Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Hitchens on Dover

Here's Christopher Hitchens commenting on the most significant cultural event of 2005:


At the opening of Brideshead Revisited, Evelyn Waugh wrote of hearing one sweet and civilized word, and of the effect it had—as if a fatuous, bawling voice on a loudspeaker had been suddenly switched off. The judge's highly literate and elegant ruling in the Dover, Pa., intelligent-design case has had precisely that effect upon me. Just for once—for once—the raucous, boring, bullying noise of the religious morons is turned off, and one can hear the lucid tones of reason, detachment, culture, and irony. That the voters of the same town should have firmly retired the demagogues and dolts of their school board, and that both they and the judge should have been of a Republican tendency, only adds to my sense that the resources of civilization are not yet exhausted, and that we have wells of real intelligence upon which to draw. Please don't wake me up.


Well said.

89 Comments:

At 10:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, well said.

Strange then, that Hitch is unwavering in his support of the leader of these raucous, boring, bullying religious morons; George W. Bush.

 
At 10:48 PM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

Kudos from a prenious thread

"And the main point was to award Dr. Jason the He-Man BS Spotter Medal, with a cluster-#$%%. "

 
At 10:49 PM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

previous

"And the main point was to award Dr. Jason the He-Man BS Spotter Medal, with a cluster-#$%%. "

 
At 1:33 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Question about I.D. being taught as a philosophy class.

In the opinion of anyone that reads this blog, would it be ok for a class called Philosophy of Design to be taught as an elective in a high school setting?

The same group that funded the Dover case (Americans United for Separation of Church and State) is funding a case against a small local school in my area.
http://www.bakersfield.com/local/story/5820323p-5836384c.html For the full story.

What do you think?

Mark

 
At 2:56 PM, Blogger Mark said...

Dr. Rosenhouse,
I just read your article:
Leaders and Followers in the Intelligent-Design Movement

Well written. It’s insightful of the person Jason Rosenhouse.

I found it refreshing to hear that not all people of religious faith are morons, speaking of the people you had lunch with. I believe that there are those on both sides of this discuss that are honest and those that are dishonest. With the majority being honest, intelligent, kind and moral people. Your comment “Unfortunately, sneering contempt from societal elites is a fact of everyday life for many followers of ID.” is correct. But I believe that it goes both ways. Many of the religious elite look at those that believe in evolution the same way. If we would talk to each other with civility and not look at each other as idiots we would probably find that we have more that we can agree upon than we have to disagree upon.

I for one like reading this blog, because it stretches my mind and causes me to examine my beliefs and they are stronger for it.

I hope this is taken the way it is meant, as a compliment. Keep the discussion going.

Mark

 
At 5:17 PM, Blogger Ahab said...

Mark,
You do realize that this so-called philosophy class was intended to undermine the scientific theory of evolution don't you?
Why do religous people keep trying to sneak their religous beliefs into the public schools system? And why are they willing to lie in order to do this? Seems like the pinnacle of hypocrisy to me.

 
At 7:45 AM, Blogger Michael "Sotek" Ralston said...

Mark: If the class advocates FOR ID, then it violates the first amendment.

If the class talks ABOUT ID, then it can be okay - as long as it doesn't, for instance, lie about science.



Of course, the instance you cite is a class blatantly advocating for ID and not actually talking about philosophy at all.

 
At 7:37 PM, Anonymous Jasen said...

Check out my blog for comments on this issue.

www.trueopinion.blogs.com

Jasen

Any comments welcome, and I will refer folks to this blog for counterpoints to my own.

 
At 10:38 AM, Blogger Cynisturbed said...

I really don't see how anyone could come up with enough material to cover ID for an entire semester. It really would only take an hour or so to cover the topic. ID as a concept has not been developed anywhere near to what would allow a whole semester of instruction. ID is as made up as Greek mythology but, not quite as developed.

 
At 11:54 AM, Anonymous Jasen M said...

Cynisturbed,

That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. You could spend a week alone on how you got a universe without anything to create it. Tell me how you get a star without a star to form the new star. Astronomers can't answer this question, can you?

 
At 12:25 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Jasen M, of course astronomers know how stars are formed. And, uh, pssst, ID and evolution have nothing to do with how the universe was formed. They are about life on earth.

ID has two concepts: 1) Specified Complexity, and 2) Irreducible Complexity. That's it, nothing more. Now, sure, evolution doesn't have a whole lot more in terms of concepts, BUT, I repeat, BUT it has boatloads of data, research, examples, etc. ID doesn't have that. Even its own proponents testified at the trial that it's not ready for the classroom because there's not enough research yet.

I know you aren't proclaiming yourself to be an expert--nor am I, believe me-- but you should really at least do *some* reading on these matters rather than just having a knee-jerk reaction. And by "reading" I mean more than just the ID or religious views. I took a look at your blog and it's a veritable cornucopia of standard anti-evolution nonsense. For example, the silly notion that we don't have any examples of transitional fossils.

Cheers,
Fred

 
At 2:42 PM, Anonymous Jasen M said...

Fred #1

YOU WROTE - "Jasen M, of course astronomers know how stars are formed. And, uh, pssst, ID and evolution have nothing to do with how the universe was formed. They are about life on earth."

MY REPLY - I soooo disagree. Again, I am no expert, but how on earth can you "jump ahead" of the supposed big bang and go right into evolution. Can you eat bacon before you kill the pig? If evolution were true, IT MUST have been set off by the "big bang". You have to have a universe in order for Earth to be part of the Universe. The events leading UP TO life on earth had to be set into a chronological sequence, otherwise you can not prove the orgins of life. The old parable of the House built on Sand comes to mind. With all due respect, Fred, your statement is ridiclous.

And no, there is no evidence of the universe being created by a big bang. In fact, there is no factual evidence I have found in my humble research of how you can create a star without an existing or dying star helping to spawn it. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please enlighten me.

 
At 2:51 PM, Anonymous Jasen M said...

Fred #2

YOU WROTE - I know you aren't proclaiming yourself to be an expert--nor am I, believe me-- but you should really at least do *some* reading on these matters rather than just having a knee-jerk reaction. And by "reading" I mean more than just the ID or religious views. I took a look at your blog and it's a veritable cornucopia of standard anti-evolution nonsense. For example, the silly notion that we don't have any examples of transitional fossils."

MY REPLY - I do a lot of reading on the website www.talkorigins.org which will not be mistaken for a Creationist site. Quite the contrary, in fact. My "knee-jerk" reactions, as you call them, are clearly not knee jerking, nor spur of the moment. My blog was written over the course of a couple weeks before I published it. Plus, I was spoon fed, like most of us, evolution in college, and I was very interested in the class, though at the time I believed that the 7 days did not need to be literal. You are right, I am NO expert, but I am rational and informed on both sides of the pendulum.

Please name me a proven transitional fossil....

 
At 2:59 PM, Blogger Michael "Sotek" Ralston said...

"proven transitional fossil". Oh. That's a good one.

I already see your game - since we can't possibly prove than a fossil is a DIRECT ancestor of a modern organism, we can't prove anything at all - right?


Oh, and a new star needs help NOW because, y'know, most of the material that makes up stars is ... well ... in stars already. Think about how it was before then.

Also, read up on the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation sometime, eh?

 
At 3:05 PM, Anonymous Jasen M said...

sotek;

EXACTLY!!!! You actually admit that "since we can't possibly prove than a fossil is a DIRECT ancestor of a modern organism, we can't prove anything at all"

THATS MY POINT, MY MAN! If something cannot be proven as fact, it should not be presented as fact in a classroom. Now, wouldnt you say that's fair?

Would a little debate be so bad in a college or high shcool class? It seems to work fine here....and why is it a game? Is anything I said untrue?

 
At 3:39 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

sotek,

here are 2 counter points on CBMR....Thanks for the tip, they were interesting reads, I had not read on these in some time.

Opposition to the Bang - http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-CMBR.htm

In favor of Banging - http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html

 
At 11:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a really great blog. Keep it up! I will be reading regularly from now on.

Some blogs you might like...

http://libertariandefender.blogspot.com - The Libertarian Defender
http://killtheafterlife.blogspot.com - Kill the Afterlife
http://www.evangelicalatheist.com -Evangelical Atheist

Lots of great stuff to find in the blogosphere. Cheers!

 
At 12:16 AM, Anonymous Fred said...

Jasen M: You talked about the origin of the universe and I said that has nothing to do with ID or evolution theory. You then said that's stupid of me to say because how can you have life before having a universe.

Well, here's the thing: They're two different things. One is how the universe began and the other is how life became what we see it today. ID deals with Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity. Neither of those have anything to do with the origin of the universe. Likewise, evolution theory says (at its most simplistic) that life as we see it today evolved over millions of years through natural mechanisms.

Do you need to create the universe before you can populate it? Of course! But it's two different fields of study done by scientists with very different backgrounds. Scientists studying evolution are generally biologists. Do you expect biologists to study stars and their formation???

I'm sorry if it bothers you that evolution and ID are about life, not stars-- transformations of organisms, not origins of life-- but there's nothing I can do about that. It's a different group of people and different theories if you want to discuss ultimate origin.

As for claiming that you read "pro-evolution" web sites, I doubt you read on any evolution web site that we don't have any transitional fossils.

PS: I have a deal for you: You explain the origin of God (and provide proof, of course) and I'll provide a full explanation, with proof, of the big bang and evolution. Sound fair? Good. Let me know when you're ready.

 
At 9:30 AM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

Fred,

I think we are missing the point here, my man. Firstly, I never said you were stupid, I said, in summary, that claiming that the orgin of the universe is unrelated to orgin of life is ridiculous, because you can't have one without the other. I realize they are different fields, but they lead to the same line of thought. In the Bible, the two are synonymous, in that they happen only a few days apart.

Again, the point I feel is escaping leads to your last comment, fred, and I am glad you put it that way. Let me try to understand the way you worded it....

YOU SAID - "PS: I have a deal for you: You explain the origin of God (and provide proof, of course) and I'll provide a full explanation, with proof, of the big bang and evolution. Sound fair? Good. Let me know when you're ready."

In other words, you seem to admit that neither of us can prove with absolute certainty our viewpoint. I will NEVER say I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that I can prove anything. Hell, I can't seen prove to my wife that a snowblower would work better than the shovel.

So, in conjunction, I will accept your deal. And since neither of us can PROVE anything, why not agree that evolutionary theory SHOULD NOT be taught in school as being absolute fact, after all, that and the Dover trial is the point of this thread. Sound good? Can you agree that this point is valid? THAT Fred, is my point.

 
At 9:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know most of you do not agree with ID because it is a "religeon" based theory. But evolution does have several holes in it. It seems as though most arguements are simply to discredit ID as religeous nonesense rather than addressing the holes in evolution. Why not address the problems in your theory (evolution) and simply remove all doubt?? I feel most do not take that route because it is impossible. If evolution was an airtight theory (as schools seem to proclaim) would there be any room for ID? Instead of tearing down ID how about really addressing the problem with evolution. The case won in Dover is a legal victory. Winning this case fails to prove that evolution is true and ID is not. This victory is simply a legal way to keep our schools closed to opposing theories. Why is everyone so afraid of ID if it isn't true?

 
At 10:34 AM, Blogger Ahab said...

Anonomous,
I don't agree with ID for the reason that it fails to provide an adequate explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. It is a sterile theory.
The record in the Dover trial clearly showed that some religious people thought they could sneak their beliefs back into the public school system by dressing them up as a scientific theory.

No one here is 'afraid' of ID. They simply don't wish school children to be taught one cult's belief system as though it were science. That is a decision that should be made by the children's parents. I happen to know quite a few religious people who happen to agree with that view.

 
At 12:15 PM, Blogger Michael "Sotek" Ralston said...

Jasen: So you admit that you're just trying to prevent us from attempting to acquire and teach anything at all?

Because that's what you're doing.

There are MILLIONS of transitional fossils - but the individual that was fossilized is probably not actually an ancestor of anything living today, because not many creatures fossilize.


It's simply absurd to say that, for instance, since Archaeopteryx might not actually be a direct ancestor of modern birds, that it's not a transitional fossil - it is clearly "in between" birds and dinosaurs, and even if it might be like an 'uncle', it's still highly informative...

... and more importantly, ID has NO EXPLANATION for its existance.


Evolution is not "perfect" - but neither is anything else taught in school, except maybe math. Should we abolish schools because of that?
Should we just abolish science classes?

I don't know about you, Jasen, but I want to live in a country that tries to prepare for the future - and that means teaching our children the best understanding of the world around us that we can. I mean, if you think America should give up our pre-eminent place in the world, then I guess you've got a point... but I don't want us to do that.

 
At 12:53 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Anonymous said evolution has holes in it and asked why evolutionists don't study those holes rather than just try to discredit ID.

Hey anonymous, have you been paying attention AT ALL??? Scientists were happily chugging along doing their research until the ID folks decided to circumvent the research phase and take their views directly to the press and schools. Scientists responded to that situation, they didn't initiate it.

And anyway, these "holes" you speak of, what exactly are they? I suspect they're not what you think they are. The word "holes" is very misleading, because it implies a problem. The reality is that there's just always more to learn, just as there is in every other field, whether it's a science field or not. For example, construction methods are improving, yet you wouldn't have said, a hundred years ago, that "there are holes in construction theory" just because we didn't use the steel frame structure that we now use for tall buildings.

There are, to my knowledge, no "holes" that imply any kind of breakdown of evolution theory.

As for would there be room for ID if evolution was an airtight theory, yes, ID and creation will find room no matter what proof there is. The simple reason is that religion is faith based, and proof has no bearing on that. Heck, there are still people who believe the earth is FLAT. Don't you think we've proven that it's not???

Face it, the problem that evolution faces in the religious world isn't a question of proof. It's not about "holes" and it's not about transitional fossils or any of the other things that creationists rant about. They believe that evolution violates their faith and that's the only issue. They have no problem with science in any regard other than evolution-- evolutionists are the only scientists in the world who are fools or dishonest. Curious that they're also the only ones whose work might cause people to question their religion, isn't it?

 
At 12:59 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Jasen M: As I said, I understand your point. But my point is that this blog isn't about the origin of the universe so why try to discuss that? Do you go to blogs that discuss cars and try to talk about mining? After all, you can't build a car until you get the raw materials.

Evolution is separate from the origin of the universe; it does not require a specific origin theory. There are various concepts about the origin of the universe, including God, but these have no bearing on evolution. Let's say God created the universe, evolution could then follow. Or evolution could follow the big bang, etc.

I hope I was more clear this time.

 
At 1:05 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1:19 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

sotek,

Lots of creatures have no explaination. Why do male horsefish give birth? How do you come up with an odd creature like a platypus? Nobody claims these animals to be in betweeners.

And lets not confuse ID with Biblical Creation, there are differences between the two.

And I dont get what you mean by "you're just trying to prevent us from attempting to acquire and teach anything at all?" Where do you get this from? I said, and I will say again THINGS THAT ARE NOT KNOWN TO BE FACTUAL SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTED AS SUCH.

Most of what I learned in school is not even taught anymore. But 2+2=4. That you can teach....or does it (lol)

Then you say "....I want to live in a country that tries to prepare for the future - and that means teaching our children the best understanding of the world around us that we can. I mean, if you think America should give up our pre-eminent place in the world, then I guess you've got a point...."

Americas pre-eminent place in the world? Are you implying that teaching a counterview to evolution would do that? and thats assuming that our pre-eminent place in the world is a good one, which is another topic of debate all together. I love this country, but seemingly every time someone practices freedom, you interfere with someone elses freedom, and now they get all bent out of shape and we leave it to the courts to determine what freedoms is free and what is not free. Thats a sad, liberal state.

I respect your viewpoint, I disagree, but I understand that common sense, or what has become common sense, leads you to believe the way you do, and I respect that. But you are again ignoring my point. I have 2 daughters, shouldn't I be entitled to having them educated in the way I would want them to be? You are painting me as a fanatic, which I am clearly not. I have not been to church in 10 years, but I do know when something is right and when something is wrong.

 
At 1:32 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 1:38 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

Fred;

First, bro, Your correct, evolution is debated because it is a direct attack on Christian beliefs, not really religion, as not all religions believe in Creation. Its no coincidence, also, that the ACLU, whom hates God in general, is a frontrunner in support of the ouster of ID in the school. Same reason, they thought ID infringed on their beliefs. The politics are not in question, it is freedom and truth (or pursuit of) that is, to me at least. I think we are clear there.

Secondly, YOU ARE RIGHT AGAIN! You can't build cars until you get the raw materials!!!! LOL! Fabolous analogy! F'n classic!

You were clear the first time, I was just letting you know my reasons for bringing it in to the conversation. My reason for posting was to answer your "lets make a deal" question....

BUT you didnt answer MY question, Fred!

PS check out my new email!!!!

miningtechniques@automobile.net

 
At 3:10 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Jasen M: We DO have proof of evolution. We have, for example, dinosaur bones. That's a fact. We know that they are millions of years old. That's a fact. Even if that was all we had, it's more proof than exists for Creation.

What testable proof is there for Creation? None. All we have is claims ("I just know it") and argument from indcredulity ("There's just no way this could have happened naturally.").

If you demand that science proves its point, then I demand that religion does too.

My comment in the P.S. ("you prove it first") wasn't meant to imply that we can't prove evolution, it was to point out the incomprehensible hypocrisy that Christians have. They try to bash evolution by demanding more and more proof, yet they offer no proof of their own. If no proof is required, then evolution shouldn't need any either, and they can stop ranting about problems in it.

How about rather than waiting for Christians to prove Creation, we do a point-by-point proof comparison. I'll start: We have dinosaur bones that are millions of years old. Now it's your turn. What testable evidence do you have?

 
At 3:10 PM, Blogger Ahab said...

"I have 2 daughters, shouldn't I be entitled to having them educated in the way I would want them to be?"

Of course you have that freedom. If you think the public school system is teaching your daughters incorrectly, you can send them to a private school or even homeschool them. No one is depriving you of your rights.
You are also free to tell them what you think of evolution or creationism.

 
At 4:43 PM, Blogger Michael "Sotek" Ralston said...

"THINGS THAT ARE NOT KNOWN TO BE FACTUAL SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTED AS SUCH."

Right.

There goes all of physics - hell, we *know* everything there is, in fact, wrong.

There also goes all of history.

You just don't like education, do you?

 
At 4:49 PM, Blogger Michael "Sotek" Ralston said...

Oh, and yes, teaching a "counterview" to evolution *would* hurt our place in the world.

Because it would DESTROY any hope of us having new biologists, because we would be teaching our children that biology is entirely a lie - biology doesn't EXIST as a field without evolution.

Not to mention the fact that if we teach children that revealed knowledge is superior to experimentation and questioning, we're telling them science is bad - which means we won't have very many scientists.

And it's our lead in science and technology that makes us great.




(Oh, and about the ACLU: Calling them "God-hating" is a simple lie. They've protected the rights of many Christian children who got punished for individual expressions of religious belief - it's just that they don't allow the GOVERNMENT, which includes the schools, to try to IMPOSE religion - you know, what with the first amendment and all. I can cite quite a few cases the ACLU filed in support of Christianity, if you really insist.)

 
At 11:55 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12:00 AM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

ahab,

I KNEW someone would tell me to put my kids in private or home schooling.

So now I have to be penalized and pay thousands of dollars to send my kids to private school because YOU think something is factual? Or maybe I should quit my job and home school them? Please!!!!

Think about how silly that sounds. Did you go to school with any Jehovahs witnesses? remember how they got pulled out of class for the birthday parties? We put our kids thru too much because liberals are so terrified of anything resembling God in Public life.

 
At 12:07 AM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

Carbon dating, and the Isotopes of radiometric (ratings (I believe is the correct term) are used to date these million year old dinosaur fossils, right? well, how do they date them? from what I know, the methods are dating the rocks and sediment they are found in. Firstly there are cases of trees that are found in sediment at the bottom that is "millions of years old" but at the top of the tree the sediment is "thousands of years". Now how can these trees live that long????

More data, since the Bible claims the world was covered in a global flood, this partly can explain the mis-ratings we have today. CEN Technical Journal, Issue 10 in 1986 states this...

"Rock formed in the Mount St Helens eruption in 1986 was dated by the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method as being between 50,000 years old at the low and 350,000 years old at the high end"

also

"fossils and rock found in the Mt. Ngauruhoe (new zeland) lava flows, which have occured in 1949, 1954 and 1975 have been dated as old as 3.5 million years +/- .0027 million years."

WHAT???? Now what...How....HUH? When I looked for this I found about 6 other examples, too. So spare me the bullcrap!!!!

OK....now bear with me here, I realize this is out of left field, but I think its possible....mind you I say possible....that dinosaurs were still around as recently as hundreds of years ago. Why? well, the rumors of dragons in midevil europe had to come from somewhere, they just added the fire breathing. Dont crucify me for this I'm just saying it makes a little sense if you think about it....Native americans have similar tales, especially in Utah the pacific northweat (also home of Bigfoot lol) and the Dakotas.

HMMM, why is my word verification E-N-R-O-N. LOL

 
At 12:22 AM, Blogger Ahab said...

Guess, it all depends on what is important to you, jasen. It should be apparent that others are not going to allow you to force science teachers to teach religious beliefs in their class.
If it were me and I disagreed as strongly with the school cirriculum as you appear to, I sure as hell would find a way to get my kids into an alternative system.
And your whining about the cost, just reminds me of those liberal weenies who want the government to pay everything for them. So I think in practice you are more of a liberal than you think.

And, oh my goodness, you want only facts taught in school, but you are willing to believe Native American myths and rumors from medieval Europe are true.
You make no sense at all. You are extremely skeptical of anything coming from science and completely gullible when it comes to old wive's tales.

 
At 5:43 AM, Blogger Michael "Sotek" Ralston said...

No, jasen, carbon-dating isn't used on things older than, as I recall the limit being, sixty-five thousand years old.

Potassium-argon is one of the ones used on dinosaurs.

And there are very specific circumstances when it can be used - lava flows are, in fact, not one of them. I thought you said you had READ talk-origins? Or is it you just think they're lying?



And you want the cheap way to have your children learn no science? Tell them the teacher is going to lie to them and not to listen to anything the teacher says because it doesn't matter - of course, this'll lead to bad grades, but who cares, since they don't mean anything anyway, right?

 
At 11:05 AM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

Wow this comment section really heated up! I like it when wacky trolls such as Jasen M come in and start the discussion from the beginning! "My Man" and all that.

Its as if all the work PT and Jason etal have done to explain why these anti-science attacks have no basis in fact or theory never happened. Let's make fun of Evo because we don't see a half-man/half-ape do we! Huh do we? so evolution is a fraud~! Ha Ha.

The Big Bang is a "theory." It's an explaination crafted from considering the implications of our observations. Scientists observe stuff. They try to figure out WHAT they are observing and then they make up a theory that EXPLAINS why they're seeing what they do. Then they STUDY the way the pieces of the theory fit together and try to find some physical characteristic that the theory PREDICTS would be the case and then they devise an experiment to try and prove or dis-prove the prediction. They take the results of these observations and go back to the top.

Now I know that all these theories are false because the FSM modifies and falsifies all of our observations. But foolish scientists THINK they see the universe expanding and therefor conclude that at some point it must have been smaller than it is today. And they THINK they measure a generic near-uniform energy signature from a hugh explosion. And they THINK they can measure the age of rocks and they THINK that they find fossils from different ages with evolving charactoristics.

BUT that's all false because the FSM is fooling them and laughing at them and going ARR! Matey!!

an alternate theory is that Jasen = Jason and he's pulling our legs to get more hits on his site!

 
At 2:16 PM, Blogger Jim Jordan said...

"The task of modern idealists indeed is made much too easy for them by the fact that they are always taught that if a thing has been defeated it has been disproved." - G.K. Chesterton - "What's Wrong With the World" (pg.35)

At least the ID folks have taken the high road. They haven't "unearthed" any plaster Adam's ribs or falsified any geological records showing the earth to be only 6,000 years old. The Darwinists have "Piltdown Man", ""Pithecanthropus" - the fake simian man, "Hesperopithecus haroldcookii" - the man who was really a pig, not to mention Dr. Ernst Haeckel's fake embryos (etc., etc., etc., etc.). The story of Evolution is a story of the incremental growth of frauds.

The truth is that neither Evolution nor Intelligent Design belongs in the Science class, but the Philosophy of Science class. Neither is based on scientific facts. Sometime ago our schools and colleges started playing fast and loose with the facts, a process that is still evolving.

Already, a Darwinist in California is challenging one such philosophy of science course that includes Intelligent Design. Good for him. He's helping the rest of us understand the true nature of this debate, an argument between competing religious beliefs.

 
At 3:13 PM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

Jim,

"one such philosophy of science course that includes Intelligent Design."

do you mean the single-sided creationism course that even the Dopey Institute has said is a bad idea? That course?

"At least the ID folks have taken the high road."

Ha ha that's funny. Do you mean the lying, slandering, quote mining no-substance folks in Dover, DI or Ohio or Kansas?

"The story of Evolution is a story of the incremental growth of frauds."

Ha ha frauds...like your whole ID movement isn't a complete fraud. Science is self-correcting.

Mendactiy isn't

 
At 3:32 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Hey Jim Jordan, from what I recall, Piltdown man was either just intended as a private joke (that obviously got out of hand), or was set up to discredit someone (by that person beliving it and then looking foolish when the hoax was revealed). It wasn't used as the basis for further study. And anyway, guess who found it to be a hoax? SCIENTISTS. Yes, that's right, science is self-policing by its very nature because it requires independent verification (amongst other controls).

Just because there are a few wackos in the science world doesn't mean all of science is wrong. There have been plenty of phony religious relics too: ever hear of the shroud of Turin or the recently "discovered" ossuary of James?

The folks at the Discovery Institute haven't exactly been completely honest, nor were the authors of "Of Pandas & People", nor the board of Dover, and then of course there's Pat Robertson. Not to mention the authors of the Bible, who lied about the universe and earth being created in six days. And I know it has nothing to do with evolution/creation, but if you're looking to discredit science because of a few crazies, I feel I should point out that at least there's no huge child molestation scandal going on in the science world.

Oh yeah, and didn't the fine, upstanding leaders of religion tell us that disease was caused by God? And didn't they tell us the earth was the center of the universe? And didn't they tell us the earth was flat? Why would I toss out evolution to believe what these people say?

 
At 3:36 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

congrats sotek

you manage again to post a nice, long thread and have NO point.

 
At 4:51 PM, Blogger Michael "Sotek" Ralston said...

Jasen: My point is that you're full of shit, and you either know it or can't read.

For instance, from talk-origins, which you CLAIMED to read: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html

and there's more. Still say radiometric dating's unreliable?

My other point is that if your standards are so high we can't teach evolution, then we can't teach anything else, since evolution is quite possibly the *most* certain thing in the sciences.

 
At 12:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The most certain thing in science? If that's the case, then there is no science. Maybe the most certain things in science are acid neutralizing bases, or something like that. Michael, you seem to be against the ropes, resorting to foul lingo....

 
At 12:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ON that note, Fred at least seems to have some dignity, and rational thought. Michael, you seem to be hostile and angry, and you are really being foolish. Your links mean nothing. See a phyciatrist, lately?

 
At 1:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, anonymous, Michael doesn't need a shrink.
When someone states they doubt radiometric dating but are willing to believe that dinosaurs lived only a couple of hundred years ago on the basis of medieval legends, they are deserving of all the mockery one might wish to throw their way.
One would be a fool to take them seriously at that point.

 
At 1:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Evolution is a theory, several of you have admitted that. ID is a theory as well. If our schools teach one theory why not the other? Because ID does not fit the current indoctrination schedule in use in the public school system. To tell someone to pull their child out of public school if they don't like what's taught is ridiculous. We all pay taxes and should be able to feel good about what is taught in school. People harp on diversity in every other area why not allow diversity on this issue? I don't think we should remove evolution from science class, just allow for other ideas to be taught along with it. If evolution is so great it will obviously convince the students right? Why not let them use thier brain for themselves and CHOOSE? Bottom line...choice could lead to critical thinking which makes indoctrination very tough!
By the way, bringing up scandal in the Church is a nice move. Like the secular world has no issue with child molestation!! You all just aren't willing to look at any other possibilities so you slander people or institutions. The person defending ID said he doesn't even go to Church but you all can't accept that someone other than a religeous "fanatic" might believe ID.
I agree that ID may need work but look how long the entire scientific world has been working on evolution! One other comment...the ACLU is a collection of whackjobs who fool people like you by accepting a Christian case every now and then! They are as far left as you can get and one day they will get so far left they turn on you and begin taking away your rights (but that's another issue).

 
At 2:11 PM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

Anon,

post under your own assumed name and you'll have more credibility.

well actually, when you say things like: "Evolution is a theory, several of you have admitted that. ID is a theory as well." maybe that's won't happen. You don't know what a theory is.

Go back to my post and start at:

"The Big Bang is a "theory." It's an explaination crafted from considering the implications of our observations." you start with WHAT go on to EXPLAINS and STUDY and then PREDICTS and then experiment and repeat. ID is not a theory. It does none of the above but rather says "I can't (or won't) figure out how this #$%% happened so I say that the aliens did it. That is so bogus.

"I agree that ID may need work"

Uh yeah like some new basics now that ireducible complexity and specified obfuscation are proven to be false. and maybe ID would benifit from ONE explaination of how a evolutionary adaptation came about rather than GOD did it.

GOD is Great as the heathens say. You can accept that life on earth evolved from tiny bacteria and little squiggily worms without giving up your precious diety. Just say the N-Rays drive the evolutionary process, not any "natural" selection process!

 
At 2:14 PM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

"We all pay taxes and should be able to feel good about what is taught in school."

yea well I still think that slavery is a good idea and I think its OK to torture stray cats, just like our Senate majority leader. I want that that taught in school to make me feel good.

any objections?

 
At 2:57 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

A note about anonymous posters: Guys, please at least make up a name so we can tell the various people apart. Under "Choose an Identity" pick "Other" and put something there as a name. You don't need to put a web page.

Anyway... One of the anonymous posters said: "Evolution is a theory, several of you have admitted that. ID is a theory as well. If our schools teach one theory why not the other? Because ID does not fit the current indoctrination schedule in use in the public school system."

Yes, evolution is a theory (which doesn't mean "guess" or "hunch" or even "hypothesis"). But ID is NOT a theory, it IS a hunch or hypothesis. It does not take all of the facts into account, it is not predictive, it is not falsifiable, etc. (The ID folks will say it's falsifiable, but they're wrong. Any potentially falsifiable thing can be rationalized away by merely saying "the designer did that on purpose.")

So we have a theory with well over a hundred years of research, none of which has gone against the theory (there are certainly details to be worked out-- scientists haven't claimed to be finished), and a hunch with little or no research behind it (that was the finding of the court).

Judge Jones' ruling didn't rule out the possibility of ever teaching ID as science, it merely said that as of now it's not science and does not have enough verified research behind it to warrant teaching it to kids. (There are, after all, lots of things going on in the science world that are not ready to be taught in schools.)

And as has been pointed out elsewhere, the first mention of ID was in the book Of Pandas & People. That's a high school text book. The concept wasn't first presented to scientists where it would be tested, verified, and maybe accepted, it as presented to students. As Jason (owner of this blog) has said, how many valid scientific theories do you know of that were first presented in high school text books rather than being researched, studied and presented to the scientific world?

What's often lost in the knee-jerk reaction against the "evolutionists" is that we're perfectly open to any new ideas, but before they're accepted they have to go through rigorous research, testing, etc. (just as pro-evolution ideas do). ID has not done that; it's tried to circumvent all of that and gone straight to the media and schools. That strikes me (and I'm sure countless others) as an admission that its "science" wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, its two main concepts, irreducible complexity and specified complexity have been thoroughly disproved long ago and no new evidence for them has been presented.

 
At 9:02 PM, Blogger Michael "Sotek" Ralston said...

Anonymous (the one that said I need to see a psychiatrist):

Those links show one thing.

They show that Jasen either lied when he claimed there was an unexplained problem for radiometric dating, or he lied about having read talkorigins.

He *could* simply be mistaken about radiometric dating - except that if he had really, as he claimed, read talkorigins, he would have known better.

Thus, he lied, and conciously so.
So he is, in fact, full of shit - and y'know what? It's vulgar. So fucking what? It's also, and this is the important part, true.

He's a liar, and he's been caught up on his lies, and this is consistant with the behaviour of 90% of the creationists I've debated. (The other 10% are profoundly ignorant, and usually stop being creationists after learning even a tiny bit about what evolution really says)

Hell, creationists are such liars they have to lie about what their position really is, and say "Oh, we believe in ID theory" (which isn't a theory, because it's not even a hypothesis - the overarching concept can't be falsified, and the specific claims have been), and then say "We don't want ID taught in schools, we just want 'criticisms of evolution'!" (but ID doesn't HAVE anything but [false] criticisms of evolution)




So, yes, I'm a little angry.

People lying and actively seeking to undermine the scientific education that has made our country great do, in fact, piss me right the fuck off.
I love America, and I sure as hell don't want to see a group of extreme whackjobs ruin it, or give the vast majority of Christians - you know, the ones of us who can accept reality and all - a bad name.

Personally, I think that not getting angry as a result of all this would be a sign of insanity.

 
At 11:24 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

Sotek,

You are an idiot. You have the balls to say....

"Thus, he (me) lied, and conciously so.
So he is, in fact, full of shit - and y'know what? It's vulgar. So fucking what? It's also, and this is the important part, true"

Is that a damn fact? vulgar? LOL! You, sir, are a mental midget. When you finish your next shift at McDonalds, and after you come home from your next wiccen meeting, you might want to check your own facts.

My numbers were accurate. So what did I lie about? Second, This is a blatant FUCKING BULLSHIT (I told you I'm not a churchgoer) example of a pussy ass bitch like you trying to find a way to make yourself look good. I'm tired of your little song and dance, here is the MAIN body of the links you sent, right after they stated the #'s for the St. Helens rocks were EXACTLY as I said......

"Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date."

Convenient, eh? ONLY good on items over 2 million years old. Well guess what, Sotek, you dipstick, THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE THE WORLD IS THAT OLD!!!! IT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE DEBATE!!!!

Thats like saying youre really fast at making Quarter Pounders, but only if the grill is set up the way you want it. The problem with evolutionists is they put their faith in mad made objects to prove something beyond the mental grasp of mankind. Living things are the most complex and advanced machines on earth. Is it any wonder that most everything we use day to day is set up like a human organism?

Cars run like the human body, pistons work like the heart, the fuel intake and outtake valves work like veins, the engine works like your lungs, the traction control works on yaw like our inner ear. Cameras were first designed after our eyes. speakers after our ears. Does this seem like a coincidence that we copy the same technology over and over and over? And you believe it all came from a bacteria???? Great for you!!!!

Keep making the evidence twist to fit your argument, and then start getting "mad" as you say. I won't run and hide from you, boy. I am no expert on anything, I just read alot in my spare time, and I believe there is a God, same as you likely believe there is not one. So your BIAS is PRE-determined!!!! So is mine, Chief. Do NOT sit around and act like you are the all-knowing lie detector and you busted another silly fanatical creationist, all you did is succeed in looking like a 9 year old who dont wanna look bad in front of the other kids.

Then you go on

".... People lying and actively seeking to undermine the scientific education that has made our country great do, in fact, piss me right the fuck off.
I love America, and I sure as hell don't want to see a group of extreme whackjobs ruin it, or give the vast majority of Christians - you know, the ones of us who can accept reality and all - a bad name"

You are insane, buddy. I'm one of the wackos? Great, I'd rather be called a wacko by you than smart, because you are not exactly the character who I would want giving the speech to induct me into the Hall of Smartness. Are you really serious? You think that, hold on, I will quote you again

"scientific education that has made our country great"

It HAS? Science has made us great? I thought it was one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Oh, right, kids cant even say that anymore, what a great country where the Pledge is not accepted. We are deteriorating into a moral scum-pit compared to the morals and guidelines set up by our Founding Fathers. When folks believed in the Bible, life was better, but now, we can't even stay married longer than a year. We can abort thousands of lives calling them "blobs of tissue". We can cater to homosexuals, let murderers and child molestors run rampant on our streets, arrest them and plea bargin so they can get out in 10, while you get fucking nailed to the wall for speeding thru a construction zone. YOU love America? I'm sure you do, so long as the people living here FIT YOUR TWISTED PRE DETERMINED BIAS AND IDEALS. Wow, thanks!!!! Its people like you whom worry about "offending the terrorists" instead of shooting the fuckers in the head, or the civil rights of a child killer. This nation has no morals anymore, there is nothing good or pure shown to our kids. We have too many freedoms where we dont need them and not enough in the areas where we do need them, and most of it boils down to NOT having any ethics built into our children.

Funny coincidence,I write this on Martin L King day, These are all values and beliefs he has as well. According to YOUR theory, different races of people were thought more evolved than other races of people, which, if evolution was true, would make sense, right? After all, it is true in the case of most EVERY other species on the planet....But NOOOOO we just HAPPEN to all be the same....now. They did not believe this in Darwins time, but NOW they say it was so wrong, (which it was) but not because they think they are wrong, they just want to fit the Liberal agenda of not offending anyone. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL....Nah, sotek, you think we all just evolved equally into the GREAT society we have today....ENJOY your monster, Dr. Frankenstein, it has truly evolved!!!!

 
At 11:50 PM, Blogger Ahab said...

"I'm one of the wackos? "

Yes, as you post indubitably proves.

 
At 12:04 AM, Anonymous Fred said...

Jasen M: Speaking of MLK, where did all of the races come from? Even if Adam and Eve were each of a different race, that doesn't account for all of them. Where did they come from?

 
At 12:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jasen M

Pretty harsh, but I guess you called a spade a spade. Good Points, but I think you rambled a bit off subject, maybe he ticked you off, as I think he intended. You are right, I see they only give credit to any data that they want to give credit to.

Fred,

Sorry about my anonymous post, Just wont let me create an ID. My CPU is garbage....maybe it will evolve into a new Dell???? My name is Jon Labonte am from Boston. I am a student at Chicago State, and I was looking online for things to talk about in my Biology 102 class. We were discussing the Dover case. Clearly I've struck gold here.

 
At 12:24 AM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

First Fred, according to Scripture, Adam and Eve are not our direct ancestors, Noah is. All people are decended from Noah and his 3 sons. Before I get into that, remember, Darwins book "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Nazis were devout evolutionists. In Austrialia, whites killed aboriginies thinking they were primitave man.

As I am sure you know, Fred, the dispertion of men was due to the Tower of Babel incident, where God made men to speak different languages. There is no text older than a few thousand years old in any language other than Hebrew. Some will say Egyptians had written things before this, but the oldeds pyramids are thought to be around 2000 bc, i do believe. Sorry but I am not an authority on this particular subject. And remember, I'm just a big liar....Anyway, I think you are saying this to set me up for some rebutal you already have, so.... lets hear it.

PS fred, thanks for at least having the respect to speak to me decently and thoughtfully. Some here do not share that trait.

 
At 1:07 AM, Anonymous Fred said...

But Jasen, isn't Noah descended from Adam and Eve? I mean, it's been a while since I've read any of the Bible, but I thought the whole point of them is that they were the first and they populated the planet. (Of course, how they could have had grandchildren is beyond me too.)

Another thing: It seems rather telling to me that things that weren't known back when the Bible was written (scientific things, geography, etc.), it got wrong. That certainly works against the notion that it was divinely inspired, don't you think?

Lastly, science has one big advantage over religion: To my knowledge no one has ever been put to death for failing to believe in science. And there's no scientific equivalent of the witch trials. So when deciding between religion and science, I choose the lesser of two evils: science.

 
At 6:43 AM, Blogger Michael "Sotek" Ralston said...

Yes, Jasen, you fuckwit, science is what's made us great. Or do think we would have won the cold war without it? Hell, how do you think we'd've done in WW2 if Germany hadn't driven out half their scientists? Our freedom sure as hell helps, but it's science that gives us the ABILITY to be free - ever consider how many people had to farm in the middle ages? Think you're free if you're compelled to be a farmer or starve? I don't.

Fuck, do you think you'd be alive without science? Odds are you wouldn't - check mortality rates from even a century ago, compare them to now. That didn't happen because of creationism, I can promise you that.


Your arguments on radiometric dating are becoming more and more inane, too. No, it doesn't (alone) prove an old earth... but it agrees with every other measurement, we can do measurements in parallel and they all say the exact same thing - and a young earth has no evidence except the Bible, but trying to pull hard dates from something not actually providing them is a bad idea (See the post about pi=3 for an idea why) - not to mention that most efforts to do so place the Flood simultaneous with the (dated by written records - CAN'T argue with that one) building of some of the Pyramids.

(Oh, and the "it" that was vulgar was *my* comment. My apologies for not making it clear enough for you to follow that.)

 
At 6:49 AM, Blogger Michael "Sotek" Ralston said...

Oh, and you're a DOUBLE fuckwit for claiming evolution says *anything* about moral values.

Nothing now alive is "more evolved" than anything else - it's all had three or four billion years of evolution.

It's just that blacks are specialized for tropical climates, while whites are specialized for temperate-to-arctic climates.

And y'know what? That's a fact - and I doubt MLK would have denied it, since it's not like it MATTERS.

The brain's the same, and that's what matters - but if you had stuck MLK up in Alaska for a year, he'd probably have wound up with some severe vitamin D deficiences (without the use of, say, sun lamps), while if you stuck someone pasty white in the tropics without anything helpful like clothing, they'd be at risk for heat stroke.

So? This matters? This causes one race to have more "moral value" than another, according to evolution? FUCK NO it doesn't.

And it's funny you attack homosexuals while simultaneously trying to play the "civil rights" card - or do you think civil rights apply to everyone EXCEPT homosexuals? Certainly MLK's wife has said that "gay rights" is the SAME struggle as the one that blacks went through in the sixties - you think she's lying?

 
At 6:51 AM, Blogger Michael "Sotek" Ralston said...

Oh, and I worry about "offending the terrorists"? Really?

I worry about offending (and violating the freedoms of) Muslims who AREN'T terrorists, because I think that just might make them support the terrorists. Do you?

As for anyone who actually commits or plans to commit terrorism? Nail 'em to a wall by their testicles, and leave 'em to rot. But if that's all you do, you just get more terrorism - you have to address the root causes, because people don't support terrorists for fun.

 
At 11:52 AM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

Hey Jasen,

"As I am sure you know, Fred, the dispertion of men was due to the Tower of Babel incident, where God made men to speak different languages."

'incident?" don't you mean "made-up story" and if Fred "knows" this to be the reason I certainly don't. So one day everyones walking around speaking Urdu or something and then they wake up and can't understand each other..

ha ha hahahahahahha

I guess when you were popped out of your mama's belly your diety did something to you because you sure as heck don't make any sense.

Did he use N-Rays? or just his finger? I'll give you the finger if you want!

"The problem with evolutionists is they put their faith in mad made objects to prove something beyond the mental grasp of mankind."

A) you must be talking about "rational people" and not just people who undertand that evolution happened.

b) it is not faith to understand how science works. science is based on PROOF not bald assertions. and when people lie (like Jasen) they get caught. but not always punished (see DI)

c)objects? what like false idols? so now ideas are idols? oh those heathen scientists!

d) "something beyond the mental grasp of mankind" errrr make that

"something beyond the mental grasp of Jasen"
----------------------------------
ach! They don't believe in the holy word! ach sinners condemmed to hell! ach saints preserve them!

 
At 12:04 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12:05 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

Sotek

Who said anything about my views on civil rights? I mentioned a liberals view, which is everyone is equal so long as they fit the pre-qualified priorities. I notice you did not deny what I said about Darwins racist beliefs. You continue to bring up point after point, then when I give my rebuttal, you nitpick on something unimportant and unrelated, like trying to compare military technology with evolutionary biology. I got my balls ripped off by bringing up a connection between origin of the universe, with folks here asking why I brought that up when its unrelated, but you bring up world war 2 and medicine. What, pray, does radar or the a-bomb or penicillin have to do with a fish evolving into a physician? Unless carbon dating cures cancer....

Young Earth - see;

http://genesis.amen.net/earth.html


Look, sotek,

I am sorry for getting a bit pissed at you, but my point remains the same. You stated, with ignorance on the topic:

"Oh, and you're a DOUBLE fuckwit for claiming evolution says *anything* about moral values."

I have to disagree. If someone is raised to believe there is no penalty for living a God-less life, or raised to believe that there is no law above the law of men, what is the reason for that person to worry about anyone but themselves, there is no reason to care about fellow humans. You see that a lot these days. Sure, we pull together in times of darkness, like 9-11 and Katrina, which speaks volumes for us, but it also shows that we are instinctual beings.

What do I mean? I will give you some evidence of God. What does an animal do when it is cornered, hungry, lost or injured? It relies on instinct to survive. We have instinct too, and what does our instinct have us do when we are in trouble, in general? We turn to God. We pray. Ever hear of an unreligious person finding faith on the deathbed? How about how the WHOLE nation came together in prayer after 9-11. Remember how nice everyone was, at least for a week or so? Our own instincts tell us that there is a higher power, do you have a scientific reason for that?

Who would you REALLY have rather had in office after 9-11? Bush, whom pulled the nation together in prayer, or the atheistic Al Gore? Now, I am not defending Bush, I don’t want to get on that topic, but there was a reason he was elected, and MAYBE that was it. You have to look beyond what you see in front of you to understand Christianity, and the Bible even speaks of that on many occasions. Evolution is one reason that the Muslims have no respect for us. No Muslim believes in it, the Koran preaches Creation, and the Koran also preaches that Christians will be hypocritical in our faith. For more on this, see my blog from today.

 
At 12:07 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

kevin from nyc

so in other words you would also say,

"so this blind man asked jesus to heal him and all of a sudden he was not bling anymore" hahahahaha

right? in your view, the whole bible is a "made up story"....

stay out of grown folks conversations.

 
At 12:25 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

Fred,

Adam and Eve are our decendents, true, but Noah is closer in the "family tree" as according to Scripture the rest of the world was wiped out in the flood.

for more of Tower -

http://www.unmuseum.org/babel.htm

again a reminder of this post is that my beliefs are my opinion, and yours are yours. It all delves back to the Dover case, and we have gotten off task.

 
At 12:35 PM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

Jasen

""so this blind man asked jesus to heal him and all of a sudden he was not bling anymore" hahahahaha"

ha ha bling...what was he a gold watch...snark.

"The beanstalk grew up quite close past Jack's window, so all he had to do was to open it and give a jump onto the beanstalk which ran up just like a big ladder. So Jack climbed, and he climbed, and he climbed, and he climbed, and he climbed, and he climbed, and he climbed till at last he reached the sky. And when he got there he found a long broad road going as straight as a dart. So he walked along, and he walked along, and he walked along till he came to a great big tall house, and on the doorstep there was a great big tall woman."

and the tall woman said "The bible is as true as this story..."

a poor beat-up sect of jews writes a book about how special they are...and you, child, believe it comes from the mouth of the supreme diety (and all those other holy books are just bad writing and all those other dieties are fakers)

 
At 12:39 PM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

"Who would you REALLY have rather had in office after 9-11? Bush, whom pulled the nation together in prayer, or the atheistic Al Gore? Now, I am not defending Bush, I don’t want to get on that topic, but there was a reason he was elected, and MAYBE that was it"

you really ARE stupid. Bush failed miserably before and after 9-11. and if you tell me that you god chose Bush to cheat and steal the election then your worship the devil. Bush will be the ruin of us all.

 
At 11:53 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

Hey kevin from shithole NYC

You and your city both are shitholes, Chief. Go play 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon or something.

Your teenage, jr. high snickering and bickering are almost as gay as your boyfriend....you know what I mean Boss?

I asked you once to stay out of grown folks conversations, Ace.

I doubt you have any bling. Go fix me a milkshake, bitch, and stop trying to play captain obvious. get bent, Gunner.

I'm hitting the F-U button on you.

 
At 1:08 AM, Anonymous Fred said...

Jasen M said: Adam and Eve are our decendents, true, but Noah is closer in the "family tree" as according to Scripture the rest of the world was wiped out in the flood.

First of all, I assume you meant "ancestors" not "decendents." Second, it doesn't matter that Noah is closer on the family tree. The question still remains: Where did the additional races come from? The Bible makes no mention of them that I'm aware of.

For example, let's say that Adam was black and Eve was Asian. How did white people appear? They couldn't have had a white child or grandchild or great-grandchild.

And actually there's nothing in the Bible to imply that Adam and Eve were of different races (after all, religious folk seem to be very against mixing races), so if they were both one race there are even more unaccounted races.

This has nothing to do with Noah, so please don't bring that up again.

As for the question of morals, I'm sorry that you need the threat of a vengeful God to keep you in line. Me, I'm a decent person because I feel that's the right thing to be. And my friends are decent people too. Some of the worst people I know are religious though. I'm NOT saying that all religious people are bad and all atheists are good, but shouldn't there be no bad religious people at all???

 
At 8:32 AM, Blogger Michael "Sotek" Ralston said...

I didn't address Darwin's "racist views" because I didn't think I had to, since it doesn't MATTER what he believed, if his theory is right.

But if you insist, here's some more from that site you lied about having read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_2.html


Izzat enough? Or should I take to only using the Index of Creationist Claims to address your lies about evolution? Because at this rate - I could.



"If someone is raised to believe there is no penalty for living a God-less life, or raised to believe that there is no law above the law of men, what is the reason for that person to worry about anyone but themselves, there is no reason to care about fellow humans."

You are full of shit. You really, really, are. Also, you terrify me - because if you really honestly believe that, you are a sociopath who should not be allowed out in public.

Have you heard of "empathy"? Do you just not feel it at all? 'cause, y'know, atheists can have the sense of empathy too - and empathy alone is a reason to care about fellow humans.

Aside from that, there's the fact that you're insulting my religious beliefs by claiming they don't exist - I am a Christian, just not one who believes in a literal interpretation of the extremely-figurative writing in the Bible. Evolution doesn't say a single thing about God, just something about the world - God could, and I believe did, use evolution; or do you think that was not, in fact, within his power?



Oh, and who would I rather have had as president after 9/11? I would rather have had someone who would have tried to make sure nothing like that would happen again, instead of someone who has formed plans based on PROVOKING terrorists to attack us. Wouldn't you?


And you didn't say anything negative about homosexuals? What was "We can cater to homosexuals" supposed to mean, except that allowing them to marry is "wrong"? Huh? Tell me what you meant by that, if you didn't actually believe homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

And if you say "liberals" are advocating for "special rights" for homosexuals - identify those rights, please - because the right to marry sure isn't "special" in the sense that it'd be exclusive to some groups ... unless, of course, the "religious" right has their way.

 
At 8:55 AM, Blogger Mark said...

Jasen....

Please SHUT-UP!!!

Your rantings only fuel the belief of some that all Christians are like you.

Some advie to you would be to find a good church and sit in it for a while and learn what it means to be a Christian. Because from what you have said on this blog it is clear you do not know.

Mark

 
At 12:40 PM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

"Hey kevin from shithole NYC

You and your city both are shitholes, Chief. Go play 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon or something.

Your teenage, jr. high snickering and bickering are almost as gay as your boyfriend....you know what I mean Boss?

I asked you once to stay out of grown folks conversations, Ace."

Ha ha ha wow! Stupid and ANGRY!

Get beat up much? Hurt alot? and you went running to religion to make your worthless life a little palatable? Dosn't seem to be working..

TRY XANAX

 
At 3:51 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

Fred,

"This has nothing to do with Noah, so please don't bring that up again."

I will bring it up again, cuz you are wrong. Look at Noah as the big "do over". It does not matter what race Adam and eve were, all their offspring and decedents were wiped out in the flood sans Noah and his wife, 3 sons, and their families. So your question should, and must start from there, whether you like it or not.

Please dont ask me what to talk about in my posts, I dont dictate to you.

"(after all, religious folk seem to be very against mixing races)"

Is that so? Which one? That has more to do with being a bigot than religious.... and they transcend all boundaries. You could bring up the KKK, they are extreme right wing "Christians", but if that’s your example its way off. Muslims don't want marrying outside of Muslims, according to the book of Sura in the Koran. It does not mention race, other than Jews, whom they call "those the scriptures were given to" and says to avoid them.

"shouldn't there be no bad religious people at all???"

You are right....but if I am religious and my religion is to sacrifice teenage virgins to the Great Pumpkin, I'd be a pretty bad guy. This does not qualify for being a religion in my context though. And not everyone who claims to be Christian really is. You should be a decent person, and I am sure you are, but you seem to me to be agnostic. Let me ask you a question, IF you were somehow convinced or proven to that God created you, and that the Bible is true, would you then denounce Evolution and become a Christian? Many, I believe, would not. We like the lives we live, and we figure why not just be a good person, nobody can prove there is a God, So why give up getting drunk or sleeping around or whatever, on a lesser level why even waste my time going to church, I like watching the NFL, or whatever. (read my earlier post on human instinct) Second, what is the reward for you when you do die? If you are right, and there is no God, then when you die you are just gone, nothing. Maybe you become a ghost and haunt the Tasty freeze. But if I am right, when you die you either go to Heaven or Hell.

Don't you think its prudent to choose option two? Just IN CASE you MIGHT be wrong? Just IN CASE there is a God whom cannot be defined by the sceince of men? Look at all that man has created, using only a fraction of our brains. Is is so impossible that something could create us? After all, the worst that can happen is I was right before and now I'm haunting Tasty freeze after all. The worst that can happen in the other scenario is a much darker eternity.

Then again, maybe the Bible is right, but man I wanna go see if that hot chick at the bookstore wants to give me a piece of ass, then maybe....BAM....did not see the Mack truck....

and the winner is....

by the way, check out this link on the orgin of race:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/races18.asp

 
At 4:05 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

Mark

I dont claim to be a churchgoer, never did. I am a realist, and the chance of me shutting up are nil. My folks are about as Christian as you can get. They basically run their Church, all on voluntary basis. They dont impose anything on anyone, they believe the best results are thru prayer. I have seen them pray for the people at abortion clinics when they drive by them, but they dont stop and throw rocks. I have seen then drive by the Mosk and stop talking and pray for the Muslims there, yet they dont get out and say they are terrorists.

I however, choose to use my mouth, and here my keyboard, to voice my opinions, but nobody is forced to listen to me, agree with me or like me even. This is voluntary. Call me a troll or a noob or whatever your e-term is, I dont care. My biology professor in college had a tough time with me 8 years ago, and I am much more educated on the topic now. Why? because I think. I think about what makes sense. Evolution, to me, does not. The Dover case, to me, did not. Seperation of Church and state does not.

Now, all of these things make sense on some level, but to me and my pissy low 133 IQ, they seem to fit better with the evidence, WHEN combined with the Bible, which after thousands of years is still the #1 selling book on earth. Those are results I am swayed by.

 
At 4:16 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

sotek

You state:

"I am a Christian, just not one who believes in a literal interpretation of the extremely-figurative writing in the Bible. Evolution doesn't say a single thing about God, just something about the world - God could, and I believe did, use evolution; or do you think that was not, in fact, within his power?"

So, then figuratively, I dont need to believe Christ died for our sins, and that I must accept him into my life, to go to heaven, because even though John 3;16 says I must, It is ony figurative, after all, God lied in Genesis.

Or maybe you will say the authors lied....is that your comeback....

Well Maybe they lied about "Not by the works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy he saved us...." and maybe they lied when they wrote "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"

You can't follow half of the book and not another half, just like you cant be half Marxist and half Libertarian.

The Bible says there was NO death until the first sin, correct? How do you have 4.5 million years of evolution without death?

 
At 4:29 PM, Blogger Mark said...

jasen..

I think I would like your parents.

You claim to believe the Bible, then act like it.

Get before God and repent.

What I said still holds. Find a good church (the one your parents go to maybe) and sit in it for a while and learn what it means to be a Christian. Not just someone who believes the Bible when it suits them. Because from what you have said on this blog it is clear you do not know. And if you don't know then you may end-up in a place you don't want to be.

Mark

 
At 4:42 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

Mark

Being a churchgoer does not make you a Christian. I have a long LONG way to go in my own life, coming from an in and out of jail and always in trouble youth. I know this, and I am working on it. I cannot, though, claim to go further if I believe the argument of Genesis being metaphorical.

The point I got into this discussion for was my view on the Dover case. I have tried many times to get back to that conversation, but others seem to want to nitpick on the supposed falseness of creation itself, and it seems that since it is 3 or 4 against one here, I would assume that someone like yourself would have constructive words for me if you disagree with my philosophy and more so not tip-toe around the lions hoping not to stir them up.

 
At 9:20 PM, Anonymous Jon Labonte said...

I have to say that I agree with Jasen M here. There is not one shred of evidence that makes evolution an unquestioned truth. Dino-bones! Ha! With the deboccle of different pre-cambrian lifeforms that are mixed in with Jurrassic fossils? Sediment from the flood could have carried fossils hundreds of miles from where they should have been.

 
At 9:48 PM, Anonymous Jon Labonte said...

I also find it funny that every time someone defends evolution its science, but when someone defends ID, it is called fanatic religious banter. Why do people not realize that theology class (which I also take) is allowed in school, but a class of ID is not. Same thing to me, it is just discussion. By the way my professor is clear that both ID and evolution are theories. I just dont have the time, patience, or expert opinion to say much more.

 
At 10:56 PM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

ha hahahahahahahha

Jasen found a friend.
Jasen found a friend.

Hey Ward Jabonte you and Jason should go and do "bible study" in the back of the vestry.

oh what a joke. Rational people cannnot be debating Noahs flood and the origin of hominoids...they just can't

please please please

tell me you're just a bunch of homosexual frat boys drunk on a keg before I die laughing...

let's mak ethis the Jasen Thread and we can come here and spit on him whenever we get the urge to puke.

 
At 10:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

" coming from an in and out of jail and always in trouble youth"

ennnuhggshhh

yes my son tell me what it was like to get your asdff reamed by the casdf of your fellow inmates...oh yes tell me ....more ...oh it was ordainded....it was designed...oh yes

 
At 11:01 PM, Anonymous kntd said...

"My biology professor in college had a tough time with me"

did it hurt much?

 
At 12:43 AM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

Bwwwwaaahhhaaahaaaaahhaaaahhaaa!

You devil worshipers are some funny fuckers.

 
At 1:19 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Jasen M: How do you know you're not the one worshipping the wrong deity? After all, the Bible is rather one-sided, don't you think? Shouldn't churches allow an alternate book which praises the devil? That way people could make up their own minds about who should be worshipped.

I suspect, however, that the only place churches want "the controversy" taught is in school. Why do you suppose that is? That doesn't seem very Christian, does it? Wouldn't Jesus want to be fair?

 
At 11:15 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

fred,

nice try.

the problem with your proposal is that going to church or being religious is a choice, generally a free one, and going to school school is not a choice, nor free.

If you were bringing that up in the context of a catholic school, it may fly more, but not much more, as that is a provate entity.

 
At 11:18 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

and,

i may be wrong, all religious choices may be. but i may be right.

if i am wrong, whats my penalty?

if an atheist is wrong, whats his?

ouch.

 
At 11:31 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Jasen M. I understand that going to church is a free choice. And I understand the difference between this and school. BUT if the religious folks are sincere in wanting kids to be exposed to all sides of things, then why stop at the church doors? When it comes to something as important as your eternal soul shouldn't you be given all of the information to make an informed choice?

As for if you're wrong or if I'm wrong: If I'm wrong, God will understand that I used the mind and the free will that he gave me and didn't squander them just because an aging child molester told me to. If you're wrong then you might end up suffering in eternal hell.

Ouch.

 
At 9:10 PM, Blogger Jasen M aka The Staple said...

You lost me there....

You really, really lost me.

Aging child molestor? Understanding free will and the mind he gave you? Do me a favor and explain your post.

And I might go to eternal Hell if I'm wrong? I thought if I was wrong then I'd just be DEAD. NADA. Isn't that the atheist view?

Luuuu-ceeeeee, youz got some spla-nin tu du!!!!

 
At 12:04 AM, Anonymous Fred said...

Jasen: If you had actually read my posts instead of knee-jerking after the first three words you would know that I asked you how you know the devil is the bad one and God is the good one. After all, the Bible is completely one-sided. So if you're wrong, you're worshipping the wrong guy and would go to hell.

If I'm wrong, in other words that there IS a God, then he'll accept me because I made use of the mind and free will that he gave me instead of squandering my mind and my free will because some aging child molester (a.k.a. religious leader) told me to.

If you can't understand that, then please let me know and I'll just ignore all of your future comments because I know you'd never comprehend my responses.

Also, you never replied to my question about churches allowing other views to be presented. Rather than retype it here, just read the ENTIRE first paragraph from my last post (the one that begins with "I understand that going to church").

But in general, I think it's funny that the religious right feels that students should learn to question things... but not in church. The word for this is: H Y P O C R I T E

 

Post a Comment

<< Home