Please correct the record

A persistent letter writer to the TCPalm looks to be having his way with his creationist fantasies in the newspaper. Have a look (bold highlight mine):

Roger Hule recently wrote in answering mine and several other letters objecting to his support of evolution.

The letter was long on rhetoric and short on evidence. In neither letter he’s written has he presented any scientific evidence for evolution; he simply states it as an a priori fact.

The simple answer to this is that there is no scientific evidence for evolution.

Nothing exists in the fossil record, no laboratory experiment has been performed, and it has never been observed in nature.

To believe evolution, you must accept it by faith and, since there is no supporting evidence, blind faith.

In my previous letter, I quoted an evolutionist who said evolution was unproved and un-provable.

Mr. Hule never answered that statement, so I will try again with the statement of another evolutionist.

At three separate venues, Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum, asked his colleagues a simple question: Can you tell me any one thing you know to be true about evolution?

At two of the seminars, his question was met with silence. At the third, one person spoke up and said, “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”

Mr. Hule also mentions separation of church and state in both his letters.

This term is not in the Constitution, but rather in a letter to the Danbury Baptists by Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was reiterating what the Constitution already said: The federal government would not establish a national church that everyone must adhere to.

I wish people would stop using this straw man as an excuse to keep religion from influencing society.

Knowingly or unknowingly, our religious beliefs, whether atheistic or theistic, influence every decision we make.

Kevin Molter
Port St. Lucie

First, we need to know what specifically Molter is referring to when he claims that Colin Patterson threw out a question supposedly challenging evolution. A quick search on Google turns up Patterson’s being constantly misquoted, used and abused by creationists, so I have no doubt this is just more of the same. Here is one example from TalkOrigins. However, here is a writeup about the quote this letter writer is apparently talking about, but it comes from the Access Research Network, which works from an “intelligent design perspective” so I can’t vouch for its veracity. Anyone know any reliable, accurate information about this? And with the real information at hand, then write an informed rebuttal to this letter?

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Antiscience nonsense. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Please correct the record

  1. Michael Suttkus, II says:

    Patterson makes a joke: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Patterson_on_true_things_about_evolution

    And also the articles linked under references.

    The “The words ‘separation of church and state’ aren’t mentioned in the constitution” myth debunked by Ed Brayton: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2003/12/commonly_heard_arguments_again.php

  2. PatrickHenry says:

    Why bother? The guy’s a loon. (Not Patterson, the letter-writer.)

  3. Brandon Haught says:

    Yes, but the loon is getting printed in the paper and thus read by a credulous public who will ooh and aww over his challenges and quote mine.

  4. ABO says:

    Michael Stuttkus, 11 pointed out a real good article.

    When Madison said, “The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.” It’s doubtful if Madison could have known that the day would come when the appointment of Chaplin’s, would be replaced by governmentally funded religious leaders called science teachers.

    The faith based teaching of microbe to man evolution may be classified as a scientific theory, but they are also is recognized by the Federal Government and the State of Florida as a real religious doctrine. At some point this issue could become a separation of church and state comical fiasco.

  5. Wolfhound says:

    Why, ABO, you were Lyin’ For Jesus on the other thread where you libeled a scientist and insisted that you weren’t equating ToE with religion. I am just SO surprised! NOT!

    I’ve cut and pasted my response from there to here to save myself some time in.

    Seriously, ABO, the “science is a religion ’cause you gotta’ have faith” fallacy is one of the most retarded canards to come out of your camp of desperation. That one was devised because (Bible-learnin’) religion was rightfully chucked out of the public school system. Like all petulant children, the religious nuts, not content with the brainwashing and indoctrination they are free to do at home and in their tax-exempt houses of delusion, feel it’s unfair to teach science. They view this science as a direct assault on their cherished myths and apparently feel that a few hours of instruction concerning the ToE will unravel the lifetime of “God did it” they’ve force-fed their children. Worse yet, those heathen children whose parents have NOT seen fit to fill their heads full of religious nonsense will go through school without hearing the gospel! OH NOES!!!111!!! So, the equation of ToE=religion was contrived in a feeble attempt to oust a robust scientific theory from public schools or, better yet, get religious indoctrination (but only of the Christian flavor!) injected back into the classrooms.

    Now, then, please tell us how science equates to religion, in your own words, point by point. This should be amusing.

  6. MaryB says:

    I read Brandon’s links on Patterson’s misquote and you can read in his own words how the situation was twisted out of context. But the most interesting point to me is that if science is dogma a ABO claims then why would Patterson explain how he was not giving a “keynote address” but was having an informal discussion on systematics with other scientists in which they actually criticized the effects of evolution on classification (doesn’t sound too much like worship does it?). He also states in his reply to the misquote that he intends to continue to criticize and and argue points on evolution even though dishonest people will probably continue to take advantage of that criticism to misquote him BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE DOES BECAUSE IT IS NOT A RELIGION! Creationists exhibit a deep (or willful) misunderstanding of science when they cannot understand that debate and questioning is a constant process in science and it sometimes leads to changes in what we understand (not believe) about theories from gravity to evolution to the Big Bang. And yet the theory itself is not destroyed by this process precisely because so much evidence exits for this uncertain approximation of reality. I like to think of a theory like evolution as a giant jigsaw puzzle with each piece another piece of evidence (evolution has millions of pieces!). If you remove a piece or argue over whether it fits, the rest of the puzzle still gives you an overall picture of the relationships between all living things on earth and their ancestors. Pretty cool puzzle – huh?

  7. Green Earth says:

    Very well said Mary B and (again) Wolfhound!

  8. ABO says:

    Wolfhound

    Seriously, you won’t be able to find a single comment I’ve every made calling science a religion, unless you didn’t understand the comment or took it out of context. However what has been said is that microbe to man evolution is a religious doctrine. Now it’s hard to believe being as religious as you are, that you don’t know what religion is. But just in case your fussy on your faith here’s a portion of Wikipedia’s definition, “A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.”

    Definitions, and my opinions or your opinions don’t really matter. The courts have already decided that regardless of how ridiculous a religion may appear, they have no say in the matter. So the fact that a Florida church doesn’t have water baptism or the resurrection of the dead as part of it’s doctrine, it does have the doctrine of imaginary evolutionary change beyond observation or microbe to man as part of it’s ritual servers. And that does establish that portion of evolutionary doctrine as a governmental advocated religious belief.

    All the whining and name calling you can dream up won’t change this fact.

  9. Skepticism says:

    I have included two articles which challenge Ed Brayton’s position:

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=84

    So if you are feeling patriotic today, take a look and consider. The idea of separation of church and state really was nothing more than a one-way street – i.e. government can’t interfere with religious exercise (as long as it does not harm others) and certainly cannot establish a national religion. If fact, questions of religion were best left to the states and their jurisdiction.

  10. Wolfhound says:

    ABO, seriously, dude, you MUST have pulled or strained something from all of the mental gymnastics you have to go throught to equate ToE (which is a fundamental part of biological science) with religion. But, since you persist in this idiotic, word-twisting fantasy of yours (which appears to go hand-in-hand with your tax-free idiotic fantasy), be sure to use liberal amounts of salve so the damage isn’t permanent. Likely it’s too late but I’m just watching out for you. 🙂

    And John, we really aren’t impressed by your bullshit, religiously-twisted, revisionist history wherein you fantasize that the government has to keep its paws of religion but religion can do whatever the hell it pleases with the government. Questions of religion are best left to the trash heap of history but, barring that happy future, keeping that crap in church, its exclusive venue, is the only acceptable decision.

  11. Martin says:

    Anyone quoting Patterson in this context has never read anything by Patterson. At all. Ever. One of Colin Patterson’s biggest contributions to systematics was in his role as a champion of “transformed cladistics”. The basic point in Patterson’s arguments is that if systematics depends on evolutionary theory, then systematics cannot be justification for the veracity of evolution. His point is that the old-timey evolutionary morphologists and evolutionary systematists were engaging in circular reasoning where they inferred homology from belief about common ancestry and evidenced common ancestry on assertions of homology. The transformed cladists argued that what ought to be sought out were real patterns in nature that could be interpreted. The real pattern of nested hierarchies was best interpreted as representing a picture of common ancestry. Patterson forcefully argued in at least two papers (1981; 1982) that these basic patterns were known (and had to be known) by pre-Darwinian systematists. Even Darwin said that, even once his theory gained acceptance, systematistics would (and should) carry on more or less as it had before.

    The reason Patterson asks his colleagues what they know about evolution is to make a point not about how well supported evolution is, but what the nature of the evidence is. You don’t know anything about evolution. What you know about is systematics and systematic patterns. We have no a priori knowledge about the past except what is revealed to us by our interpretations of systematic patterns. These are, in turn, *interpreted* in an evolutionary framework. Indeed, Patterson has always accepted evolution and wrote later in his life about how nested hierarchies provided powerful evidence for the common ancestry of life.

    Patterson was quite an incisive mind and questioned almost everything he had been taught. He took no prisoners and no cow was too sacred. He was immensely critical of *his own field*, palaeontology. Surely if he thought evolution were on shaky ground, he would have attacked it and beat it to death.

  12. MaryB says:

    Excellent Martin!
    Any real scientist would beat to death Evolutionary theory if it did not hold up to the evidence presented because Evolution is Science not Religion. One of the things that makes science so powerful – it is self correcting!

  13. Green Earth says:

    ABO said:
    But just in case your fussy on your faith here’s a portion of Wikipedia’s definition, “A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.”

    How many times must we go over this? Science is about observing the natural world and drawing conclusions about how things work. Nothing supernatural is necessary/required.

  14. Wolfhound says:

    To carry it out even further, once you invoke the supernatural as an explanation, you have left the realm of science entirely.

    Now, to beat the creotards to the punch, they will, predictably, say that ToE is “magical” and “you gotta’ have faith” (or something similar) in a feeble attempt to put creationism on equal footing with real science. Pathetic.

  15. John Pieret says:

    For the background of what Patterson said, there is this from a discussion in the Talk Origins usenet group back in 2003, where John Wlkins, a professional philosopher of biology (yes, there are such things) explained the dispute involved and why Patterson was saying what he did.

    A word on the formatting: The lines with “> >” in front are the original questioner, “K-Man,” those with “>” in front are those of the first person (moi) to respond to the questions and the lines with nothing in front are those of John Wilkins adding to the response.

    Sorry, I always meant to get that into theQuote Mine Project but the Linnean Society pulled the copy of Patterson’s script for the talk from the web, which made it hard to do.

  16. Wolfhound says:

    Thanks for the link, JP (so as not to confuse you with John “Skepticism” McDonald and his various sockpuppets). Great blog, too! 🙂

  17. ABO says:

    There’s nothing supernatural or magical about microbe to man evolution. The faith is entirely based upon imagination.

  18. Karl says:

    Believing in evolution is not faith. If it were, we wouldn’t be carrying out any more scientific research on its mechanisms let alone have the option/duty to modify or even completely revise the theory if and when new and contradictory evidence becomes available as a result of these research efforts. I don’t know where exactly did you get your definition of “faith” but from that idiotic statement right there, I know it is a broken one.

    If you perceive the rational behind the scientific community’s acceptance of evolution as faith, then technically, the most faithful religious zealots should be ripping out the pages of Genesis from the bible and burning them?

  19. ABO says:

    Karl – The religious zealots are ripping out the pages of Genesis.

  20. Karl says:

    haha, the things you hear from the mind of a deluded fool…

    def lifted from merriam-webster:
    Faith

    1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one’s promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

    What kind of faith commands you to relentlessly question all aspects of it and actually encourages you to check for mistakes and search for missing information? Did the bible allow for a revision or removal of Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, 96:10,104:5, and Isaiah 45:18 when it was proven that the earth was in fact moving and not fixed in place? There’s no faith here other than the intolerant and ignorant hellfire vitriol being served weekly at your local churches. If you wanna call a belief in evolution “faith”, then I guess all that worshiping/proselytizing/whatever the hell you Christians do to please your God could be bumped down to “applied stupidity.”

  21. Wolfhound says:

    Like a small, spoiled child, ABO thinks that if he repeats a lie over and and over again it will somehow become the truth. And that if he thinks, hopes, and wishes for the impossible hard enough, if his faith is strong enough, it will make it so. As was posited by another poster on another thread, he likely still claps for Tinkerbell.

    Webster’s defines ABO’s mental disconnect as “Projection”: the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.

  22. ABO says:

    Karl

    Now here you go quote mining. The book doesn’t say the earth is not moving, it say’s it can’t be moved. Can you move it? I don’t think so.

    It’s difficult to take you seriously, remember you’re just a mutated monkey with no purpose, no value, no reason, it’s just an accident your here. Applied stupidity or faith, the facts speak for themselves, they both fit in your case.

    Putting jokes aside are you a real scientist or just a Bible basher?

  23. zygosporangia says:

    Well, personally, I found your new testament to be a bit boring. Your old testament was at least mildly entertaining, with a sadistic, genocidal, and wildly jealous god. He flooded the earth, tortured and condoned the torture of poor Job, made men marry prostitutes, tempted men only to punish them. He did Evil Things that make him seem less like an ideal father figure and more like a child with a magnifying glass, ants, and plenty of sunlight.

    Sadly, the writing style of your OT is pretty poor, even prior to a translation. Hence, people seem to be confused into believing that this obvious work of fiction and fables is a science textbook. I don’t know what gave them that idea… perhaps you could shed a light on this?

  24. Karl says:

    Oh, but the earth does move, from its rotation and orbit, AND, among many other factors, human activities. It’s just beyond the scope of your extremely limited and close-minded perspective. Planetary physics aside, whatever force we apply back down to the planet through regular human activity does have an impact on the motion of the planet, and although the effect may be infinitesimally small. If all humans were to jump up and down in unison several times a day for several years, we might be able to add one or two milliseconds to the day. Newton’s laws of motion in action. We may not be able to see or feel it, but it sure as hell will move. But by then, I suppose physics will be the next big “controversy” for your bible-thumpin drool fiends.

    I don’t care if you consider me a scientist or not. I’ve mentioned my line of work and qualifications. You wanna keep on hiding behind sock puppets, go ahead. I do however, despise the sheer amount of inhumanity sanctioned and still being sanctioned by the particularly rabid minority of “good” book followers. I don’t bash the bible, just your particular interpretation of it. It’s the kind of interpretation that hardens one’s heart, destroys families, and allows good people to commit the vilest and most despicable acts throughout human history.

  25. E. Morriss says:

    Karl Says:
    July 7th, 2008 at 2:30 am

    “What kind of faith commands you to relentlessly question all aspects of it and actually encourages you to check for mistakes and search for missing information?”

    The same faith that tells us not to make assumptions from the barest of evidence.

    1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts ; and [be] ready always to [give] an answer (apologia) to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

    apologia:

    1) verbal defence, speech in defence
    2) a reasoned statement or argument

    “Did the bible allow for a revision or removal of Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, 96:10,104:5, and Isaiah 45:18 when it was proven that the earth was in fact moving and not fixed in place?”

    Corrrection: the verse is 1 Chronicles 16:30

    It does not say the earth does not move through space or is the center of the universe. The Hebrew word was ‘mowt’ (Strongs 04131) and was translated as ‘moved’. Mowt has the meanings:

    1) to totter, shake, slip
    a) (Qal) to totter, shake, slip
    b) (Niphal) to be shaken, be moved, be overthrown
    c) (Hiphil) to dislodge, let fall, drop
    d) (Hithpael) to be greatly shaken

    Note other appearances of the same word (mowt-04131) and the context:

    [1] Lev 25:35 And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay (mowt-04131) with thee…

    [2] Deu 32:35 To me [belongeth] vengeance, and recompence ; their foot shall slide (mowt-04131)…

    [3] Psa 17:5 Hold up my goings in thy paths, [that] my footsteps slip (mowt-04131) not.

    The word is never used to mean “fixed in place”.

    Isaiah 45:18 uses the Hebrew word ‘kuwn’, which is accurately translated to mean ‘established’ which is used frequently in the many meanings this word can have:

    1) to be firm, be stable, be established

    a) (Niphal)

    1) to be set up, be established, be fixed
    a) to be firmly established
    b) to be established, be stable, be secure, be enduring
    c) to be fixed, be securely determined

    2) to be directed aright, be fixed aright, be steadfast (moral sense)
    3) to prepare, be ready
    4) to be prepared, be arranged, be settled

    b) (Hiphil)

    1) to establish, set up, accomplish, do, make firm
    2) to fix, make ready, prepare, provide, provide for, furnish
    3) to direct toward (moral sense)
    4) to arrange, order

    c) (Hophal)

    1) to be established, be fastened
    2) to be prepared, be ready

    d) (Polel)
    1) to set up, establish
    2) to constitute, make
    3) to fix
    4) to direct

    e) (Pulal) to be established, be prepared

    f) (Hithpolel) to be established, be restored

    None of these can be construed to mean fixed in space or the center of the universe.

  26. Karl says:

    The same faith that tells us not to make assumptions from the barest of evidence.

    So, will you be tossing out that bible of yours any time soon? For a Christian, you don’t seem to know what faith actually is. What was the slogan for that creationist museum which opened in Cincinnati?

    “Don’t think, just listen and believe”

    That certainly doesn’t sound like the “faith” that you accuse us of having…

    You do know that citing inconsistencies in translation only further confirms the fact that whatever is written in the bible CANNOT be taken for face value. You can’t assume infallibility when the very meaning of the words are up for debate. This reason is one of many among the rational behind why many Christians actually accept and support evolution theory. Since you seem pretty knowledgeable about the older Hebrew texts of the bible, what inconsistencies in translation do you see with Genesis? What makes Genesis so special that you believe its interpretation and translation to be absolutely perfect? Wait, scratch that, we already know that it’s your fear and lack of faith, but I’d like to see how you spin it.

  27. zygosporangia says:

    So, the best that E. Morriss can say is that his bible is open to many different interpretations, none of which can be considered absolute? Excellent.

    So, he has essentially claimed that his whole YEC position is most likely wrong.

  28. Green Earth says:

    Isn’t it great when they destroy their own arguments?

  29. E. Morriss says:

    Karl Says:
    July 8th, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    [The same faith that tells us not to make assumptions from the barest of evidence.]

    “So, will you be tossing out that bible of yours any time soon?”

    No.

    “For a Christian, you don’t seem to know what faith actually is.”

    As you define it, or as you pick from examples of those who do a very poor job of representing Christians?

    “What was the slogan for that creationist museum which opened in Cincinnati? “Don’t think, just listen and believe” That certainly doesn’t sound like the “faith” that you accuse us of having…”

    I see, you like to pick bad examples and swipe everyone with the same brush instead of considering the individual. Cute, but too obvious. That creationist museum does not speak for me nor for all of Christianity. If you have a problem with their slogan, take it up with them.

    “You do know that citing inconsistencies in translation…”

    Inconsistencies in translation are a fact of life because, as it is well known, languages do not always have words that exactly match the meanings of every word of another language. Some words are extremely versatile in one language, and not so versatile in another, which sometimes leaves one with few options or no choice but to use whatever is closest. Your examples above are an excellent and typical example of how common sense and context are ignored to serve an agenda. One would have to be obtuse, or disingenuous, to assume a one-for-one correlation exists between every word, phrase or gesture between Hebrew and English, or to claim that people who lived 3-5 thousand years ago did not put one or more critters in the “correct” group or describe them by today’s standard.

    Claiming obvious metaphors (i.e. the four corners of the earth) must be taken literally because *SOME* people claim the Bible must be taken literally (another example of swiping everyone with the same brush) is another way of avoiding an honest investigation using one’s mind, heart and intelligence.

    It is far easier to find and cling to one bad example of behaviour (i.e. the idiot branding crosses on students arms) and color everyone with the same brush, or attribute such behaviour as the inevitable outcome of any type of faith, than it is to use your mind and understanding.

    When anyone cites the many examples of scientists who have committed outright fraud and states or insinuates no one or nothing in science can be trusted, the cries of “unfair” are heard far and wide. Bad scientists are not caused by science any more than bad people are caused by faith.

    “…only further confirms the fact that whatever is written in the bible CANNOT be taken for face value.”

    In light of your standard, nothing in history, specifically all works of antiquity, cannot be trusted to any degree (including face value), right? Go talk to a professor (any one of your choice) who is knowledgeable of historiography and textual criticism and ask them if your statement is accurate. If it is, then you have just made all of history a waste of time.

    “You can’t assume infallibility when the very meaning of the words are up for debate.”

    You cannot claim fallibility. Most of what you read in the OT that pertains to doctrine no longer applies today. The Mosaic Law (i.e. what you can and cannot eat) ended with Christ. Whether the Hebrew word for atalleph meant a bat or something else is a moot point.

    Get this concept: THE PEOPLE OF THAT DAY KNEW WHAT IT WAS. It does not matter that we do not know it’s meaning for certain today, some 3000 or more years later because the critters on the “dont eat these” list haven’t been forbidden for 2000 years now.

    By saying “the words” you insinuate all words are up for debate, which is a falsehood. Some words (very few) are not clear. What is up for debate is proper application of the words *in context* and as they were understood *at the time*. Applying only today’s meanings to all of the words used 3000 years ago is simply nonsense.

    The words you picked in your examples, besides being twisted completely out of context, have no bearing whatsoever on any doctrine. They are nothing but silly nit picks only intended to distract, like arguing about whether or not the Bible refers to bats specifically as birds. When a word can have a specific meaning or a very general meaning depending on how it used, one has to look (drum roll) at *how it is used*. If a list contains three specific birds and nothing else, you can bet the word was intended to apply specifically to actual birds. If the list contains non avian flying animals and actual birds, you can bet the alternate meaning “flying creatures” was the intended form.

    Duh.

    “This reason is one of many among the rational behind why many Christians actually accept and support evolution theory.”

    The (lack of) rationale among evolution scientists is one of many reasons many scientists no longer accept or support evolution theory.

    “Since you seem pretty knowledgeable about the older Hebrew texts of the bible, what inconsistencies in translation do you see with Genesis? What makes Genesis so special that you believe its interpretation and translation to be absolutely perfect? Wait, scratch that, we already know that it’s your fear and lack of faith, but I’d like to see how you spin it.”

    For the record, I haven’t said anything up to this point about the interpretation or translation of Genesis, nor have I stated that it is or is not “absolutely perfect”, that is an assumption of your own most likely stemming from your habitual application of a wide brush.

    I don’t think it matters whether I think God created everything in six 24 hour days or 6 billion years. Some people place a high value on believing the literal 6 day interpretation, but I dont see anything in the Bible that leads me to believe that my faith and salvation depends on making a choice of one or the other. Genesis is obviously not a literal account, but a very general (high level) overview of creation. The detail of how much time it took is meaningless.

  30. E. Morriss says:

    zygosporangia Says:
    July 8th, 2008 at 7:13 pm

    “So, the best that E. Morriss can say is that his bible is open to many different interpretations, none of which can be considered absolute? Excellent.”

    I cannot stop you or anyone else from making bad interpretations, I can only point them out. Neither a lack of understanding nor willful ignorance is the fault of the Bible.

    Where did I say the “Bible is open to many different interpretations, none of which can be considered absolute”?

    “So, he has essentially claimed that his whole YEC position is most likely wrong.”

    Where did I claim to be a YEC? You guys just cannot grasp the concept of individuality, can you?

  31. Green Earth says:

    The (lack of) rationale among evolution scientists is one of many reasons many scientists no longer accept or support evolution theory.

    There are more historians that deny the Holocaust (WWII) than scientists that deny the theory of evolution.

  32. Karl says:

    Individual or not, the anti-evolution MOVEMENT is overly dominated by the so-called “worst examples” of ignorant religious zealotry which I and others have repeatedly brought up. And regardless of you yourself claiming to be separate and distinct from these horrible representatives of the Christian faith, you are still trying to defend the pseudoscience garbage that was conjured up using the very same ignorance and willfully deceptive practices you claim to condemn.

    I’ll admit, due to variations in the themes of trolling and the fact that racist morons such as McDonald et al have been masquerading under different user names, it’s understandable that we may be holding you to the assumptions of jackassery that we had the privilege of experiencing from your fellow Christians.

    Applying only today’s meanings to all of the words used 3000 years ago is simply nonsense.

    I totally agree with this statement. Now explain to me why this is exactly what the Creationists movement is using for their rational behind their opposition to evolution theory? We’ve already explained that evolution doesn’t deny the existence of God, did not cause the holocaust and subsequent incidences of genocide, and has no contributing factor to the moral breakdown of society. It does, however, deny the literal interpretation that man and animals were “created” in their contemporary forms in one fell swoop, but that shouldn’t be a problem because applying modern meaning to 3000yr old words is just silly, right? Please correct me if I’m wrong to assume that your angle for denying evolution is over information gaps from what even I can say to be an incomplete pool of evidence. If so, God, scripture, the bible, morals, and all the other religious garbage shouldn’t even be a consideration in this debate right?

    The problem here, is that evolution has been observed. The macro-micro distinction was constructed by the same same religious ignorance and willfully deceptive practices as mentioned above. Proof of this is supported by the fact that with every discovery, the Creationists keep trying to change their definition of micro and macro evolution to salvage their position, and as with the recent documentation of citrate metabolism by E.Coli, actually begins to contradict their earlier claims and arguments. So, I suppose all that’s left are the gaps in fossil records, which has a tendency to get filled with each new fossil that we dig up. OMG, there’s no link between fish to amphibian so evolution must be false and wait… no, they found one… ummmmm…. okay… there’s no link between reptiles and birds so evolution must…. they dug up one for that too… So, removing all religious overtones and whatnot, your position against evolution is based on missing information, some of which, have been recently discovered and shown to support evolution theory? If you’d like to take your position and construct a theory out of it, I’d like to suggest that you name it the “Sinking Ship” theory, in which the validity of whatever religious/alternative explanation you have for how life developed remains technically plausible until the last bit of missing information is recovered and your entire position is sunk. But then we run into the problem of how this “theory” does not utilize the scientific process yet tries to be taught in a science class ad nauseam. So, in the end, you want evolution removed, or set aside equal time for alternative theories, none of which are even remotely scientific, which would still result in… what exactely?

  33. Wolfhound says:

    Wow, Karl. Excellent take down. 🙂

    It’s really pretty ignorant for the anti-science trolls to argue the validity of a 3000 year old book that’s been edited and interpreted more times and in more different ways than any other work of fiction in human history. It’s full of incredibly stupid, illogical, and frankly impossible things so is not to be taken literally by anybody with a modicum of sense, whatever apologetics one wishes to use to handwave away and nitpick at particular words. Snakes don’t talk. Donkeys don’t talk. People don’t live for multiple hundreds of years. People don’t come back from the dead. People don’t transform into minerals. People aren’t super-duper strong because they have magic hair. The coat patterns of livestock cannot be influenced by putting sticks in the water troughs of pregnant females. On and on and on. Using this collection of liberally plagiarized fables to argue against a well established, well supported, universally accepted (idiots who dissent due to religious reasons notwithstanding) scientific theory stretches the limits of human stupidity.

    Believe in your supernatural entity if you must. But keep him the frig out of my kid’s science class and out of our purposely established secular government.

  34. Wolfhound says:

    “The (lack of) rationale among evolution scientists is one of many reasons many scientists no longer accept or support evolution theory.”

    Ah, yes, the thoroughly discredited “Dissent from Darwin” the morons at the Disco ‘Tute pulled out of their asses.

    Behold the lies exposed!

  35. ABO says:

    Karl

    “If all humans were to jump up and down in unison several times a day for several years, we might be able to add one or two milliseconds to the day.”

    Karl you are a riot! You’ve got to be the cream of the crop. I can see the science behind your earth moving logic. Here’s an exercise video which will help you prepare for planetary repositioning, but be careful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhODBFQ2bQ

  36. Wolfhound says:

    Karl IS being funny. The people jumping thing was covered over at Phil Plait’s “Bad Astronomy” blog for “World Jump Day”. 🙂

    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/news/worldjumpday.html

  37. Green Earth says:

    Sadly though, our trolls are not being funny when they say the earth is 6000 years old, there is a magic man in the sky who made us, evolution/science is just a HUGE world-wide (not to mention multi-generational) conspiracy, etc.

    Sigh….. as I’ve asked before, why can’t the natural world be appreciated as just that?

  38. Karl says:

    Apparently sarcasm is a foreign concept to these folks…

  39. zygosporangia says:

    Maybe sarcasm isn’t explained in their thumpin’ book?

  40. Noodlicous says:

    Michael Suttkus, II Says:
    “Patterson makes a joke”
    The link:
    “Misquoted Person: Colin Patterson, paleontologist, British Natural History Museum
    Source:
    Johnson, Phillip E., 1993. Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, p. 9.”

    Ahh yes….Phillip Johnson!
    Leading BS salesman, sheep herder and bait /switch adviser to the IDiocy pushers at Dishonesty Institute.

    Oh and let’s not forget principal architect of the Wedge Document and vocal AIDS denier!

    Wiki:
    “In fact-checking Johnson’s books Darwin on Trial and Defeating Darwinism, one reviewer argued that almost every scientific source Johnson cited had been misused or distorted, from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to outright fabrications. The reviewer, Brian Spitzer, a professor of Biology, described Darwin on Trial as the most deceptive book he had ever read”
    “Johnson also denies the predominant scientific view that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the sole cause of AIDS”

    I’m sure ABO worships Johnson’s every word….well maybe not all of them…

    “I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…
    No product is ready for competition in the educational world.”
    [Phillip Johnson]

    http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution

    Perhaps ABO hasn’t read Johnson’s Wedge Strategy?

    “Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.”

    “This isn’t really, and never has been a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy.”

    “Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters.”

    Tsk tsk tsk…..

  41. Noodlicous says:

    Green Earth Says:
    “evolution/science is just a HUGE world-wide (not to mention multi-generational) conspiracy, etc.”

    Yes it’s a *miracle* that so many people and scientists from so many diverse countries/cultures, holding equally diverse religious and political views support it. You’d think that any anti-evolution deity would have done something about that kind of worldwide acceptance wouldn’t you!

  42. Green Earth says:

    From one of my youtube subscriptions:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68

    Edward Current is hilarious!

  43. ABO says:

    “You’d think that any anti-evolution deity would have done something about that kind of worldwide acceptance wouldn’t you!”

    He has.

  44. zygosporangia says:

    What has this deity done? Instructed some troglodytes to write about it in a book of fables? Developed completely non-scientific statements and “facts” (e.g. four legged insects, dust eating snakes)? Inspired people like you to claim that before the flood T. Rex ate coconuts? Inspired people like you to count begats to try to discover the age of the earth, even though this age is claimed nowhere in your book of fables?

  45. Noodlicious says:

    zygosporangia
    “Inspired people like you to claim that before the flood T. Rex ate coconuts?”

    But…but they found that dinosaur saddle…

    “Creationist Paleontologists Discover Dinosaur Saddle”

    http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=126

    “According to Dr. Booble and the Discovery Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Seattle with affiliates operating at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C., dinosaurs were expelled from the Garden of Eden for excessive flatulence and “unruly behavior” at about the same time that Adam and Eve were forced to leave as a penalty for a serpent-related “apple conspiracy”.”

  46. zygosporangia says:

    Heh.

  47. ABO says:

    This Booble dude could have been an evolutionist, he’s assuming.

  48. zygosporangia says:

    Whoosh. That was the parody going right over ABO’s head.

Comments are closed.