORTANT TO NOTE:

    (1) He equivocates between

    [a] the fact of evolution as allelic change, and
    [b] the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the fact of allelic change.

    This is a common tactic, switching between fact and theory as though one was automatically the other. Creationists use this because they wish to reduce “Theory” to a guess, then they substitute the fact of Allelic change FOR “theory” in a subsequent sentence and pretend both are equally “guesses”

    You can see him doing this here

    ” Skepticism” Wrote: ”
    You can’t get to reality with such theories as defined by the Academy, only appearances. Thus you can never arrive at truth.”

    Then his subsequent post here

    ” Skepticism” Wrote:
    “Thank you for that admission – since science does not allow for absolute truth claims, please quit acting as if evolution is an absolute truth.”

    Isn’t that interesting? Also note that RIGHT AWAY I warned him on this, here

    Deadman_932 Wrote:
    “Allelic change is the fact (and truth) of evolution. The Theory is a different matter. Stop conflating them. K? Thnx.”

    But he kept on doing it anyway. This is dishonest.

    (2) He equivocates between
    [a] “truth” (science’s provisional ‘truth”) and
    [b] “Truth” (eternal immutable “Truth” with a capital “T” ) as claimed in religion / metaphysics

    This, even though I explain it many times — from my first NAS post onwards (see above).
    For instance here

    Deadman_932 Wrote:
    “The framework of science is not based on eternal, immutable TRUTHS with capitals. It is based on the notion of truths that are subject to change. What is true today may not be true tomorrow, hence there are no immutable truths

    and here

    Deadman_932 Wrote:
    “This use of shallow sophistry and simplistic binary thinking seems to be essential to the fundamentalist mindset. He’s used to making claims of absolute truth…as though his pronouncements on it can change an axiomatic system or create immutable “Truths” (capital ‘t’) about a dynamic natural world that moves through time, changing as it goes. He lives in a mental world of imagined Platonic ideals

    ————–

    STAGE III

    Skepticism Says: https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=670#comment-90520
    Deadman – reality is one and can only be one way – the way it is. It cannot be one way and a completely different way at the same time (Law of Non-contradiction). So reality is absolute. It can never be relative. It is objective, not subjective… You are trying to live outside the law of non-contradiction, but the REALITY is that you can’t.

    Above is his first mention of the Law of Non-Contradiction. From there, he proceeds to build his strawman, claiming that I HAVE rejected the Law of Non-Contradiction entirely.

    My posts above this one then come into the picture.

    It would have been much more fun to discuss why Ken Ham IS wrong and present the mountain of data for evolution. Instead, John McDonald wants to play games.

    There’s an underlying pretense to the Creationist “distract and avoid” tactics. What they TRY to do is :

    (1) act as though if they can somehow “disprove” one part of Evolutionary theory, they’ve disproven all of it…AND

    (2) that IF they can “disprove” evolution (and paint Science with a tar-brush) then the default “answer” must therefore be Creationism. This is Begging the Question, too, among other things.

    Notice that McDonald never really tries to discuss the science in any depth. He can’t, I’d wager. Hell, I’d bet my house on it.

    Notice how he tries to issue authoritarian pronouncements without ever backing them up.

    Notice his flagrant (and barnyard fragrant) use of knowing lies and fallacies.

    Yeah, as I said above…that’s Creationism. All smoke and mirrors and breathtaking inanity.

    That’s why they lose in court.

  219. deadman_932 says:

    Wolfhound Says:

    I’m not DM’s wife but I can say that I looooove him.

    Likewise!

  220. zygosporangia says:

    Well, McDonald does survive off of the donations of his congregation. Since literal interpretation of his bible is crucial to his particular church, lying to protect his income is expected.

  221. Skepticism says:

    Deadman – you insult your readers when you attempt to summarize and analyze arguments. Rather, you should let the reader come to his or her own conclusion. You should not ASSUME that they require assistance. Now, in regard to FCS members, I could see how they might need help. They could not even understand how the LONC relates to language. And since you like to point out that you do not dismiss the LONC at all times, I want you to realize that THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!! If you dismiss it at ANY TIME you clearly have checked out of the realm of sanity. There are no violations of the LONC. Did you get that? Do you want me to analyze that for you? Let me summarize. The LONC cannot be violated.

    I would also add that Creationists do not deny that there is change in biological life forms. Creationists deny that these changes are due to the increase of useful information (genetic instructions) which benefit a creature. Rather, mutations and natural selection reduce the amount of information/instructions. So there is change, yet the change is not in the direction evolutionists lie about and desire.

    Wolfhound – actually, your Yamaha 600 was created by a freak whirlwind in a junkyard. The pieces of metal and plastic smashed together over and over until finally they all fell into place. That’s right, I avoided quoting Hoyle (since you guys will say I am quote mining, etc. ad nauseum) and applied it to your situation. And that is what you have to stand on when considering the origin of life on earth from an evolutionary perspective.

    And, the remark that you love one another – let’s put that in the language of evolutionary biology – you have certain biochemical reactions and that is it. You’re machines. Come on, you can’t love anymore than you can think or have a volition. Go ahead Zygo, I know this should provoke you off the branch.

  222. PatrickHenry says:

    zygosporangia Says:

    Well, McDonald does survive off of the donations of his congregation. Since literal interpretation of his bible is crucial to his particular church, lying to protect his income is expected.

    Which reminds me of something Emerson wrote:

    If I know your sect, I anticipate your argument. I hear a preacher announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of his church. Do I not know beforehand that not possibly can he say a new and spontaneous word? Do I not know that, with all this ostentation of examining the grounds of the institution, he will do no such thing? Do I not know that he is pledged to himself not to look but at one side, — the permitted side, not as a man, but as a parish minister? He is a retained attorney, and these airs of the bench are the emptiest affectation. Well, most men have bound their eyes with one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of these communities of opinion. This conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true. Their two is not the real two, their four not the real four; so that every word they say chagrins us, and we know not where to begin to set them right.

    Source: Self Reliance.

  223. deadman_932 says:

    “Skepticism” shrieked:
    “There are no violations of the LONC. Did you get that? Do you want me to analyze that for you?”

    ———–

    And here’s I’ve merely asked you to do just that for the examples I listed…what, five, six times? And you STILL HAVEN’T?!?! Hahaha. Like I said, fraud — hot air, smoke and mirrors without substance.

  224. deadman_932 says:

    Should be: “here I’ve merely…”

    I wouldn’t want to distract young “Skepticism” from his task by providing him with another shiny object to focus on.

  225. zygosporangia says:

    Go ahead Zygo, I know this should provoke you off the branch.

    The taunts of children rarely provoke me to do anything.

    You can’t answer even the most basic of questions, nor can you refute anything that I have said. You don’t even try, you just attempt poorly to switch topics.

    How can anything you say provoke me to do anything? All I read from you is incoherent rambling and desperation to shove your god into any gap you can find. You aren’t interested in debate, and honestly, I don’t know why you even bother posting your drivel here.

    If you want to close your mind and your eyes to reality, pray to your false idols, and read your book of mysticism then hats off to you. Just go do it somewhere else already.

  226. deadman_932 says:

    I’ll say I really liked this bit of “advice” from you, John McDonald:

    “Deadman – you insult your readers when you attempt to summarize and analyze arguments. Rather, you should let the reader come to his or her own conclusion. You should not ASSUME that they require assistance. ”

    ——————————————-

    It was for concise, compact links to your duplicity — as I stated in my post — demonstrating again that comprehension is not your forte. But what was especially telling in your last post was that you still ignore your own lying, fallacies, and illogic. No fight from you at all on the major points I made…just more avoidance and irrelevancies from you.

    Pay attention, I’ll try to use smaller words. I said that the problems I listed about the LoNC were “problems.” I also said I think the problem of QM is more significant than you pretend to “know.”

    Your whole “LoNC” schtick is drawn directly from your Presuppositionalist hero. Gordon Clark. Let’s be honest, I’m a lot more confident in the idea that you just don’t think very much at all about things you regurgitate, so it’s not really “pretense” of ignorance on your part; you really ARE clueless on your own.

  227. Wolfhound says:

    You can tell when he’s got his back up. He falls back into his same, tired, “you’re all mindless machines” or whatever because he is too scared to contemplate a universe where he is not the pennacle of creation with a big sky daddy to watch over him and make him feel all warm and fuzzy. That he’s just another animal with no “ultimate purpose” beyond living long enough to reproduce (horrible thought, that!), thereby continuing the species, is terrifying to him. Me, I’m perfectly fine with it and am having loads of fun and a fulfilling life along the way. Very sad that he needs to believe he’s special and that it takes a belief in magic to make it work for him and a belief in a “soul” to set the whole delusion in motion.

    Yep, it all comes down to philosphy for him since the science is against him. Sad, sad, little man.

  228. zygosporangia says:

    because he is too scared to contemplate a universe where he is not the pennacle of creation

    Heh. Pinnacle of creation? You apparently haven’t seen his MySpace page. Of anything, I’d say he’s a missing link. 😉

  229. Wolfhound says:

    Got that link to the MySpace page? I’m sure it would prove enlightening. 🙂

  230. zygosporangia says:

    Here you go:

    myspace.com/jms10sov

  231. zygosporangia says:

    His myspace page link is available on his church website, FWIW.

  232. Noodlicious says:

    “Notice that McDonald never really tries to discuss the science in any depth. He can’t, I’d wager. Hell, I’d bet my house on it.
    Notice how he tries to issue authoritarian pronouncements without ever backing them up.
    Notice his flagrant (and barnyard fragrant) use of knowing lies and fallacies.”

    Yep! He’s well versed in standard creationist tactics.

    http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/tactics.htm

    That’s all they have!

  233. Noodlicious says:

    The following seem to have been written with regard to our Johnny troll.

    1) INTERPRET ANY UNCERTAINTY ANYWHERE IN SCIENCE AS IMPLYING TOTAL UNCERTAINTY EVERYWHERE IN SCIENCE.

    Science is by nature tentative. Anything on the cutting edge is going to have considerable uncertainty attached to it. Anything science is certain about now will be found to have had considerable uncertainty attached to it at some point in history. As soon as any evidence of any uncertainty is found, present it and claim that scientists therefore don’t know what they are talking about.

    3) SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO YOUR CRITICS ANY WAY YOU CAN.

    Remember, your position is indefensible. The only way you can present anything like a compelling argument is to make your opponents look ignorant. Force them to prove everything they say. If they refuse to accept the burden of proof, force them to prove they don’t have to prove what they say.

    6) USE “CAFETERIA SCIENCE”

    If you look around diligently enough, some scientist somewhere will say something that will bolster your case. Even at the rate of one oddball case in a million, you can accumulate literally thousands of quotes if you mine a long enough time period. In true cafeteria style, you can seize upon these quotes and ignore the science that refutes these quotes.

    9) WHEN CORNERED, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

    Always have material from several different subjects ready to present. When you find yourself out of your depth in one, be ready to duck into another. Chances are, your opponent will not be an expert in that other subject. This is particularly true if you choose subjects that are distantly related, such as cellular biology and astrophysics. Ideally, you will have set this dodge up while you have been burying your opponent in quotes.

    10) WHEN REALLY CORNERED, CALL NAMES.

    With sufficient imagination, any of society’s ills may be attributed to the beliefs of “evolutionists”. Ignore the fact that most, if not all, of these ills existed long before Darwin ever drew breath. Asserting links between evolution and such movements as Marxism, Communism and Nazism is a popular form of mud slinging. If you have been making use of technique #7, accuse your opponent of being as bad as the people you’ve been citing.

    This is even more effective if you can manage to goad your opponent into a display of impatience, disdain or temper using any of these techniques.

    11) WHEN AN EXPLANATION SHOWS YOU TO BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG, IGNORE THE EXPLANATION AND REASSERT THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.

    This works on the principle that “Any Lie Repeated Often Enough Will Be Believed”. It’s also a very good way of goading your opponents into bouts of ill temper.

    Being aware of the techniques Creationists use may be of some help, should you ever find yourself engaged in a “discussion” with one of them. The entire purpose of these techniques is to keep the audience from noticing that the Creationist never actually defends his own position, but merely attacks everyone else’s.”

    Audiences are much more likely to notice what’s happening when it’s pointed out to them.

  234. Wolfhound says:

    Love it! He has his profile set to “private”. 🙂 Funny, I expected him to be a lot younger…

  235. zygosporangia says:

    Well, there’s a big difference between physical age and mental age.

  236. S.Scott says:

    Wow! I thought this thread was over! I thought it was over after John Smith’s comment. I’m glad I checked back – unfortunately, my firewall blocks myspace (teenager at home) can you guys give me a play by play and description please?

    Also if your interested, the Freshwater videos are posted over at my place – or you can find them on Google video.

  237. Jonathan Smith says:

    If you guys want to keep this going that’s fine by me.I did think my last topic(on brain evolution) may have followed on from the way this topic has progressed and begged some reaction?

Comments are closed.