Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 57

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/cache.php on line 384

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 541

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 560

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 659

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/classes.php on line 684

Strict Standards: Non-static method sem_admin_menu::init() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-content/plugins/sem-admin-menu/sem-admin-menu.php on line 358

Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method sem_admin_menu::ob_add_menu() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 164

Warning: ob_start(): non-static method sem_admin_menu::ob_add_menu_callback() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-content/plugins/sem-admin-menu/sem-admin-menu.php on line 86

Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method sem_admin_menu::kill_gzip() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » That’s Mightily… Totalitarian of You
Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::add_css() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 164

Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::add_js() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 164
You are viewing the Archives for 2007.......If you want the current page, CLICK HERE.......

The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen is apparently demanding that the American Meteorological Society withdraw their endorsement from any Meteorologist who dares question Global Wormening in public.

The Soviets used to do a lot of that as well. When they couldn’t think of an argument against anything, they instead relied on the threat of ostracization, imprisonment and/or death.

That the Noo Left endorses those methods should hardly come as a surprise to anybody with a brain, nor is it anything new.

Ever intolerant of anybody having a differing opinion about anything, they’ll do anything it takes to silence their critics. If you’re a biology professor, for instance, just try questioning Darwin’s theories within earshot of a member of the Darwinist Inquisition. Actually, don’t. Unless you had your heart set on a new career anyway.

The question here isn’t “who is right and who is wrong.” Whether you’re an Evolutionist or a Creationist, a Global Wormening True Believer or a Skeptic shouldn’t matter to you if you care in the least bit about freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. If you disagree with somebody, attack their argument all you want. That is your right and, if you truly believe in your point of view, you should attack the opposition’s views.

But that’s not what Heidi Cullen is doing.

Unable to mount a defense of her faith, she chooses instead to demand that the heretics be muzzled.

Which says all you need to know about the strength of her actual argument, really.

178 Responses to “That’s Mightily… Totalitarian of You”
  1. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Hater!

  2. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Denier!

  3. philmon Comment by philmon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’m disappointed, but not surprised at the Weather Channel.

    I suppose it goes to underscore the fact that they’re journalists, not scientists — no matter what their degrees may be in.

  4. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Holy Horse Shit Batman! The myths of evolution and global warming, are both pushed on the public using the same delivery system. Although both dogmas are merely theories, the loud left, quotes them chapter and verse as though there could be no other possibility. Evolution denies the Absolute truth of the Creator. Global warming denies even the slightest possibility that weather patterns are merely cyclical. So, once again, those screaming for tolerance prove to be the most intolerant sons of Darwin ever to come down the evolutionary pike.

  5. LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR Comment by LC JackBoot IC/A-OBR

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Darwinist Inquisition

    Guess we should add Worming to the Inquisition Swindler’s List™

    Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise….Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…Our
    *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the GoreBot…. Our *four*…no…
    *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise….

    Why am I not surprised?

  6. Unregistered Comment by Jerry

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I e-mailed them a letter about a month ago complaining about the “slant” in their “Global Warming” ranting, especially the constant promos trumpeting the interview with Ted Turner (THE resident authority on hot air). This was their reply:

    Hello,

    Thank you for contacting The Weather Channel.

    I will forward your email message, expressing your disappointment with the recent vignettes (interview with Ted Turner) and long-form programming on “global warming” and climate change, to our producers, long-form programming directors, executive teams, and Dr. Heidi Cullen, our resident climatology specialist. They certainly will be reminded that the majority of our viewers are tuning to us for weather information, and the science of meteorology, and not to hear politically driven views or opinions on this much debated, highly contentious issue.

    We are always happy to hear from our viewers, and hope you will continue to watch The Weather Channel for many years to come.

    Sincerely,

    Chris Hoitsma
    choitsma@weather.com

    I’m SURE they’ve gotten other letters concerning their promotion of this “junk science” religion. People need to flood their offices AND the offices of their sponsors, advising them of your dissatisfaction. I can’t even stand to watch them anymore…..and I WORK in the broadcast industry. Aaaarrrgghhhh!!

  7. Unregistered Comment by Cheryl

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    If you mention the freezing weather in Fla. and in California that’s killing the citrus crops, they come back with, “that’s from global warming as well.” Huh?!

    I just heard Rush Limbaugh describe how A. Gore refuses to be interviewed by any scientist specializing in climate history and change who questions his flabby premise.

  8. BITOA Comment by BITOA

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    HEIDI EINSTEIN,
    YOU PROBABLY FLUNKED 7TH GRADE SCIENCE.

  9. Sir Christopher Comment by Sir Christopher

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    If you mention the freezing weather in Fla. and in California that’s killing the citrus crops, they come back with, “that’s from global warming as well.” Huh?!

    we just don’t get the nuance of it all i guess

    I’m waiting to see if my limes and Tangelos made it through. The kumquat can tolerate it, i’m told.

    When ANY WEATHER is global warming, how can you possible argue the contrary?

  10. jaybear Comment by jaybear

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Just had a “discussion” about global warming with our history teacher at the high school where I teach. He blamed our recent cold snap and snow on global warming, and is teaching that in his class to kids like my son….also holds ol’ crazy Al as the guru on the subject.

    He asked me if I discounted the “theory” of global warming and I said that I don’t discount ANY theory, even ones about the Loch Ness monster, the shooter on the grassy knoll, or Sasquatch….I only ask for concrete evidence before I take it as truth. If I don’t have that proof, then it makes for interesting lunch room discussions but nothing more.

    I would also be more inclined to give credence to global warming if it wasn’t for the Kyoto accords. Seems that the U.S. was the only country to be singled out for sanctions and regulations, heavier polluters like China and India got off scott free. Kyoto wasn’t about solving global warming at all, it was about “leveling the playing field” economically for participating nations, and punishing the bad ol’ U S of A, even though roughly 25% of our oil consumption goes to producing and shipping the food for those who bite the hand that keeps their asses alive for another day….global politics as usual.

    As for this weather ditz calling for a Krystallnacht against people with a contrary opinion, does she do her forecasts with a fake hitler moustache? typical of the tolerant left.

  11. Nanashi Comment by Nanashi

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    *snort* I guess one of the geology lecturers that I had at a very liberal university is a pariah, then. He didn’t believe in global warming, either.

    Where do these pseudo-scientists get their degrees…inside Cracker Jack boxes?

  12. Cheapshot911 Comment by Cheapshot911

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The Grapes Of Britain, (belay the jokes fer jus’ a moment) have something to say about global warming.

  13. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    HEIDI EINSTEIN,
    YOU PROBABLY FLUNKED 7TH GRADE SCIENCE.

    She can take it over with Ten-Ten.

    “Sorry, 6,000 years is incorrect. Please consult your Biology and Geology books and try again.”

  14. LC HOGHEAD Comment by LC HOGHEAD

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    BEFORE GLOBAL WARMING THERE WAS GLOBAL COOLING

    Before today’s scientists started predicting catastrophe due to global warming, there were scientists who were predicting catastrophe due to global cooling. And that was just thirty years ago.
    George Will has a column titled “Cooler Heads Needed on Warming” in which he discusses scientists’ and journalists’ predilection for environmental doomsaying. Take a look at the predictions of distaster due to global cooling from scientists and “their journalistic conduits” back in the seventies:
    Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.” Science Digest (February 1973) reported that “the world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age.” The Christian Science Monitor (”Warning: Earth’s Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect,” Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers “have begun to advance,” “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” and “the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.” Newsweek agreed (”The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975) that meteorologists “are almost unanimous” that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said “may mark the return to another ice age.” The Times (May 21, 1975) also said “a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable” now that it is “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950.”
    Will ends his column with this:
    About the mystery that vexes ABC — Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? — perhaps the “problem” is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon.

    Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.
    So, a few decades from now we can expect predictions of doom about more global cooling.
    ________________________________________

  15. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    People like Heidi are why I prefer getting my information from the net, rather than the TV. Just give me the bloody weather, and shut the hell up.

    I’d be more willing to believe Christmas Jones as a nuclear scientist than some jumped-up weather bunny as a reputable climatologist.

    Dr. Cullen received a B.S. in engineering from Columbia University and a Ph.D. in climatology and ocean-atmosphere dynamics at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.

    Uh-huh. And still manages to get it wrong. Lovely.

  16. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’d be more willing to believe Christmas Jones as a nuclear scientist than some jumped-up weather bunny as a reputable climatologist.

    She at least got the science right, and Christmas in Turkey does sound like fun…

    =========================

    Being an official old fart (I’ve been sending insults back to AARP on their recruitment letters for years), I can remember lots of ads and science articles compalining about global cooling in the late 60’s until the late 70’s. They had no more evidence then than they do now.

    Science based on “consensus” is still not science, it’s opinion.

    Consensus opinion once was that the world was flat.

    Consensus opinion once was that Communism was a good thing.

    Consensus opinion once was that “fwance” was a world power.

    Consensus opinion once was that the Sun moved, and the Earth was still.

    Consensus opinion once was that the Democrat Party believed in America.

    Consensus opinion once was that (believe it or not) tomatoes were poisonous.

    Consensus opinion just natural-born sucks as a way to settle arguments.

    ===================================

    Unfortunately, until someone cuts off funding to these fuckwidgits and tells them to go play in traffic and leave us alone, we are going to have to listen to them. Since the LSM all support their poisition (fellow travelers and all, the environmental movement being the new home of the commies), we will never hear the other side broadcast.

  17. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    She can take it over with Ten-Ten.

    “Sorry, 6,000 years is incorrect. Please consult your Biology and Geology books and try again.”

    Actually it’s 7000 years. Are you refering to the Biology and Geology texts written by those who worship at the altar of Humanitarianism? The one’s who’s sole proof of the age of the planet is based on carbon dating? Carbon dating has been debunked by the Liberal media. Evolution? Even Darwin himself admitted that for his theories to have been correct, many other forces would have had to come in to play simultaneously. So, you go right on believing in disproven science. I’ll accept the inspired word of God. And ask yourself who you would rather put your faith in.

  18. Unregistered Comment by zoomietech

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    What’s the problem?

    All we have to do is get the President to issue an executive order stating anyone who denies global warming will be sent to Guantanamo Bay.

    What a conundrum for hippies everywhere! On the one hand, everything George Bush says is a lie; on the other hand, everything Al Gore says is the truth (inconvenient as it may be).

  19. jaybear Comment by jaybear

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Ten Ten sez:

    So, you go right on believing in disproven science. I’ll accept the inspired word of God. And ask yourself who you would rather put your faith in.

    well said, and to put it another way:

    I’d rather live my life as if there were a God and then find out there wasn’t, than live my life as if there WEREN’T a God and then find out there is.

  20. LC HJ Caveman82952 Comment by LC HJ Caveman82952

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Kyoto wasn’t about solving global warming at all, it was about “leveling the playing field” economically for participating nations

    Amen, Jaybear, game, set and match. Lest you disagree with any of their mantras, soon to be labeled racist, divisive, intolerant or a hater. It may come as a shock to them that many consider their arugments specious, their deportment deplorable and their behavior petulant and spiteful. It may come as a bigger shock knowing many such as I don’t give a shit what they think……

  21. kwongdzu Comment by kwongdzu

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Well, jaybear, I was over at soundpolitics and there’s a global warming troll over there that takes the cake. If you are bored and want to troll bait, this one seems to have plenty of energy and time on his hands.

  22. juandos Comment by juandos

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Kyoto wasn’t even so much about leveling the playing field (there was some of that of course) if Caveman and Jaybear will pardon my own take on it…

    Did anyone really think that the companies that were in countries that were to be covered by that extort-o-crap called Kyoto were going to stay in those countries or would they pull up stakes and move to a country that gets a pass on it?

    What we are really talking about is how libtards with less than a zero grasp of basic economics thought they had a way draw off the wealth of the Great Satan and the Satan-ettes and funnel it to the third world turd trolling towel heads….

    Think I’m kidding? If so just take a look at the asinine actions of Hugo Chavez

  23. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’d rather live my life as if there were a God and then find out there wasn’t, than live my life as if there WEREN’T a God and then find out there is.

    Pascal again? Be good, or the Great Sociopath in the sky will be angry? It’s funny how holders of locked down positions, regardless of “wing”, never manage to make an original argument.

    1010, just, yikes.

    those who worship at the altar of Humanitarianism?

    Do you mean humanism? Either way, evil, as humans are evil, yes?

    Carbon dating has been debunked by the Liberal media.

    Evolution? Even Darwin himself admitted that for his theories to have been correct, many other forces would have had to come in to play simultaneously.

    Source cite? I know this whole “show your evidence” thing is hard, but give it a try.

    I’ll accept the inspired word of God.

    Note that

    the Sun moved, and the Earth was still.

    used to be “Inspired Word”. And a disturbingly large fraction of 6 billion people think that “Kill the infidel wherever you find him” still is.

    And ask yourself who you would rather put your faith in.

    Whatever it may be, it needs to make a good case for itself.

    At the very least, a lot of the things I’m supposed to “have faith in” basically require God to purposely configure things to fool people so they will have to have “faith”.

    As to what to have faith in, I’d rather seek than be told.

  24. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    One thing should be noted. At the end of the day, it’s all about civilization versus primitivism. The rest of it can be hashed out later.

    Dead men make no societal advancements.

  25. jaybear Comment by jaybear

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    MegaTroopX sez:

    Pascal again? Be good, or the Great Sociopath in the sky will be angry? It’s funny how holders of locked down positions, regardless of “wing”, never manage to make an original argument.

    Actually, I heard it from a biker at an AA meeting.
    I think you completely missed the point sir. I was noting that the rules and commandments laid down by God…whether you believe in him or not…are, taken at face value, pretty damned good ways to conduct your life.

    Tell me what your big moral objection is to:

    not killing
    not committing adultery
    not bearing false witness against your neighbor
    not stealing
    not lying
    not worshipping false idols
    keeping Sundays as a day of woship
    worshipping one God
    not using Gods name in vain
    honoring your father and mother

    nothing about being good or the “sociopath in the sky” will be mad in all of that is there?…it boils down to leading a decent, honest, accountable life….and if someone needs the word of God to inspire them to living that way then who cares?? let them believe whatever the hell they want (without the faux intellectual condescension), as long as they conduct themselves in a decent, civil, neighborly fashion.

  26. MoMinuteMan Comment by MoMinuteMan

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    ten-ten sez:

    The one’s who’s sole proof of the age of the planet is based on carbon dating?

    Carbon dating has more scientific evidence to back it up than the bible does. I tend to put more “faith” into something that has stood up to The Scientific Method than I do a book whose followers say is true because their faith and feelings tell them it is so, but have no hard evidence to back it up with.

    Carbon dating has been debunked by the Liberal media.

    Would I be wrong in saying that 90+% of the christians on this site would subscribe to the idea that you can tell when the MSM is lying because you can see their lips moving?? So why would I accept the lib-media’s word about whether or not ANYTHING is bunk just because they say so.

    Your using them as a scientific reference undermines your case. 30-odd years ago they said that we were gonna freeze to death due to global cooling, and now, 70+ people are dead due to the worst winter storms in decades, and it’s because of global warming??? WTF Chuck?? Does not compute.

    And in closing, ditto what MegaTroopX said…

  27. SkyeChild Comment by SkyeChild

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Way off topic: how do you line through stuff to make changes?

  28. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    [strike] [/strike]

    replace the [] with

  29. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

  30. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Oh, for goodness sake! :furious_tb:

    You know the greater than/less than signs on all the other tags? Use them to replace the [] brackets.

    Criminey. :annoyed_tb:

  31. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    MegaTroopX, you’re correct, I meant humanism (brain fart).

    Source cite? I know this whole “show your evidence” thing is hard, but give it a try.

    Snarky little athiest aren’t you?
    On carbon dating - Time magazine (Don’t remember issue, but I’m sure you could Google it)
    On Darwin - He alludes to this in his Origin of the Species and later writings (I’ll have to track them down)

    the Sun moved, and the Earth was still.

    used to be “Inspired Word”

    That was NEVER Inspired word. It was anecdotal science. “Inspired” comes from “In Spirit” or “Of God”.

    As to the question of faith. I would suggest it takes MUCH more faith to believe in Evolution than Intelligent design.

  32. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Would I be wrong in saying that 90+% of the christians on this site would subscribe to the idea that you can tell when the MSM is lying because you can see their lips moving?? So why would I accept the lib-media’s word about whether or not ANYTHING is bunk just because they say so.

    Mo, I use the Liberal Media to make a point when they agree with sanity. For the libs to reverse themselves on a position, they must know there is no where left to hide. As far as putting more faith in science than the Bible, agian I think it takes a great deal more faith to believe that this world is just the end result of random events.

  33. MoMinuteMan Comment by MoMinuteMan

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    First, let us stipulate that arguing about religion is even less likely to change hearts and minds than arguing about politics, but it does have a positive aspect, done intelligently, it serves to keep both side’s mental knives sharp.

    That said, Jaybear, before you listed the commandments, you said that they were “pretty damned good ways to conduct your life.”, then turned around and said that there was “nothing about being good” in there. (yeah, I know I’m picking nits). But I have to agree that the world would be a better place if more folks followed those basic premises.

    The following is drawn from 30+ year old memories of bible study back when my Grandmother took my heathen ass to Sunday school, so feel free to correct any errors…

    It’s my understanding that violating any of the 10 commandments is a sin, and sin is offensive to God and will get you hard time in a hot place, so how can that be taken as anything other than making him mad?? Doesn’t it say in the bible that he is a angry, jealous god?? Doesn’t it all boil down to, “thou shalt not piss me off or it’s gonna suck to be you”??

    if someone needs the word of God to inspire them to living that way then who cares?? let them believe whatever the hell they want (without the faux intellectual condescension), as long as they conduct themselves in a decent, civil, neighborly fashion.

    Sounds groovy to me, live and let live is right up my alley. But the flip side of that coin is that if “A” gets to express their views, shouldn’t “B” have the same freedom?? There is nothing wrong with “Freedom of Religion”, what’s wrong with “Freedom From Religion” if someone chooses to live that way??

  34. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Tell me what your big moral objection is to:

    (redacted for brevity. Well, kinda.)

    Actually, aside from the “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” bit, not much at all. It’s a pretty good list. Not wholly unique, but that’s cool.

    it boils down to leading a decent, honest, accountable life….and if someone needs the word of God to inspire them to living that way then who cares?

    Well, aside from the argument of ethics by fear, no one. Only need to care if someone figures that their beliefs, whether in a deity or a totem (such as global warming/cooling, or socialism) should be the basis of writing policy.

    One of my top five heroes of all time has to be Thomas Jefferson. He has a famous saying, that with a little tweaking, can solve 90% of all arguments if people would make a serious effort to follow it. Here goes.

    “It does me no injury for my neighbor to [X]. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.”

    As long as [X] indeed does others no injury, it’s “The Small Stuff” that we should refrain from sweating. Seriously, every time some issue comes up, plug it in and see what happens.

    Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear. Thomas Jefferson

  35. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    It’s my understanding that violating any of the 10 commandments is a sin, and sin is offensive to God and will get you hard time in a hot place, so how can that be taken as anything other than making him mad?? Doesn’t it say in the bible that he is a angry, jealous god?? Doesn’t it all boil down to, “thou shalt not piss me off or it’s gonna suck to be you”??

    While that is (sorta) true, it’s not the whole story. The grace and forgiveness of God is the “Good News” part of the story. Without that part, it all boils down to fire and brimstone. i think that’s why a lot of people reject religion (Christianity). They only know about the Angry God. Not the loving God. Not trying to preach, just my understanding.

  36. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    There is nothing wrong with “Freedom of Religion”, what’s wrong with “Freedom From Religion” if someone chooses to live that way??

    Nothing at all, in my opinion.

    As long as “Freedom From Religion” is a personal choice that affects no others.

    The moment it becomes “Freedom From Religion, even if it means me having to shut you up so I won’t ever have to hear about it” I have a serious problem with it.

    And that goes both ways. “Freedom OF Religion” ALSO means the right not to have one.

  37. Xystus Comment by Xystus

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    23.

    Pascal again? Be good, or the Great Sociopath in the sky will be angry?

    Pascal didn’t, IIRC, formulate his famous wager as you seem to think. It was maybe more like: Condition yourself to believe in the Deity, & you stand to gain eternal life–& if you’re wrong, you’ve lost nothing. Of course those who subscribe to the religion of the Holy Self™ would disagree about giving up the options of doing whatever they want, whenever they feel like it.

    34.

    One of my top five heroes of all time has to be Thomas Jefferson. He has a famous saying, that with a little tweaking, can solve 90% of all arguments if people would make a serious effort to follow it. Here goes.

    “It does me no injury for my neighbor to [X]. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.”

    As long as [X] indeed does others no injury, it’s “The Small Stuff” that we should refrain from sweating. Seriously, every time some issue comes up, plug it in and see what happens.

    Which inspired me to manufacture my own quote (possibly posted before) in which Tommy Jefferson meets Johnny Carson (as his Art Fern character): Want to preach no god? We don’t care! Want to preach 20 gods? We don’t care! Want to sacrifice livestock? We don’t care! Want to go around killing people? That’s when we care! Notice that one of the few religious groups failing this test would be the jihaddimwits.

  38. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I defy you to find any comparable facts against evolution.

    You first, dumbass.  Show me the species that morphed itself into a completely different species.

    Go ahead, I’ll wait. (pulls out copy of War and Peace)

  39. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I can wait until they rescind this spherical Earth “theory” bullshit too. That liberal lie has been pissing me off for years. Thankfully, science is a democracy and if you protest hard enough (as I hope you’re doing, I know I am!) you can get things changed.

    Come on people, we can’t have these commies tell us what the universe does or doesn’t do. If I don’t think gravity exists, I’m damn well not going to sit back and let some “expert” scientist tell me otherwise.

    Billion year old Earth? Bullshit. Six-thousand years, my friend.

  40. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Teh Bossman:

    The moment it becomes “Freedom From Religion, even if it means me having to shut you up so I won’t ever have to hear about it” I have a serious problem with it.

    Ditto on that. I place the Michael Newdow types in the same pantheon of pinheads as Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard, and every hatred-spewing Sheik Abdul whateverthefuck that preaches Jihad. Talk about your non-representative sample.

    Fanusi; essentially, the only way a lot of religion can become compatible with modernity is to become partially apostate. An biblical literalist would be a jihadi. Or at least a criminal.

    The Enlightenment was basically people undergoing this process of partial-apostasy and getting away with it until it became the norm.

  41. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Clavain is /sarcing, right?

    Right?

  42. Unregistered Pingback by Inoperable Terran » Whee

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    […] A woman at the Weather Channel is demanding that any meteorologist who doesn’t believe in global warming be decertified. Posted by Ian S. in […]

  43. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Homo habilis is a precursor of the human. The Wolf is a precursor of the dog. Stop being tiresome.

    I said a completely different species,  shithead.  Answer the fucking question.

    If I don’t think gravity exists, I’m damn well not going to sit back and let some “expert” scientist tell me otherwise.

    Same challenge, fuckhead.  Put up or shut up.

  44. Unregistered Comment by Lord Spatula I, King & Tyrant

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Let me also remind the self-satisfied believers where the name “Inquisition” comes from. And who originated it.

    And let me  remind the LCs that Mr. So-called Molecular Biologist here has been asked a simple question, and he can’t answer it.

  45. BC Imperial Torturer Comment by BC Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Spats, calling someone a “dumbass” for merely acknowledging the overwhelming physical evidence of evolutionary theory doesn’t help the debate along. Fanusi Khiyal was actually being quite cordial in his (or her) comments. I can’t remember if he (or she) has been an asshat in other threads, but he (or she) wasn’t being one in the comment that he (or she) was lambasted about.

    Now, allow me to get something off my chest that’s been gnawing on me since I first became a member of The VRWC™…. If acknowledgement of the fact that the Earth and the universe are slightly older than 6,000 years makes one an outcast here, then I guess I need to clean my stuff out The Imperial Dungeon Game Room™ and turn in my set of keys to the Palace Quartermaster™. Having people dog-piled on for looking at the actual physical evidence around them, such as geological strata, plate tectonics, radiocarbon dating and other things, (as opposed to cherry-picking inconsistent, non-standardized climatological data to support Global Worming™) really makes us look like the nothing more than the mirror image of the Demented Underachievers & the KosTards.

    And that goes for everyone.

    :furious_tb:

    Just my 2¢ worth.

    (Note: If anyone wants to start flaming, bring it on, ’cause I’ve got more links to back my shit up than most of you have hairs on your asses. Hell, I’ve got almost as many links to stuff on this as I have DVD’s o’ Doom™.)

    (Note to the Note: I’ll probably ignore any flame war, anyway, because I really don’t give a flying fuck what someone else “believes” about who, what, why or when the universe came about and how humans arrived in our present physical state. I just don’t want someone trying to tell ME what to believe or to try to teach my kid a religious explanation in science class. She can get that at church.)

    PS: BTW, when are we going to start demanding that The Great White Buffalo Theory™ be taught as part of the standard curriculum in science class?

    There. I feel better now.
    :smoke_tb:

  46. jaybear Comment by jaybear

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    fanusi khiyal sez:

    I will give you some exact reasons why I hate some of these. Specifically the following:

    not worshipping false idols
    keeping Sundays as a day of woship
    worshipping one God
    not using Gods name in vain
    honoring your father and mother

    The problem with this guff is that the Bible specifies they penalty for them as death. The Bible says flat out that if your child or wife or whomever decides that he does not want to crawl before Yahweh, he must be put to death.

    Ditto the following:
    not committing adultery

    fine, then just don’t adhere to them….I won’t stop you, it’s your eternity. That’s what cool about being an American, freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion

    Now, please tell the anti-religious bigots who want to throttle MY right to the practice of Christianity to leave me the hell alone and let me worship as I please…..

    fanusi also sez:

    Let me also remind the self-satisfied believers where the name “Inquisition” comes from. And who originated it.

    and let me remind YOU that the very same church has had three major reformations in it’s history to correct and prevent such atrocities. That’s a convenient fact that most anti-Christians seem to gloss over.

  47. juandos Comment by juandos

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    In fact, look at any living thing - it is the final version of such changes

    Isn’t this statement a leap of logic fueled by hubris especially if you believe that evolution is the answer?

    Just asking…

    For the others who are skeptical of the whole evolution theory (yes, its still theory due to the many gaps in it) what are your online sources that question evolution?

    Darwinism Refuted and Darwinism Watch are what I’ve been perusing on occassion… I’m always looking for other info…

  48. Nanashi Comment by Nanashi

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Quite possibly Biologists should know what it is they are talking about. Perhaps they should understand the facts, and how they relate to general answers. Perhaps they should know that _there is not a single scrap of evidence against_ evolution.

    A Biology Professor who doesn’t think evolution is right is not doing his job. It’s like a Professor of Physics not supporting Universal Gravitation, or a Professor of Chemistry disagreeing with the Atomic theory. He is doing a serious disservice to his students.

    Actually, that’s precisely what his/her job is. To be a scientist means to question…it goes with the territory. If you stop questioning long-held beliefs and simply accept them on general consensus, , you stop being a genuine scientist and become just another religious fanatic, and in something that is really nothing more than conjecture. I remember (though I don’t remember offhand where) a Chinese scientist being quoted as saying, “In China, you can question Darwin but not the government; in America, you can question the government but not Darwin.” Rather telling, actually.

    Also bear in mind that pathological scepticism is no more “logical” than absolute blind faith: it’s simply in the reverse. Even scientists who seek to reform the theory itself (Darwin’s voyages to the Galapagos predated discoveries such as genetics and DNA, and are thus in serious need of revision and review) are shouted down for daring to question a theory that — let’s face it — seems to be exempt from scientific inquiry. Imagine if this happened to Marie Curie when she discovered that Dalton’s Atomic Theory wasn’t completely true, that atoms could not be broken down. Goodbye, clean and efficient fuel. Yet this is precisely what is happening in regards to Darwin’s theories.

    I’m sure you’ve read Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, Gills & Woodward’s Darwin Under the Microscope, and Schroeder’s The Science of God, yes? You should know, then, that there’s “no evidence against evolution” for precisely the same reason there’s no evidence to support it: all scientific data is filtered and interpreted through presuppositions. Christians (and there are quite a few scientists in their number…such as my entire family) interpret data through the presupposition that the Bible is true and both they and Intelligent Design proponents through the presupposition that there is a Creator behind it all, while evolutionary scientists interpret data through their presupposition that God either does not exist or is not really involved in nature. It’s not as objective as supposedly logical people believe: pure objectivity simply isn’t possible as long as human beings are human beings.

    In the words of Albert Einstein, “[s]cience without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” (And let’s not lie to ourselves and insist Einstein was an atheist: “My position concerning God is that of an agnostic.” He didn’t believe in a personal God that takes a personal interest in our lives, but he never discounted the possibility.) Now while I myself am not religious, (being that religion is a set of rules to reach God, something that is quite impossible as the Ten Commandments are meant to illustrate…I prefer faith) I recognise that trying to study the universe without God is akin to studying the Solar System without the Sun. Scientists of yesteryear understood this…it’s a shame today’s scientists have hamstringed their own strength by losing their direction in this regard. Our beloved discipline has suffered because of it.

  49. Unregistered Comment by P

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    “Let me also remind the self-satisfied believers where the name “Inquisition” comes from. And who originated it.”

    Yes, an offical state religion that persecuted theologically orthodox believing Christians for not submitting to their secular power. A businessman named Peter Waldo started reading the Bible for himself and gathered people around him who started asking the question, “If the Pope is Christ’s Vicar on Earth, why does he live like a rich secular prince?”

    That’s right, folks, the Inquisition was founded to persecute orthodox Bible-believing Christians. The Waldensians were the only schismatic group of that time period that did adhere to orthodoxy, and the only one that survives to this day. If Fanusi’s knowledge of evolution is equal to that of church history, I think we can discount it.

  50. Nanashi Comment by Nanashi

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Just one more thing I’d like to add:

    (yes, its still theory due to the many gaps in it)

    Guys, the word you’re looking for is conjecture. “Theory” is a probelmatic word to use because scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data, such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity. This is not to say, however, that theories should not be questioned and revised…even scientific laws themselves are not above scrutiny when conflicting data is discovered, i.e., when Mikołaj Kopernik (not being snobby, here…I just really like Polish) discovered that our solar system is heliocentric, it conflicted with scientific law at the time — Ptolemy’s geocentric model. (Incidentally, the issue here with the Church is that the clergy had been teaching science based on Greek hypotheses and wanted to prevent their congregations from questioning them, not the Bible or even the Church)

    With this in mind, it’s better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

  51. Unregistered Comment by P

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    THE INQUISITION: INTENSIFIED PERSECUTION

    The Inquisition and Clandestinity

    The Inquisition began in 1231. At first it targeted only the preachers, not their followers. The feeling was that the followers would return to the Roman church if they were taught properly, so the effort was to remove those who raised questions in the people’s minds. The centers of the Poor in southwestern France had to be abandoned, and the movement changed from public preaching and from an urban society to a rural one. Because they could no longer safely preach where the titled and wealthy were, the Poor stopped attracting the upper classes. After 1250, there are no signs of the Poor living in the towns of Burgundy, Gascony, and Rouergue, previously among their centers.

    Intense persecution led to clandestinity, a direct contraction to the fervent feeling of Valdes that the gospel should be preached openly, as the apostles had done. But the group faced a choice: continue preaching and all die, or accommodate to circumstances and perpetuate the movement. A few remained preachers, but not openly so, while most settled into a regular lifestyle, marrying and working as craftsmen, farmers, and herdsmen to support their families. The focus became to perpetuate the group, rather than to increase it through converts.”

    http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~waldense/history.htm#I9

  52. juandos Comment by juandos

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Actually, that’s precisely what his/her job is. To be a scientist means to question…it goes with the territory. If you stop questioning long-held beliefs and simply accept them on general consensus, , you stop being a genuine scientist and become just another religious fanatic“…

    Very good Nanashi (#53)…

    Nailed it!

    Your next comment (#55): “the word you’re looking for is conjecture. “Theory”“…

    Ahhh, the semantics is the problem? Well that’s as good an explanation as any I guess…

    There is quite a bit of, “hard data” to give evolution a leg or two to stand on but hardly enough to make evolution a rock solid given…

  53. kwongdzu Comment by kwongdzu

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Note: If anyone wants to start flaming, bring it on, ’cause I’ve got more links to back my shit up than most of you have hairs on your asses.

    … ahem, BC, please don’t start any hairy ass contests!

  54. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Oh dear, what have I done? I had a feeling where this thread would go when I dared question the Holy Writ of Darwin :lol_ee:

    A Biology Professor who doesn’t think evolution is right is not doing his job. It’s like a Professor of Physics not supporting Universal Gravitation, or a Professor of Chemistry disagreeing with the Atomic theory. He is doing a serious disservice to his students.

    The main difference here is that gravity and atomic theory are both, to a very large extent, very much observable. Not to mention that, unlike Darwin’s Sermon from the Burning Bullshit, nobody has yet to come up with an alternative suggestion.

    Also, the Biology Professor in your example is ONLY doing his students a disservice if he REFUSES to teach his students the theory of Evolution, since teaching the curriculum is his job and his students depend on his services to pass their exams. He can hold any number of personal beliefs that disagree with what he is required to teach, that is completely irrelevant, and any nation trying to forbid that isn’t worthy of being called a “free country”, not even close.

    The problem with this guff is that the Bible specifies they penalty for them as death. The Bible says flat out that if your child or wife or whomever decides that he does not want to crawl before Yahweh, he must be put to death.

    But we don’t follow those directives anymore and, if we did, I’d leave the church faster than you could say “burn the witches.”

    Even if I were nuts enough to suggest that we SHOULD do so, what would the point be? As a Christian, I believe that the punishment AFTER death for the infractions you mention is far worse than anything anybody on this pathetic ball of dirt could ever think up. Also, and this is quite important, all of the ones you picked (with the exception of “not honoring your father and mother”) are offenses against G-d, not me. Therefore the punishment, logically, is up to Him, not me.

    Also this:

    Adultery is a lousy thing, but it does not merit death. Not by the furthest stretch of the imagination.

    I agree with you that death for adultery seems a bit overly harsh (although at times I’ve wondered), to say the very least, but again we’re talking about an offense that is NOT just a case between you and your G-d, in that it causes immense suffering, strife and violence in society. If the adulterer/adultress harmed only him or herself, it would be different. The Commandment against adultery is, as is the case with most other Commandments and rules in the Bible, not only sound from a theological view, it is also very much important in order to maintain a healthy, functional society.

    The same with “honoring your father and mother.” Notwithstanding the fact that there ARE parents who aren’t worth honoring, on the whole the family unit is indispensable to a healthy society. Not to say that disrespectful brats should be killed, of course, that’s what disowning was invented for and I wouldn’t hesitate to make use of it, but the idea of encouraging loyalty within the family, from a purely secular point of view, is a sound one.

    My problem comes when the religious insist on violating the cease-fire pact. Religion insists on trying to attack science.

    No. Unless you consider every attempt to question or disagree with something an “attack.”

    If religion was trying to outlaw science or banish it from the public marketplace of ideas in some other way, I’d be right up there on the barricades with you. We went through the Dark Ages once, we don’t need to go there again. Whether or not I agree with an idea doesn’t change the fact that its presence enriches the debate and forces everybody to think, and that’s a Good Thing™.

    But now that you mention it, I can think of ONE “faith” (other than Islam) that does everything it can to forcibly banish any and all discussion of subjects related to other faiths from the public sphere…

    It’s like this, Fanusi: Just because you fervently and wholeheartedly believe that a theory is utter bunk and nonsense (and I admire you for the strength of your convictions) doesn’t, necessarily, mean that is IS utter bunk and nonsense. And that goes both ways, which is why I would never, ever attempt to force Darwinists to shut up, simply because I am utterly convinced that their worship of statistically highly improbable (the only reason that I don’t use the word “impossible” is that it doesn’t make sense when you talk statistics) miraculous events spontaneously, without any sort of outside interference, taking place in the exact order necessary within a laughably short time frame. I am particularly impressed with such beliefs as the entire coagulation cascade with every single factor in it spontaneously, within one generation, appearing out of nowhere but, then again, I don’t play the lottery either because I don’t believe in loooooooooong odds as a way of saving up for retirement.

    All that to say this: Darwinism, to me, is complete and utter bunk and nonsense, you’d have to be completely indifferent to basic tenets of probability not to mention common sense to accept miracles like that, or your belief would have to be based on religion. Yet, and this was the important part that I undoubtedly buried in the umpteen thousand words of my example, I apologize for that, I would never DREAM of holding on to my beliefs while denying somebody else HIS.

    Show me some proof of a designer. And, incidentally, where did the designer come from?

    I will. As soon as physicists get around to showing me what came before the Big Bang and where the infinitely small Universe came from.

    Two can play THAT game, Fanusi :happy_tb:

    B.C.:

    Fanusi Khiyal was actually being quite cordial in his (or her) comments. I can’t remember if he (or she) has been an asshat in other threads, but he (or she) wasn’t being one in the comment that he (or she) was lambasted about.

    Agreed. And that’s all I have to say about that.

    If acknowledgement of the fact that the Earth and the universe are slightly older than 6,000 years makes one an outcast here, then I guess I need to clean my stuff out The Imperial Dungeon Game Room™ and turn in my set of keys to the Palace Quartermaster™.

    You’re not going anywhere until you’re granted permission, and you can’t have one :smile1_tb:

    Besides, I’m not so sure about the 6,000 years issue myself, for the very same reasons as you are.

    I mean, I’m not in the least bit disputing that a Higher Being capable of creating everything out of nothing would be perfectly capable of playing tricks on us like that, but why WOULD He? What, exactly, would be the point of deceiving His creations into thinking that the Earth was 5 billion years old if it was only 6,000 years old? It doesn’t make sense. Not to say that that proves that He didn’t, a lot of what He does makes no sense to ordinary mortals like myself, but still.

    What I THINK we have here is a misunderstanding of Holy Scripture, a literalist interpretation where none is called for or, indeed, justified.

    Much in the same category as the “everything was created in 7 days” issue. For one thing, I have no idea what “7 days” might be to a Higher Being, it could be five minutes or ten billion years, as far as I know and, coincidentally, who’s to say that space-time was the same around the time of creation as it is now? I know that physicists, if I may quote science here, seem to agree with me that time-space may indeed have been VERY different around the time that everything came to be.

    Ultimately, however, that comes down to personal preferences, and mine doesn’t have to be the same as anybody else’s, nor does anybody else have to see things the same way I do. I just can’t look at, say, a dinosaur fossil and make myself believe that that critter lived and died within the last 6,000 years.

    If that makes me a heretic, then I guess I am one.

  55. BC Imperial Torturer Comment by BC Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    What I THINK we have here is a misunderstanding of Holy Scripture, a literalist interpretation where none is called for or, indeed, justified.

    Exactly. Here’s an analogy that I think most of us can live with, if I may be so presumptuous: “The Bible (or other “holy book”) was not intended to be used as a cook book. It was written as a road map.”

    In layman’s terms, “It wasn’t meant to be used to explain how things came to be. It was meant to be used as a guide to reaching a certain destination.”

  56. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Re: Big Bang

    Misha, you assume the universe has a beginning. This is simply not the case when we have witnessed particles completely invalidate causality, that is, they pop in and out of existence without any reason to. Additionally, a cyclical universe means no beginning nor end. Do not make the mistake of assigning something like a beginning to a continuum. Human lives have beginning and ends, universes do not need to.

    Additionally, as with evolution, in this case with global warming only a few scientists are voicing dissent from the masses who accept something is happening. Whether humans are as big a factor as some think is not as clear cut, but given the weather we’ve had in Northern Europe this past 24 hours, some serious shit is going down. I’m 23, and I can tell you winters are already milder, summers hotter and drought and storms more rife since when I was at school.

    At the end of the day, climate change is happening. We’re merely debating the somewhat superfluous fact now of how humans factor into it (I believe it is far too late to stop what we may have helped start).

  57. BC Imperial Torturer Comment by BC Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Whether humans are as big a factor as some think is not as clear cut, but given the weather we’ve had in Northern Europe this past 24 hours, some serious shit is going down.

    Yep. Some serious shit is going down.

    :ponder_tb:

  58. Sir Christopher Comment by Sir Christopher

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’m 23, and I can tell you winters are already milder, summers hotter and drought and storms more rife since when I was at school.

    Wow, what a vast life experience! I’m convinced!

  59. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Misha, you assume the universe has a beginning. This is simply not the case when we have witnessed particles completely invalidate causality, that is, they pop in and out of existence without any reason to.

    That’s one assumption, yes. Based on subjective reality as I see it which, of course, doesn’t prove that it is SO. It only proves that I THINK that it is so because it agrees with the framework that I apply to the Universe. But I could be completely and utterly wrong, and it’s a fascinating discussion, the likes of which I have engaged in many a time in my life because it stimulates the imagination and, through that, the mind (this is what we science geeks call “fun” and “Saturday Night” to those of you out there who wasted your lives in the Humanities :wink_ee: ). We need more booze for it to become truly interesting, though.

    It still doesn’t change that what IS, is, and that it had to pop into existence at some point, though. Whether it was the work of a Creator or not I don’t know. I know what I BELIEVE, but that doesn’t make it so. And I can no more prove that it was the work of G-d than anybody can prove that it wasn’t, and we’ll just have to leave it at that until we all die and find out.

    Whether humans are as big a factor as some think is not as clear cut, but given the weather we’ve had in Northern Europe this past 24 hours, some serious shit is going down. I’m 23, and I can tell you winters are already milder, summers hotter and drought and storms more rife since when I was at school.

    And I can tell you that winters and summers around here have gotten colder.

    You nail it, though: The climate IS changing, nobody with an ounce of sense will dispute that. Besides, the climate has BEEN changing ever since this rock popped into existence, with or without humans present. The climate is changing on Mars and Saturn too, and I think we can all agree (with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich, but he’s certifiably insane so he doesn’t count) that humans (or any other form of intelligent life) have nothing to do with THAT.

    As you so very correctly state: What’s in dispute isn’t WHETHER the climate is changing, it’s WHY.

    And, like you, I don’t believe that it really fucking matters at this point.

    I don’t believe that we have had any measurable influence on it, but that is, at any rate, irrelevant.

    We just need to deal with it. Thankfully, as we have shown time and again over the thousands of years that we’ve been on this planet, we’re fantastically good at adapting to change, and I’m not in the least bit in doubt that we’ll be able to adapt to this change as well.

    I just wish that we’d focus on that instead of wasting our time pretending that we can turn back the clock and somehow control global climate by moving back into the caves.

    Wow, what a vast life experience! I’m convinced!

    Hey! That was a bit harsh. I’ve spent nearly twice as long in this Vale of Tears as Clavain, and I agree with him that things have changed. In the opposite direction where I am, but they’ve certainly changed, so his point that the climate is changing certainly isn’t wrong. Not to mention that data going back further support his claim as well.

    Now, if anybody suggests that it’s because of Evil SUVs, on the other hand, then it’s Flame On™ time :devil_tb:

  60. Unregistered Comment by P

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    “This is simply not the case when we have witnessed particles completely invalidate causality, that is, they pop in and out of existence without any reason to.”

    This is a fallacy of the Copenhagen model which equates “unobservability” with “non-existence.”

    The oscillating universe concept under the standard Big Bang model was refuted by, among others, the atheist physicists Novikov and Zeldovich, much to their regret. Such a series has an “arrow of time,” an infinite future but a finite past, thus it cannot avoid a “point of creation.”

    http://www.jstor.org/view/00804630/ap000128/00a00050/0

  61. Nanashi Comment by Nanashi

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Misha, you assume the universe has a beginning. This is simply not the case when we have witnessed particles completely invalidate causality, that is, they pop in and out of existence without any reason to. Additionally, a cyclical universe means no beginning nor end. Do not make the mistake of assigning something like a beginning to a continuum. Human lives have beginning and ends, universes do not need to.

    Er…actually, the Big Bang theory made the Steady State theory obsolete.

    Additionally, as with evolution, in this case with global warming only a few scientists are voicing dissent from the masses who accept something is happening.

    Now you can see why James Watson was unamused:

    One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.

    Neither was Michio Kaku, apparently:

    There are many examples of old, incorrect theories that stubbornly persisted, sustained only by the prestige of foolish but well-connected scientists. … Many of these theories have been killed off only when some decisive experiment exposed their incorrectness. .. Thus the yeoman work in any science, and especially physics, is done by the experimentalist, who must keep the theoreticians honest.

    Most of these theorists don’t even get off their fat arses to do some actual experimentation. In the words of Richard Hammond while hosting Brainiac: “It’s all boff until you test it.”

    Whether humans are as big a factor as some think is not as clear cut, but given the weather we’ve had in Northern Europe this past 24 hours, some serious shit is going down. I’m 23, and I can tell you winters are already milder, summers hotter and drought and storms more rife since when I was at school.

    And yet, there was snow in Los Angeles. (which is precisely what happened this year) Snow. In Los Angeles. I’ll give everyone a minute for that bizarre picture to register.

    I can’t remember offhand what the phenomenon is called, but it’s a rare occurrence (not undocumented, incidentally) where the weather flip-flops north-south. So while New York’s winter is mild, Floridians are freezing their oranges off.

    The reason for the change in climate is primarily the shifting that is occurring in the Gulf Stream. Supposedly, what is causing the shift is global warming, but that doesn’t account for the fact that it’s only been tracked for the past 40 years. That’s not nearly long enough to get anything beyond a half-assed reading.

    Moreover, global warming does not affect ocean floor magnetism and seismic activity, (not without really reaching, anyway) and a study of the ocean floor and its magnetic bands suggests that ocean currents change periodically as the Earth’s magnetism shifts. (Imagine the poles being reversed…at one time in the Earth’s history, your compass would have pointed South)

    Strangely enough, we are technically in an Ice Age, and it’s been hypothesised that what’s keeping glaciation from happening is global warming. Interesting hypothesis, that.

  62. Unregistered Comment by Azygos

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Radio carbon dating is only good for five half lives and that would get you a maximum of 32,000 years. The big problem with radio carbon dating is you have to know how much carbon was present at the time the said artifact lived/grew. Since there is not an accurate way to tell how much carbon was in the atmosphere 25,000 years ago we can’t accurately tell the exact age of anything by radio carbon dating. If we presuppose a level of carbon for a specific time period then we have artificially assigned an age to the object prior to our testing that object for its age. It turns into a circular argument.

    As for evilution there is not a shred of science I have seen to support it. I won’t call it a theory because theories should be observable and repeatable and evilution is neither.

    A good primer on the problems of evilution from a biologic basis is Dr. Michael Dentons “Evolution, A Theory in Crisis.”

  63. BC Imperial Torturer Comment by BC Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    As for evilution there is not a shred of science I have seen to support it. I won’t call it a theory because theories should be observable and repeatable and evilution is neither.

    So much for the “Theory of Intelligent Design“, then, my friend.

    :tongue_wink_ee: :wallbash_tb:

  64. BC Imperial Torturer Comment by BC Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’m still holding onto the Theory of Four Elephants Holding up the Earth While Standing on the Back of a Turtle™. I don’t give a fuck WHAT y’all say about it.

    :smoke_tb:

  65. LC Mrs. M Comment by LC Mrs. M

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’m still holding onto the “Theory of Four Elephants Holding up the Earth While Standing on the Back of an Elephant™“. I don’t give a fuck WHAT y’all say about it.

    One elephant too many BC… :doh_tb:

    According to Hindu lore, the world is a sphere that rests on the backs of four elephants standing on the carapace of a giant turtle.

  66. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Wow, what a vast life experience! I’m convinced!

    Or, rather, it’s an example of the amount I can see the weather changing in my life time.

    As for evilution there is not a shred of science I have seen to support it. I won’t call it a theory because theories should be observable and repeatable and evilution is neither.

    A good primer on the problems of evilution from a biologic basis is Dr. Michael Dentons “Evolution, A Theory in Crisis.”

    Fascinating. So you disregard global scientific concensus, then promote a Cretinism/(un)intelligent design proponent.

    Er…actually, the Big Bang theory made the Steady State theory obsolete.

    Actually, there’s still a lot of debate over what the absolute fate will be. Depending on how the Hubble Constant turns out (it’s notoriously difficult to pin down with any real accuracy), we could be looking at either a Big Rip or heat death. I don’t think the Big Crunch is viable unless dark energy disappears over time and gravity takes hold again.

  67. BC Imperial Torturer Comment by BC Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Mrs. M, you’re correct. I meant to type “…Standing on the Back of a Turtle“, but was multi-tasking and wrote “back of an elephant“. Thanks for the heads-up. I shall correct it now.

    :thumbup_tb:

  68. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    In layman’s terms, “It wasn’t meant to be used to explain how things came to be. It was meant to be used as a guide to reaching a certain destination.”

    For the believer, it’s both a roadmap and an historical record.

    So much for the “Theory of Intelligent Design“, then, my friend.

    Again, while it may not be proven through science, it’s not about science. It’s about faith.

    … ahem, BC, please don’t start any hairy ass contests

    Ooooff! No lunch for me today!

  69. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Again, while it may not be proven through science, it’s not about science. It’s about faith.

    So you’re trying to replace a heavily documented theory that over 150 years has been refined to match pretty much everything we see, with a piece of faith?

    What next? Are we going to prove the Easter Bunny exists as well? Hey, I know. My faith says gravity doesn’t exist. There, now I can tell those scientists to fuck off. My faith overrides observed fact.

    This is truly hilarious though. I expect any minute to get a response saying “But Clavain evolution CAN’T be true, otherwise why aren’t monkeys turning into humans in zoos?! Prove me wrong!”.

    Because, as we all know, evolution is false unless a pine tree gives birth to a raccoon. That’s how evolution works, yessir!

  70. BC Imperial Torturer Comment by BC Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    For the believer, it’s both a roadmap and an historical record.

    What was that little saying about historical records? Oh yeah, “History is written by the victors.”

    Again, while it may not be proven through science, it’s not about science. It’s about faith.

    Exactly. Which is why it shouldn’t be held up as having anything to do with “science“, my friend. It’s a matter of faith.

    Remember, some of us have “faith” that the Earth was created when a big ass celestial grizzly bear took a dump in the cosmic woods. How else would one explain the inordinate number of dingleberries hanging around?

    :lol_wp:

  71. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Don’t forget the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    No seriously, try and prove me wrong on that. The FSM is just as substantiated in reality as God, Allah, Baal or anyone else. And hey, Creationism and Intelligent Design don’t even propose any workable model, so they completely fail at being a hypothesis, letalone theory.

    Science is far too important to be left to scientists, says I.

  72. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    has been refined to match pretty much everything we see,

    If it’s fact, why did it have to be “refined”?

    My faith says gravity doesn’t exist.

    Then you’re an idiot.

    It’s Faith in a supreme Creator. It’s NOT about science. Faith, you know, that thing you practice in believing evolution. C’mon, you can GET this concept.

  73. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    If it’s fact, why did it have to be “refined”?

    Like gravity you mean, which has been altered and refined since Newton when Einstein came about? Like that “theory”?

    It’s Faith in a supreme Creator. It’s NOT about science. Faith, you know, that thing you practice in believing evolution. C’mon, you can GET this concept.

    Hilarious comment backed with condescending tone and no actual substance.

    But I hear ya, chief. You keep saying evolution is a faith, and I’ll listen to the scientific community.

    Unless, of course, you have a nice peer reviewed paper to show me on your proposal.

    Oh, wait. I forgot. Evolution is part of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, so any scientific journal will obviously deny you your peer reviewed paper on magical sky pixies furthering Earth based evolution.

    Heh, this reminds me of WTC attack conspiracy theorists.

  74. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    You STILL don’t get it Jack. You believe in God, or you don’t believe in God. Science CANNOT touch that. Either it’s the Absolute Truth, or it’s a total lie. Still, Science CANNOT touch it. You can’t prove or disprove God by scientific means. (I know that bothers you, but it’s true) It’s FAITH.

  75. Nanashi Comment by Nanashi

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Actually, there’s still a lot of debate over what the absolute fate will be. Depending on how the Hubble Constant turns out (it’s notoriously difficult to pin down with any real accuracy), we could be looking at either a Big Rip or heat death. I don’t think the Big Crunch is viable unless dark energy disappears over time and gravity takes hold again.

    Not with much recognition in the field, though. Quasi-steady state theories are largely dismissed due to discrepancies with observations left unexplained by proponents.

    What was that little saying about historical records? Oh yeah, “History is written by the victors.”

    Not really.

    And hey, Creationism and Intelligent Design don’t even propose any workable model, so they completely fail at being a hypothesis, letalone theory.

    You haven’t read Schoeder, then. Plenty of counter-theory in his books.

    So you’re trying to replace a heavily documented theory that over 150 years has been refined to match pretty much everything we see, with a piece of faith?

    What next? Are we going to prove the Easter Bunny exists as well? Hey, I know. My faith says gravity doesn’t exist. There, now I can tell those scientists to fuck off. My faith overrides observed fact.

    Once again, you’re assuming your presuppositions = fact. They don’t. Most sceptics pride themselves on intellectual ability and like to think that they have no “beliefs.” However, science itself has demonstrated that beliefs are universal — that’s simply how our brains are wired to work. Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not the case. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview that changes occur rarely, if at all.

    What it comes down to is that atheists dogmatically clinging to evolution and the like don’t seem to realise that they are reacting emotionally to a challenge to their worldview. It’s a defence mechanism, and the name-calling and snide remarks towards people admitting to faith (something, I might add, that Nietzsche noticed of his fellow intellectuals) only serve to drive that point home.

    It’s not a bad thing, in my opinion, to be passionate about something. But I think that a lot of atheist apologists would probably do a lot better if they realised that their reactions are not logical, but emotional.

    But let’s get into that part about the Easter Bunny. Whatever beliefs regarding the Easter Bunny there are, such a creature would have to occur within our universe. However, the God of the Bible is transcendent to the universe, since the universe cannot contain Him. (1 Kings 8:27) The Bible also says that no one can see God in His glory, (John 1:18) since He is invisible to our eyes, (Job 9:11, 37:23; John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16, etc.) and that God is a non-physical being. (John 4:24) In addition, God created the entire universe (Genesis 1:1) to include time itself, (1 Corinthians 2:7; Titus 1:2; etc.) which did not exist prior to God creating it. The Easter Bunny is a contingent being, whereas God is non contingent. Therefore, to make an analogy between God and the Easter Bunny is logically flawed from the outset.

  76. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I think ALL of us would agree that there are two possible explanations for the very existence of the world (with all apologies to BC’s Grizzly in the woods theory…I kinda like that one). Evolution, or (to be politically correct) Intelligent design. Either way, doesn’t it stand to reason that since none of us were there at the time, a measure of faith is required to claim either view to be true?

  77. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    You haven’t read Schoeder, then. Plenty of counter-theory in his books.

    My curiosity is piqued. What are the testable functions of his proposed hypothesis?

    But let’s get into that part about the Easter Bunny. Whatever beliefs regarding the Easter Bunny there are, such a creature would have to occur within our universe. However, the God of the Bible is transcendent to the universe, since the universe cannot contain Him. (1 Kings 8:27) The Bible also says that no one can see God in His glory, (John 1:18) since He is invisible to our eyes, (Job 9:11, 37:23; John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16, etc.) and that God is a non-physical being. (John 4:24) In addition, God created the entire universe (Genesis 1:1) to include time itself, (1 Corinthians 2:7; Titus 1:2; etc.) which did not exist prior to God creating it. The Easter Bunny is a contingent being, whereas God is non contingent. Therefore, to make an analogy between God and the Easter Bunny is logically flawed from the outset.

    You’ve just made a big fallacy. One cannot be outside the universe anymore than one can make a triangular circle. God is inherently untestable and simply repeating a Special Pleading Fallacy basically says you concede that God is totally without merit and requires non-logical, irrational thinking.

    Therefore, since there is nothing to say Jehovah exists anymore than the Easter Bunny, there is no reason for me to believe at all in him. I suggest reading the equivalent rebuttal to this idea by the late Carl Sagan, since he uses invisible dragons, but the point is the same.

    Additionally, if you do want to maintain that God does still exist and is beyond any detection, you’re now going to have to prove to me that it’s the Christian god, and not one of hundreds or thousands of previous deities, all of which are exactly as likely.

    You may say my belief in factual science is a “faith” (which it isn’t, it’s just fact and being an atheist I find it funny anyone would tag the “faith” title on. Do people following a certain football team have a specific faith too?).

    I think ALL of us would agree that there are two possible explanations for the very existence of the world (with all apologies to BC’s Grizzly in the woods theory…I kinda like that one). Evolution, or (to be politically correct) Intelligent design. Either way, doesn’t it stand to reason that since none of us were there at the time, a measure of faith is required to claim either view to be true?

    I see where you’re coming from, and it is a common view. But this really doesn’t hold water, I’m afraid, simply because you can then start questioning Jesus, Caesar, Plato, Genghis Khan and any number of people, events of objects that existed before we did. Science works by studying what we can see in the universe then deriving a working model that best fits the facts. Case in point, gravity, which as we all know started with Newton, but when it came to special relativity, we had to amend the theory to take into effect relativistic anomalies. This isn’t a case of science being wrong, or one man having faith in another view that opposed another man’s. It’s simply the scientific method, that one theory was accepted as it was at a time until we could further probe how it worked, then the physicists concluded that the model was incomplete, and took on Einstein’s work to add to Newton’s.

    The same is true of Darwin. Darwin’s original work is not used today because it is far too simplistic, hence, modern evolution is often called neo-Darwinism. Darwin, for instance, didn’t know of how Mendel’s genetic experiments tied in with his theory and this was later looked at when we understood genetics since evolution, by definition, is allele frequency change over time (that’s all it is. It says nothing of species spontaneously becoming totally different for no reason).

    We don’t have all the answers now and we never will have, say, a 100% complete fossil record. But saying that means the rest is invalid is like throwing out the prosecution’s case in a murder trial because they can’t present a 24/7 record of the murderer’s life up till the homicide.

  78. Unregistered Comment by Infidel River Rat

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I can’t stand the blithering overeducated idiot to start with, and her intolerance is another reason! BAN or purge anyone with a differing opinion, how Stalinist can you get? :thumbdown_tb::nono_tb: :guns_tb:

  79. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    To get back to the topic before it evolved ( :wink_wp: ) into Comparative Theology 101, The biggest crime the global warming faithful committed was not changing the theory in the 80’s. That’s normal. If data contradicts your theory, you make adjustments. Scientific Method, page 1, paragraph 1.

    No, their crime was far worse. The computer modeling all this stuff is based on includes a fudge factor built in (I wish I could find the article with details, but my bookmark file is a disaster area) that magnifies the anthropic contribution by at least a 10 factor.

    Oh hell no! No sir! :nono_tb: You do not fuck with data to support the theory. That is an absolute NO-GO! No one, NO ONE, has the right to pervert scientific methodology like that. And the bringing in of politicians like the GW guys do, just compounds the crime.

    Someone need to hand out some Bitchslaps O’ Doom™, and now. :guns_tb: :furious_tb:

  80. MegaTroopX Comment by MegaTroopX

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    “needs to”

    That’ll teach me to type while ticked.

  81. Grits Comment by Grits

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I ambled over to the blog of Heidi Cullen, Dr. of Indian Hysterics, or whatever the mystical degree she actually holds, and read her blog responses. The woman has no ass left, none!!!! A pitiful sitght indeed!

    Incidentally, that “concensus of scientists” who support global warming is somewhat overwhelmed by the 70,000 scientists that signed off on the “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” paper from the Oregon Institute of Science and medicine. Going there, I found a well reasoned and presented scientific document supported by an incredible array of facts. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message44

    Only the chronically ignorant or terminally stupid should believe Al Gore or any of the other doom and gloomers. They should be arrested for impersonating rational human beings.

    Grits

  82. Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur Comment by Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sorry I came late to this party.

    Pascal again? Be good, or the Great Sociopath in the sky will be angry? It’s funny how holders of locked down positions, regardless of “wing”, never manage to make an original argument.

    If he were a “Great Sociopath”, then don’t you think that you’d just be a smoldering spot on the pavement?

    Thankfully, science is a democracy and if you protest hard enough (as I hope you’re doing, I know I am!) you can get things changed.

    Oh. You read Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions too? Then you know what I am going to say next: Paradigm Shift. Go back and read up on the hallowed concepts of Lamarckism and phlogiston. It’s ok. I’ll wait.

    Unlike things such as gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, and other repeatedly provable theories, the theory of evolution is not prone to observation and repetition by man, which means that it requires …faith…to believe in it. There are significant gaps in the fossil record that reasonable people would not simply ignore when loudly proclaiming this theory as truth. Even if it were provable in terms of an unbroken progression, we aren’t able to tell from the existing record if such changes are affected by outside influences. Science provides explainations that fit the evidence that we understand. Understanding changes with our abilities to understand and observe the world around us. I’m not going to abandon science because my faith in God, but I’m not going to abandon my faith in God in favor of an explaination that history demonstrates is subject to change based on the discovery of new data.

    Each of us has to determine what we are going to believe. I’ve been around people long enough to know that civility and goodness do not just happen, and without a belief in a supreme being who has provided a code of conduct, which if followed, can provide a tolerable existence for all concerned, the result would be communism or some similar existence, because that is the inevitable result of letting man determine what is good for man, coupled with the belief that life here on Earth is all there is. By the same token, evil does exist in the world, and much of it can be attributed to a belief in man’s sole and unfettered dominion over himself, without any higher outside authority to hold him accountable. To deny the existence of God and assert the supremacy of man over all is not the denial of a God…it is merely to replace him with yourself, and if you were to think that such a belief was the product of man’s thinking alone, you’re fooling yourself.

  83. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    It seems like every six months or so there is a theological bloodletting in the Rott. And as usual, no one ever changes their opinion as a result of these discourses.

    Romans 10:17 “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” Faith does not come from science.

    Science is based on physical laws that produce consistent events that can be reproduced. Many of the greatest scientists in history (Isaac Newton for one) endeavored to find these physical laws because of their belief in a God of order. If there is order in the Universe, then there must be laws to govern and regulate it. And indeed there are.

    None of the naturalistic theories of creation that I have read account for the host of physical laws that bind and control the behavior of matter under particular conditions.

    The problem with this guff is that the Bible specifies they penalty for them as death. The Bible says flat out that if your child or wife or whomever decides that he does not want to crawl before Yahweh, he must be put to death.

    The notion here is ownership. It is His Creation and He makes the rules. You don’t have to obey the rules, but then you must pay the consequences. That is true in almost everything you do, so why are you dismayed when a religious edict establishes the same principles? Rather immature of you.

    What you really have trouble with is the notion of sin. We may offend our fellow man and do wrong to him, but we sin only against God.

    What, exactly, would be the point of deceiving His creations into thinking that the Earth was 5 billion years old if it was only 6,000 years old?

    This was no deception, my Imperator, this was His intent and design.
    Gen. 1:16
    And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
    Gen. 1:17
    And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
    Gen. 1:18
    And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

    If He created light sources then he can place the light where He wills. The stars, and the light they provide, were made available immediately. He did this for our benefit. No waiting for 100,000 years for the light from the other side of our galaxy to reach us.

    There are over forty different measures that can be used to estimate the age of the earth. Almost all of them place this age at between 15,000 and 100,000 years. I’ll look them up for you if you are interested.

    No matter what is said here, men’s hearts will lead them where they want to go. Far too often that is not a good thing.

  84. Unregistered Comment by DukeFenton

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Well, I guess His Imperial Majesty et al. have made it clear that actual scientists are not welcome around here. Never mind that, as an actual Biologist who actually studied this topic, I have some modicum of understanding of the nature of scientific evidence, inquiry, and - yes, it really exists - the ongoing debate about every little detail and what it means. The simple fact that I accept the clear evidence that living things have changed over time, and give tentative credence to explanations based on *known mechanisms* which could explain such changes, must make me a ‘Darwinist’ or ‘EVILutionsit’ who is too stupid, ignorant, or just plain vomitrocious to accept the TRUTH as she is writ in Holy Scripture.

    Obviously all scientific fact comes from the dusty writings of a group of primitive, pre-literate, pre-rational, genocidal, superstitious wanderers from 3.000 years ago. All the translations, re-copying, and shifting philosophical attitudes in that time could not possibly have chaged one iota of said works - they are Divinely Inspired, after all - so it must be as perfect today as when it was written. The entirely of EVILution is revealed as an ATHIEST PLOT to deny God and destroy all His works, rendering our society an amoral mass of Satan-worshipping cannibalistic homosexuals. We must look to those such as Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter, Al Gore, and Michael Moore - those whose complete lack of scientific experience ensures that they have not been blinded to the truth.

    It is completely impossible for any reasonable and intelligent person, let alone an ethical or moral being, to have ever thought that EVILution could possibly be the logical explanation for even the tiniest component of observable reality. Why, the very idea that the accumulated changes brought about by the inquiry of even hundreds of thousands of people for a mere hundred and fifty years could spontaneously produce a new and different scientific theory capable of surviving even the faintest scrutiny, is so statistically improbable as to be utterly ludicrous! And because Darwinisn is an EVIL fascist cult, it is absolutely certain that all of them have exactly the same ideas, marching in lockstep.

    No, there’s no such thing as a ‘rational’ or ‘tolerant’ EVILutionist - they are all Darwinists. There is no possibility that certain scientists - who are after all fallible humans - could claim that the theory of evolution denies God, when in fact it says nothing one way or another about a being whose existence is a matter of faith. Never mind their protests that ‘theory’ means ‘a way of organizing facts around a widely accepted and well supported proposal to explain their interrelation.’ Your pastor who never saw a test tube in his life said that ‘theory’ means it’s just a wild guess; after all, he speaks for God and if God said it, that settles it!

    There’s no such thing as ’scientists’ who accept the theory of evolution - barring disproof or a development of a better theory - yet accept God, or even acknowledge that such a being could exist. There are no such thing as Darwinists who are also skeptical of the human impact on climate change; it’s all one monolithic dogma which all accept wholly and without question. There’s no way any of them could have possibly reached a rational conclusion based on their own reasoning and the observable facts.

    So called “science” is merely another close-minded, violent cult which is ruled entirely by force and completely incapable of accepting new ideas. Look at the way the Cladists burn down the laboratories of the Morphologists to make room for a ‘new way of thinking,’ while the ruling cabal of Uniformitarians have rebel Catastrophists murdered in their sleep and their bodies impaled on the nearest lamppost.

    So, I guess I’ll have to go. Unless you’d like to drag me off to your dungeon first and torture me with hot pokers and thumbscrews; until I recant my heresies, and confess to worshipping Satan and eating aborted babies.

  85. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Oh bullshit DukeFenton. There were frigging scientists in the USSR that tried to combine socialism with agriculture and believed that is was a valid scientific effort. They damn near starved the country.

    Scientists throughout the centuries have fervently believed so called facts that later turned out to be crap or out right falsehoods.

    Remember the Pitdown Man and the Nebraska Man? The Pitdown Man was such an embarassment to the Royal Academy that this hoax was more or less swept under the carpet; it was still showing up in science textbooks in the 1950’s because scientists were more concerned with sparing their reputations than the truth.

    No need for thumbscrews or torture. Keep your heresies, drown in them for all I care; only don’t expect everyone else to jump off your bridge.

  86. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Misha said:

    What, exactly, would be the point of deceiving His creations into thinking that the Earth was 5 billion years old if it was only 6,000 years old? It doesn’t make sense. Not to say that that proves that He didn’t, a lot of what He does makes no sense to ordinary mortals like myself, but still.

    Consider this: At one time it was OBVIOUS to everyone that the sun moved across the sky (rather than the earth rotating). A guy comes along and says that the sun does not move relative to the earth but rather that God created a system of night and day based on the rotation of the earth.

    Along comes the naysayer who says “What, exactly, would be the point of deceiving His creations into thinking that the sun moves across the sky when in fact, it is fixed and WE are the ones moving?”

    This is a rough analogy of course but the point is that we do not know why the universe looks to be very old when God said it is very young (in multiple places in Scripture). Just because something looks obvious (i.e. the sun moving or the earth as a plane rather than a sphere or any of thousands of other observations that turn out to be different than at first theorized) doesn’t mean that it is obvious.

    The physics of the early universe are far from understood. An alternate theory is that time itself is a physical dimension that, at one point, ran at a different rate than it does today (i.e. magnitudes faster).

    The assumption of a 5 Billion (actually the currently accepted age is over twice that) years is one based on uniformitarianism. The assumption that what we see today is the way it has always been is a bit arrogant. We don’t even remember what happened 100 years ago and we are stating with certainty what happened at the beginning of time?

    Puhleese.

  87. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    sig94, you are so correct.

    Michael Crichton mentions similar debunked theories in his appendix at the end of State of Fear. Eugenics was the commonly accepted scientific world view prior to WWII. There was even a larger consensus regarding Eugenics then than there is regarding Global Warming today. Yet today the same types (i.e. “progressives”) who promoted this horrific theory abandoned it as if it never existed once WWII was over.

    As a side note, it is regrettable that Crichton doesn’t take his own advice in State of Fear when it comes to Evolution. The very same arguments Crichton uses to debunk Global warming are the same ones that could be used to debunk Evolutionary theory.

  88. Grits Comment by Grits

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I must admit to some religious confusion regarding these timelines and things. I believe God told Noah to “replenish” the earth. That sounds reasonable since God had just destroyed it by flood. He also told Adam and Eve the same thing on the 6th day if I remember right. Now why would God say that unless He had destroyed the earth prior to creating them? I wonder how many times God has chucked creation into the waste basket and started over? Just wondering.

    Grits

  89. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Good question Grits.

    It is possible that there was a pre-existing creation that was made “desolate” (or “void” in the King James translation.) However, even if such a creation existed and was then destroyed, it would have no bearing on the theory of evolution since it was destroyed.

    The TofE is about biology. Adam and Eve were the first created humans and when they lived, there were no fossils (they came later).

  90. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    There are over forty different measures that can be used to estimate the age of the earth. Almost all of them place this age at between 15,000 and 100,000 years. I’ll look them up for you if you are interested.

    I most assuredly am, Sig. Not because I don’t believe you, but because it’s a matter that I’m very curious about.

    DukeFenton:

    So, I guess I’ll have to go. Unless you’d like to drag me off to your dungeon first and torture me with hot pokers and thumbscrews; until I recant my heresies, and confess to worshipping Satan and eating aborted babies.

    Nah. Unless you want to hang around until tomorrow night. We only do pokers and thumbscrews on Saturdays, you know.

    Seriously, though, you’re being a tad hysterical here, and that’s putting it mildly. You can believe and argue pretty much anything you like at any time here, there are no Requirements for Membership™.

    The only thing that tends to get people worked up on a consistent basis is when people start acting like angry toddlers if somebody dares question their pet theories.

    I know what I believe, you know what you believe, and eventually we’re going to find out who was right and who was wrong. In the meantime, we can have fun arguing why we believe as we do. Who knows, we might all learn something and, at the very least, we’ll have a bit of a mental exercise out of it.

    We have Pagans, Atheists, Joos, Christians and just about everything else around here. I assure you that we can find room for a devout Darwinist as well :wink_ee:

    Just don’t get all huffy when we make fun of your beliefs as much as we make fun of all of the rest of the belief systems represented here.

  91. juandos Comment by juandos

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Oh dear, yet another pseudo scientist (#89) has his whinny little bit of drivel up and running: “Well, I guess His Imperial Majesty et al. have made it clear that actual scientists are not welcome around here. Never mind that, as an actual Biologist who actually studied this topic, I have some modicum of understanding of the nature of scientific evidence, inquiry, and - yes, it really exists - the ongoing debate about every little detail and what it means. The simple fact that I accept the clear evidence that living things have changed over time, and give tentative credence to explanations based on *known mechanisms* which could explain such changes, must make me a ‘Darwinist’ or ‘EVILutionsit’ who is too stupid, ignorant, or just plain vomitrocious to accept the TRUTH as she is writ in Holy Scripture“…

    So DukeFenton does your belief in evolutionary processes rest on real world facts or the need to cling to the politically correct atmosphere that prevades many of the so called institutions of higher education?

    This tends to make me wonder if you to believe in the myth of global warming?

  92. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Grits sez:

    I must admit to some religious confusion regarding these timelines and things. I believe God told Noah to “replenish” the earth. That sounds reasonable since God had just destroyed it by flood. He also told Adam and Eve the same thing on the 6th day if I remember right. Now why would God say that unless He had destroyed the earth prior to creating them? I wonder how many times God has chucked creation into the waste basket and started over? Just wondering.

    You are correct, Grits, in Gen 1:28 it does use exactly the phrasing you thought… but only in the older translations (KJV, Webster, ASV). However, as you well know, translation is not a precise science, and the interpretations of the translator will affect what words he or she chooses to use in the translation. And in Gen 9:1, the same word that is translated replenish (male’ H04390) is used again… and again only in the older versions is it translated replenish.

    Now on one hand, the word literally does mean fill up. So fill the earth is not a bad translation. But I think they had it right the first time, that replenish is indeed a better choice of translation. And that is because I do believe the much maligned “gap theory” should be given another look. Many people mock it and claim that it was a “desperate revision to attempt to twist the bible to fit with new scientific evidence”. Well this is simply not true, but even if it was, so what? Lets look at it on its merits, shall we?

    The phrasing in Gen 1:2 is translated in just about every version exactly the same way: ” And the earth was without form, and void;” and we’ll stop right there. The literal wording here is this: “va ‘erets hayah tohu va bohu”. The word hayah is the key word I first want to look at. Like most Hebrew words it has many meanings, but among the most common are: “to happen”, “to become”, and “to be”. This is the same word used in “Let there be light” in the next verse, and also in Gen 2:7 where “man became a living nephesh“.

    Not only can the word be translated as became, but we have additional textual evidence from other verses that at least suggest this is a plausible interpretation. For that, lets look at the next word: tohu. This word is also used in Isa 45:18, and this verse sheds a lot more light on the matter.

    For thus saith the LORD that created[1254] the heavens; God himself that formed[3335] the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created[1254] it not in vain,[8414] he formed[3335] it to be inhabited.

    I’ve left the strongs numbers in on three key words there. “Vain” is tohu. Same word as in Gen 1:2. “Formed” is “yatsar” (3335) and literally means to mold into form like a potter would with a lump of clay. This, btw, is the same word used in Gen 2:7 just before “became” it says “And the LORD God formed[3335] man of the dust of the ground…” And finally “created” is “bara” (1254) and is a primitive root word for create. This word is used of the earth in Gen 1:1. So we have in vs 1:1 that God created the Earth. But what next? The next word is not “the earth”, however, the next word is “AND” (va). The word va comprises the same use in Hebrew that and does it English, although it can join two nouns or verbs or adjectives (tohu va bohu, for example) it is often a conjunction that joins two seperate phrases. Or perhaps two separate events. Of and by itself this is not proof, however. So lets dig a bit deeper still.

    Lets look again at that verse from Isaiah. Ignoring the wording, lets look at the finished product. “Thus sayeth the LORD, who … created it not [tohu], who formed it to be inhabited.”

    That to me says that the Earth was NOT created in a state of “tohu”, but that instead the earth was destroyed in the Satanic rebellion and rebuilt by God in a REcreation that ended with the establishment of the Sabbath after creating Adam and Eve.

    And now those of you who nodded off or whose eyes glazed over may come out of your stupor and resume reading the other comments.

    RH

  93. George guy Comment by George guy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I was about to type something huge and profound, but then I realized I already did that six months ago.

  94. hOOt Gibson Comment by hOOt Gibson

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    When I first saw Heidi the Hag on TWC, I laughed my ass off, the skinny bitch paraded the likes of Al Gore and Ted Turner out as ‘experts’ out as Global Warming “Experts”

    What a crock!

    hOOt

  95. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Unlike things such as gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, and other repeatedly provable theories, the theory of evolution is not prone to observation and repetition by man, which means that it requires …faith…to believe in it. There are significant gaps in the fossil record that reasonable people would not simply ignore when loudly proclaiming this theory as truth. Even if it were provable in terms of an unbroken progression, we aren’t able to tell from the existing record if such changes are affected by outside influences. Science provides explainations that fit the evidence that we understand. Understanding changes with our abilities to understand and observe the world around us. I’m not going to abandon science because my faith in God, but I’m not going to abandon my faith in God in favor of an explaination that history demonstrates is subject to change based on the discovery of new data.

    Each of us has to determine what we are going to believe. I’ve been around people long enough to know that civility and goodness do not just happen, and without a belief in a supreme being who has provided a code of conduct, which if followed, can provide a tolerable existence for all concerned, the result would be communism or some similar existence, because that is the inevitable result of letting man determine what is good for man, coupled with the belief that life here on Earth is all there is. By the same token, evil does exist in the world, and much of it can be attributed to a belief in man’s sole and unfettered dominion over himself, without any higher outside authority to hold him accountable. To deny the existence of God and assert the supremacy of man over all is not the denial of a God…it is merely to replace him with yourself, and if you were to think that such a belief was the product of man’s thinking alone, you’re fooling yourself.

    So you’re saying I’ve imagined witnessing antibiotic resistance in lab samples I’ve taken regarding S. aureus and E. coli O157:H7? Because you do realise that adaptation to antibiotics is the core tenet of natural selection, right?

    How about observed speciation in Drosophila melanogaster, Rhagoletis pomonella and Tribolium castaneum insects? And the Faeroe Island house mouse or cichlid fishes of Lake Nagubago? All of them show allele frequency change to the extent that interbreeding with other isolated groups is not possible or only produces an infertile hybrid. These are ALL observed by man over the decades, and the existence of other anomalies from vestigial organs to fossils with characteristics of two separate types of organism add to that.

    Micro-evolution is going on in hospital wards today and is costing lives. The likes of MRSA and VRSA never existed 100 years ago and now it is forcing molecular biologists to come up with new ways of tackling such new strains, simply because they are adapting to the environment so quickly. If micro-evolution happens, then macro-evolution does too, as the two terms are the exact same thing with only time being the variable for distinction.

  96. BC Imperial Torturer Comment by BC Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Okay, guys & gals, for the last time, just because someone does not take something that a bunch of camel-skin wearing, cave-dwelling MidEasterners wrote down on goat skins & papyrus, thousands of years ago, after many generations of oral tradition, as a literal guide to how the Earth, humans and the universe came into being, it doesn’t make them a LefTardian Drooling Moron™.

    I swear to Cthulu’s tentacled testicles, this place makes me shake my head when it starts sounding like Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell trying to explain how the atomic bombs were really just G-d’s flatulence bottled up and handed to Harry Truman to defeat the Eeeevil Japanese.

    Can you say “Mirror DU”?

    :wallbash_tb:

  97. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Additionally, I find this always interesting reading:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207858,00.html

    Someone want to tell me why the more secular nations are better educated in science? Come on, America. You’re being beaten by Turkey! What happened to all your “teach the controversy” campaigns and Flat Earth societies? You should be number one in denying science, not behind some A-rabs.

  98. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Okay, guys & gals, for the last time, just because someone does not take something that a bunch of camel-skin wearing, cave-dwelling MidEasterners wrote down on goat skins & papyrus, thousands of years ago, after many generations of oral tradition, as a literal guide to how the Earth, humans and the universe came into being, it doesn’t make them a LefTardian Drooling Moron™.

    I swear to Cthulu’s tentacled testicles, this place makes me shake my head when it starts sounding like Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell trying to explain how the atomic bombs were really just G-d’s flatulence bottled up and handed to Harry Truman to defeat the Eeeevil Japanese.

    Can you say “Mirror DU”?

    But you don’t get it! I’m an atheist, having been a Christian for my first 11 years (and even then not anywhere near a strong one). By some people’s reckoning, I should be eating babies and raping women because I don’t have the fear of God/Allah/Cthulhu to keep me in check with wonderful laws like the 10 Commandments.

    Better watch out, I’m totally amoral without faith!

  99. BC Imperial Torturer Comment by BC Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Someone want to tell me why the more secular nations are better educated in science?

    Clavain, now you’re just being Stoopid™ and instigating.

    Name one of these “more secular nations” that is more innovative in the fields of science, medicine and military technology. Also, name a single one of these “more secular nations” that has more individual freedom than the United States. Name a single “more secular nation” that gives more aid to the undeveloped world?

    We may be on the same page, as far as science explaining the way things are (GOOD science. NOT the bullshit, Socialist agenda-driven Global Worming™ “science”.), but when you start bad-mouthing the most advanced, generous and free nation to ever grace the face of this ball of dirt that we call Earth, you’ve crossed the line.

    :annoyed_tb:

    BTW, which “more secular nation” has more people trying to reach its borders, for a chance at a better life, than the US?

  100. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Name one of these “more secular nations” that is more innovative in the fields of science, medicine and military technology. Also, name a single one of these “more secular nations” that has more individual freedom than the United States. Name a single “more secular nation” that gives more aid to the undeveloped world?

    Japan, the UK, Germany. What? They don’t count now? Oh, if you’re talking about actual numbers of patents, then yes, the US has more. But get this, the US is a bigger country. Go figure.

    Additionally, the US gives less aid to the developed world than many other nations, usually only around 0.1% of GNP, while everyone else is nearing the 0.7% mark globally accepted. But what this has to do with science, I don’t know.

    As for freedom, name me something that those other nations don’t have that’s significant for the better freedom title?

    Additionally, science and industry is moving away from the US as China and India produce more and often better qualified scientists and engineers. A nation that has nearly half the population believe in Creationism is not a nation that loves science. The rest of the world had and ended that debate 150 years ago. Hell, in terms of science, even Iran is pumping more cash into ESC research than the US.

    Military technology I’m unsure of the relevance here, but BAE Systems, other EU and Russian companies form the main block of arms dealers globally anyway. The US is obviously bigger because, gasp, it’s a larger nation and Russia was crippled by the Cold War for arms exports.

    I also don’t get why global warming is a socialist based agenda. What the fuck does an unworkable idea of economics have to do with whether or not there is an anthropogenic cause behind global warming?

  101. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    BTW, which “more secular nation” has more people trying to reach its borders, for a chance at a better life, than the US?

    Wow, gee. So because Mexico is a shithole and everyone wants to leave to something that isn’t a shithole, that makes America amazingly super duper now? What about the UK? Do you realise how many people are clamouring there to get a better life? Trust me, when you live in Mexico or Poland, anywhere is better.

    And aren’t Americans getting fed up with people trying to get in to have the American Dream come true? I’m sure I read something about a big fence.

  102. juandos Comment by juandos

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    But you don’t get it! I’m an atheist, having been a Christian for my first 11 years (and even then not anywhere near a strong one). By some people’s reckoning, I should be eating babies and raping women because I don’t have the fear of God/Allah/Cthulhu to keep me in check with wonderful laws like the 10 Commandments

    Hmmm, so being atheist or agnostic makes one smarter is your argument?

    Interesting… I’m betting the following is right down your alley: Scientists Aren’t Religious, So Why Should You Be?

    Personally I think Stephen Bainbridge has a Larry Alexander quote that nails you and your kind perfectly Clavain: Now the free market, buttressed by public education, has raised more people out of poverty than all government poverty and redistributive programs together have done. Nonetheless, the free market–and the bourgeois values that undergird it–is typically disdained, if not reviled by academics, at least academics outside of economics departments

  103. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Robert said:

    And that is because I do believe the much maligned “gap theory” should be given another look.

    I don’t think there is anything wrong with considering the gap theory but here’s the thing… It is misapplied all the time to imply that the creation we see today (at least here on earth) is very old. From a Biblical standpoint, this concept is textually and doctrinally invalid for a whole host of reasons. Nevertheless, there is a view that the Gap Theory can be used to explain the dominion and subsequent fall of the superangel, Lucifer.

    At the risk of taking up a lot of comment space, allow me to quote Dr. Chuck Missler (audio available here) who explains this succinctly:

    “The so-called “Gap Theory” is a conjecture about a possible interval between the first two verses in Genesis 1. Among other things, it attempts to deal with the creation of the angels, the fall of Lucifer, and related topics. The angels apparently witnessed the creation of the earth; but when were they created? Satan’s rebellion is also portrayed in Scripture; but when did he fall?

    Genesis 1:1

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - Genesis 1:1

    Beresheet Bara Elohim et ha-Shamayim et ha-Eretz.

    Seven Hebrew words; 4 x 7 letters. Volumes have been written on this verse alone. This opening declaration in verse 1 stands alone; it says it all.

    If you understand this verse you will have no trouble with any other verse in the Bible.

    The first word is Beresheeth, “In Beginning,” which yields the name of the book of Genesis in Hebrew.

    The second word is bara, to create out of nothing. This is in contrast to similar words in the Hebrew: Asa, to make, fashion, or fabricate; and Yatsa , to form or shape. (Isaiah 43:7 uses all three.) Most of what we see in the remainder of Genesis 1 are forms of “made.”

    The third word, Elohim , the name of God, seems to be a grammatical “error”: it is a plural noun, used as a singular. It is recognized by many scholars as the first hint of the Trinity.

    Genesis 1:2

    It is the second verse that raises some questions.

    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. -Genesis 1:2

    The words, “without form and void, tohu w’bohu, seem to be contradicted by a passage in Isaiah:

    For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain [Whto tohu], he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. - Isaiah 45:18

    And also in Jeremiah:

    I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void [tohu w’bohu]; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger. -Jer 4:23-27

    When were “all the cities thereof broken down”?

    Furthermore, the verb hayah , “was” in Genesis 1:2, is a transitive verb; it is the same word used when “Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt.” It implies an active transition.

    Also, the waw, “and,” in Genesis 1:2 usually implies a time delay. Here it can be construed as an adversative conjunction, implying a reversal as well as a delay.

    (In the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate it is rendered as “but.”)
    Putting all this together, some scholars suggest that it should be rendered:

    “But the earth became without form and void (”ruined and uninhabitable”); and darkness was on the face of the deep (LXX: abousso). And the Spirit of God hovered (Talmud: like a dove?) over the face of the waters .

    The Cosmic Interval

    The conjecture is that between the first two verses of the Bible, after the original creation which included the angels and Lucifer, there was a rebellion and a judgment of his principal domain, the Earth. We thus find Satan already fallen in Genesis 3.

    According to this view, the record following is simply a reconstruction and the subsequent unfolding of God’s plan of redemption.

    In any case, attempting to employ the “Gap Theory” in an attempt to reconcile the Genesis record with geologic or paleanthological theories is inappropriate and futile. Fossils are dead: they occurred after Adam. Clearly, the Biblical record attributes plants and animals to the post-Adamic world, and its subsequent “bondage of decay” to the fall in Genesis 3.

    Yet, the possibility of such an interval would seem to reconcile many of the passages regarding Satan and his background. His aspirations to “ascend into heaven,” and the suggestive portrayal in what appears to be a pre-Adamic Eden, with the earth as his principal domain, would seem to harmonize with this view.

    As the “prince of this world,” Satan’s offer to Jesus Christ in the famed temptations was valid, or else it wouldn’t have been a temptation.

    By God’s allowing the cosmic drama to play itself out, Satan will inadvertently glorify God by demonstrating that there can be only one will in the universe and all other paths lead to chaos and destruction.

    God will use the weakness of man, and his redemption through faith in His Son, to redeem not only fallen man, but “a new heavens and a new earth.”

    Missler has written and spoken exhaustively on the subject of science in the Bible and I recommend anything he does (podcasts, books, CDs, and website) very highly.

  104. juandos Comment by juandos

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Typical libtard statement… Long on cluelessness and short on facts: “And aren’t Americans getting fed up with people trying to get in to have the American Dream come true?“….

    No bleeder, its the breaking of the law by these felonious wetbacks that’s the problem….

    Its the cost of these illegal parasites that is part and parcel of the problem…

  105. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Hmmm, so being atheist or agnostic makes one smarter is your argument?

    Interesting… I’m betting the following is right down your alley: Scientists Aren’t Religious, So Why Should You Be?

    Personally I think Stephen Bainbridge has a Larry Alexander quote that nails you and your kind perfectly Clavain: Now the free market, buttressed by public education, has raised more people out of poverty than all government poverty and redistributive programs together have done. Nonetheless, the free market–and the bourgeois values that undergird it–is typically disdained, if not reviled by academics, at least academics outside of economics departments…

    Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. If you actually read my post, it was directed at the idea that someone without faith is inherently without moral guidance.

    But thanks for playing. I’ll be sure to alter my worldview drastically because you typed a couple of quotes for me.

    Oh, one other thing: http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/sci_relig.htm

    ZOMG!!11 EVIL ATHEIST CONSPIRACY!!!1!

  106. juandos Comment by juandos

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    faith is inherently without moral guidance

    Reread your own post fool… :lol_wp:

  107. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Typical libtard statement… Long on cluelessness and short on facts: “And aren’t Americans getting fed up with people trying to get in to have the American Dream come true?“….

    No bleeder, its the breaking of the law by these felonious wetbacks that’s the problem….

    Its the cost of these illegal parasites that is part and parcel of the problem…

    It’s great that you can jump to conclusions, but so you know, I’m not a liberal. I’m a centrist and find extremes rather dumb to be honest. I support certain conservative and liberal initiatives based on their merits, not some assbackwards devotion to a cause.

    And before you say it, I’m not a socialist, libertarian or treehugger. Stereotypes make baby Jesus cry, mmkay?

  108. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Reread your own post fool…

    Sorry? I distinctly recall saying:

    it was directed at the idea that someone without faith is inherently without moral guidance.

    I see you love selective quoting. Please learn to improve your reading comprehension, sir. =)

  109. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Clavain said:

    Because you do realise that adaptation to antibiotics is the core tenet of natural selection, right?

    Clavain, you do realize that natural selection is not the same as the theory of biological evolution don’t you? There is no creation or ID adherent whom I know of, even in the halls of the Institute for Creation Research, who does not believe in NS. NS (i.e. Survival of the Fittest) is one thing that Darwin got right but then, this was an understood mechanism before he came along.

    The 23 year old continues:

    If micro-evolution happens, then macro-evolution does too, as the two terms are the exact same thing with only time being the variable for distinction.

    This is absurd. This is like saying since an elephant can carry things on its back then one must be carrying the universe on its back right now. Yes, the term “carry” is the same in both sentences but one of these concepts is unprovable and unknowable. Secondly, you state that the only difference between micro and macro evolution is “time”. Well, TIME IS A HUGE ISSUE IN THIS DEBATE!

    Micro-evolution is observable and again, even ICR has no problem with the concept. Indeed, microevolution is not even a theory. It is proven fact. To then say, however, that an observable phenomena is proof of an unobservable scientific hypothesis simply demonstrates that the person making such a statement is, well, an imbecile.

    This is not to say that it is not informative. One might observe microevolution and say: “I notice that viruses mutate, I wonder if the same thing happened on a larger scale over eons a long, long time ago. Hmm, too bad I’ll never be able to go back and find out.”

    The TofE is a specific biological theory of origins (not to be confused with chemical evolution) that is really simply conjecture. It is unprovable by any currently available method since time machines have yet to be invented. It can only be disproved. Things like the concept of irreducible complexity and the field of information sciences have demonstrated that the TofE is 19th century mythology. Today it is a religion and a dangerous one at that.

    We have had a couple of generations of students who have been spoon fed this religion and we are the worse for it. Once religion replaces the pursuit of good science, the science will falter. We are seeing this more and more every day. The golden age of science, when most scientists believed the Bible was literally true, is gone. Sad but not unexpected.

  110. BC Imperial Torturer Comment by BC Imperial Torturer

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I have to get going to a parade with the Princess, so I’ll just have to work on one quote for now, Clavain…

    Military technology I’m unsure of the relevance here,…

    Perhaps because of the “technology” aspect of it? Or do you not include “technology” as part of your definition of science over there on your side of the pond? :ponder_tb:

    …but BAE Systems, other EU and Russian companies form the main block of arms dealers globally anyway.

    We’ll keep that in mind the some Idiotarian (not YOU, per se) comes in here screaming bloody murder about the how Eeeeeevil US HalliBusHitlerBurton MilitaryIdustrialZionistCabal Inc.™ is forcing the Poor, Oppressed Little Brown People™ to buy all of our weapons in order to keep their tyrants in power. :thumbup_tb:

    As with many other things, it’s not the quantity that counts, it’s the quality. Euro fighter vs. a US fighter? :lol_wp:

    :smoke_tb:

    Here’s what EU-designed export models come with, free of charge:
    :surrender_tb:

    Now, I’m off for some Eeeeevil Kapitalist Revelry™. Y’all have fun pushing those philosophical mountains up against each other.

    :drunk_tb:

  111. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Clavain, you do realize that natural selection is not the same as the theory of biological evolution don’t you? There is no creation or ID adherent whom I know of, even in the halls of the Institute for Creation Research, who does not believe in NS. NS (i.e. Survival of the Fittest) is one thing that Darwin got right but then, this was an understood mechanism before he came along.

    It’s a core tenet of evolution, since it is adaptation to selective pressures. How else do you think change occurs chiefly in species where sexual selection is not possible?

    This is absurd. This is like saying since an elephant can carry things on its back then one must be carrying the universe on its back right now. Yes, the term “carry” is the same in both sentences but one of these concepts is unprovable and unknowable. Secondly, you state that the only difference between micro and macro evolution is “time”. Well, TIME IS A HUGE ISSUE IN THIS DEBATE!

    No, it’s more like acknowledging that the second hand on a clock turning makes the minute hand move, yet after a much longer time also aids the hour hand in moving. Not accepting macro-evolution here is like saying “I can’t believe the second hand turning around all those times makes the hour hand move. I’ve stared at that hour hand for minutes and it’s not moved an inch.”

    We have had a couple of generations of students who have been spoon fed this religion and we are the worse for it. Once religion replaces the pursuit of good science, the science will falter. We are seeing this more and more every day. The golden age of science, when most scientists believed the Bible was literally true, is gone. Sad but not unexpected.

    How does believing in fairy tails help science? You do realise that it has jack and shit to do with the scientific method, right?

    And TofE has NOTHING to do with biological origins. Abiogenesis, however, does. And we have seen it work.

  112. Unregistered Comment by Clavain

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    As with many other things, it’s not the quantity that counts, it’s the quality. Euro fighter vs. a US fighter?

    You mean like the EFA or the Su-37 which are more than a match for the F-15C and are only outdone by the F-22A which is so horribly overpriced the USAF can’t have the thousand they wanted and might barely get 200?

    Or how about the USN’s littoral combat ship, you know, the one that’s also horribly overprice and totally redundant?

    http://“http//www.navytimes.com/news/2007/01/ntdfnLCS070112/%22

    Perhaps you’d like to mention the Crusader artillery piece, the M16 or V-22.

  113. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Clavain writes:

    I’m a centrist and find extremes rather dumb to be honest.

    Please, Clavain, can you give us all just a little break. It is obvious you are not a centrist and if, in the midst of your liberal pseudo-intellectual statements you have to try to convince us that you are a centrist then you have lost the war. Just accept who you are or change yourself for the better. Denial is not a good thing.

    Besides, the ardent belief in the TofE is a decidedly Liberal notion that is the very definition of extreme. You have faith that the Theory of Evolution is true even though there is no empirical evidence for it and lots of ways to debunk it. You are a self-proclaimed atheist, which in itself is extreme given that there is evidence for a creator all around us. According to any survey you want to dig up, the majority of Americans do not believe that life evolved on this planet of its own volition so a belief otherwise is far out of the mainstream. Read: an EXTREME position.

    Finally, don’t be so defensive Clavain. You are free to be an atheist, liberal, evolutionist in this country. You can certainly defend your beliefs here as well if you think you can. However, it is my hope that you are not so far gone as to believe that your religion should be taught to children and funded by my tax dollars for that is the very definition of a fascist, and I know you’re not one of those. :wink_ee:

  114. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sig:

    It seems like every six months or so there is a theological bloodletting in the Rott. And as usual, no one ever changes their opinion as a result of these discourses.

    Nail. Head. Thank you.

    =========================

    Frankly, these “discussions” are beginning to bore me. No one has ever proven anything, other than that some people have short fuses. I know that GOD exists. I have no concern for the opinions of others. I have proof that miracles happen; indeed, proof that prayers are answered. Someone else’s belief or disbelief matters to me not at all. The Lord only commands that the truth be put before you. Acceptance of that truth is your concern.

    I also have no problem with the concept that a trancendental being put thing on this earth to force us to THINK. To make us want to examine our world. If he wanted blind obedience from us, he would have given us neither curiosity nor free will. HIS purposes are HIS own, and I am sure that someday, HE will reveal all.

    =========================

    By the way, the correct figure is 6010 years (April 1, 4004 BC) :grin1_ee:

    =========================

    DukeFenton:

    Sir, your beliefs / faiths / absolute certainties are your concern, not mine. As Misha said better than I am able, this is freedom central. You are free to expound on your b / f / ac as you will.

    But taking offense at some (or several) of the other free creatures here poking sticks at your b / f / ac’s is not acceptable. It takes a thick skin to survive in the world today. Consider this spring training, if you will.

    ==============================

    NOW CAN WE GET BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT?

    Global warming is at best flawed. Current theory can’t start with yesterday’s weather and predict todays. Twenty years ago, the discussion was all about global COOLING. Based on the same evidence. So, no, I’m not real impressed with a bunch of people with a political agenda trying to control my life and the American Economy.

  115. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Clavain:

    I’m a centrist and find extremes rather dumb to be honest.

    Why does every liberal in the world believe that “centrist” is where his head is? If 3% of the population is to your left and 95% is to your right, that, sir, is not the center.

    You are a screaming librul. Get used to the idea. Again, your faith or lack of is your business. Don’t be offended if some of us disagree.

  116. Grits Comment by Grits

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    LC Beeblebrox and LC RobertHuntingdon: I do appreciate the incredible thoughtfulness with which you replied. I am just a country boy and the least of the sheep at that without the ability to parse the words so thoroughly. I think there must have been a gap between the 6th day creation of man and woman and Adam and Eve who I think may have been created on the 8th day or sometime thereafter. The seventh day, as all the days mentioned in Genesis, is of an indeterminate period. We have no knowledge of God’s measurement of time since it is on a scale of eternity. I do read that the fallen angels found the daughters of men comely and mated with them. Perhaps the women were from the first creation though there are no human remains in the fossil record during the period of dinosaurs that I know of. Perhaps the offspring could account for demons as I find no record of God creating them. Demons and the fallen angels are eternal beings it seems so fossil records would be unlikely in that case. I have a hard time believing God scattered fossils about after the time of Adam and Eve. That would only confuse the issue and God is not a God of confusion but of order. Having created the laws by which the universe operates, it would seem He did it for the purpose of ordering it and it is not likely He would circumvent his own laws to perpetrate some cosmic joke on mankind.

    If any of the foregoing is true, then perhaps this earth age is but one of many. I find it hard to limit an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God to the here and now or even to this small speck in the cosmos we inhabit. We cannot even begin to understand eternity, how then can we think we understand the God who created it?

    I have a lot of questions when I get my face time with Him.

    Grits

  117. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Clavain said:

    And TofE has NOTHING to do with biological origins. Abiogenesis, however, does. And we have seen it work.

    First off, I never said it did. In fact, I was very clear that the TofE relates to the notion of evolution from first cell to the life we see today (and not goo to first cell.) They are two different areas of conjecture.

    As for “seeing” Abiogenesis work???!!? I know that the classroom long ago abandoned quality teaching on origins but I did not realize it was still teaching that Abiogenesis is how life first came to be. WOW!

    Indeed, this is one of the most laughable claims you have made in this thread to date (and that is really saying something). I have debated evolutionists for the last 30 years and while their positions are in a constant state of flux since you guys can never make up your minds, I can tell you without any fear of contradiction that no one has observed Abiogenesis and any claim to the contrary is out of sync, not only with ID and creation proponents, but with chem evolutionary researchers as well.

    Abiogenesis (the theory that chemical compounds gave rise to life through a random process) is a long dead hypothesis. It only remains as an article of faith amongst school teachers and brainwashed kids. Researchers in the field of origins (not to be confused with the TofE - remember, Darwin had nothing to say on the subject of chemical evolution) left Abiogenesis on the ash heap of history about 30 years ago and moved on.

    Once researchers determined that it was simply impossible for life to have arisen by random chance given the limited amount of time available (11 billion years is just a drop in the bucket of the time needed to even form one useful protein molecule much less produce even the most simple DNA molecule). The current study is in the area of “Necessity”.

    To summarize the theory; life arose from chemicals because it HAD TO. They will point to the formation of crystals as an example of Necessity. The belief is that chemicals inherently WANT to bond together to form amino acids which then, want to bond to form protein molecules which then want to form RNA and so on until the first cell comes into existence at which time the TofE takes over as a hypothesis.

    I’ve heard all this before. I’ve heard evolutionists dismiss my arguments against abiogenesis because it was moot. They would tell me that no one believes in abiogenesis anymore. They would call me uninformed for even thinking that people still subscribe to the theory of abiogenesis (and yes, it was true that it was still taught in the classroom but that was only because the textbooks were out of date, yadda, yadda) and then go on to explain how life arose much like crystals form.

    Well, fine, I am very comfortable debating the difference between the formation of the first DNA molecule and the formation of ice. That is an interesting and worthy debate. But don’t try to tell me what every knowledgeable chem evolutionist researcher says is false. Abiogenesis does not bear up under the light of the information sciences and this is why it is a dead concept. It was a popular notion back when the first cell was thought to be a blob of jello but now that we know that the most simple cell is a factory more complex than the biggest and most advanced automobile factory ever built, the idea of a “simple cell” being formed by chance was abandoned.

    I have written extensively on this before so if you want more info on why Abiogenesis is long dead, feel free to bone up.

  118. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Wil:

    Frankly, these “discussions” are beginning to bore me. No one has ever proven anything, other than that some people have short fuses.

    Hey Wil, feel free to be bored :smirk2_ee: but I have to disagree with the assertion that “no one has ever proven anything” in these discussion forums.

    I can prove that biological evolution and chem evolution are two different things even though many pseudo-intellectual evolution proponents like to conflate in order to either confuse their opponent (or themselves.)
    I can prove that information theory disproves Abiogenesis (and I have in the past).
    I can prove that pretty much everyone involved with the debate on both sides believes in Natural Selection and micro-evolution but that evolutionists like to conflate these two processes with macro-evolution (i.e. bioevolution/TofE).

    I can also look at my own history in forums like this where people were able to enlighten me. In fact, I know most of what I know about the theory of Abiogenesis from debates with evolutionists over the years.

    Don’t so quickly dismiss the power of a good debate. Who know, right now Clavain may be thinking to himself, “hmmm, maybe I have been brainwashed and I should get out of my mother’s basement and do some real study on this subject.”

    Who knows?

  119. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Grits said:

    I think there must have been a gap between the 6th day creation of man and woman and Adam and Eve who I think may have been created on the 8th day or sometime thereafter.

    The “gap” is only implied (and it is a very subtle implication indeed) between verse 1 and 2 of Genesis 1. There is no room for any other interpretation of the rest of the chapter other than the days being contiguous with no gaps. We can debate how long the days were but there are no gaps, subtly implied or otherwise, in the text.

    But why do you think that we need to find one? I can tell you that you do not need to search for a gap to explain modern scientific findings.

    We have no knowledge of God’s measurement of time since it is on a scale of eternity.

    Actually we do have knowledge of his measurement of time. He created the system of time we use (even in secular society) today. For example, there is no natural cycle of 7 days yet that is our week. The Bible talks in several places about the creation week as a literal week. While many people like to dismiss Genesis they forget that Exodus has a very specific reference to the creation week as being literal.

    Right there in the middle of the ten commandments we read in Exodus 20:11: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    If the days are of indeterminate length then this command makes no sense. Indeed, it makes no sense if they are anything other than 24 hour periods of time.

    Feel free to say that both Genesis and Exodus are wrong from a scientific perspective (I personally believe they harmonize with science perfectly) but please don’t claim that God has not given us specific information on the timing of creation.

    Perhaps the women were from the first creation though there are no human remains in the fossil record during the period of dinosaurs that I know of.

    Here’s the thing. There is no need to look for a gap in Genesis for where the fossils came from. First, if there was a preCreation it is said that it was utterly destroyed. We see no evidence of it today. Everything, at least on earth, was made new starting in Gen. 1:2. Secondly, the Bible is very specific that no death occured until after Adam sinned. I think you may have noticed something very salient about fossils… they’re dead.

    This is central to the doctrine of Christianity. The savvy anti-Christianist will know that if he can undermine Corinthians 15:21, he can undermine the basic teaching of the Bible:

    “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.”

    Christ died physically (not just figurativly or spritiually) because Adam brought physical death into the world.

    If there was death before Adam then Adam was not responsible and therefore, Christ died for nothing and the whole of the Bible is a fable.

    Evolution is based on the notion that death has been going on long before Adam came along (if he ever came along at all). The promotion of the idea of death being a natural process rather than the result of the entropic principle that came as a result of Adam’s disobedience is central to atheistic evolutionism. The realty that Christians buy into evolution is a sad commentary on the general understanding of the teachings of Scripture.

    I have a hard time believing God scattered fossils about after the time of Adam and Eve.

    Fossils are the dead remains of creatures instantly covered by mud, sand, and debris. God did not “scatter” them but rather, the animals (and some people but not a lot) were caught in some kind of deluge that trapped them. Fossils do not occur unless the creature was quickly buried in mud or sand. You think that fossils take a long time to form because the evolutionists have promoted this disinformation for a long time. In fact, fossils, sedementary layers, crustal uplifts, erosion, and so on are better explained by catastrophism and not uniformitarianism. Fossils have been found that were formed in just a few hundred years.

    That would only confuse the issue and God is not a God of confusion but of order.

    I agree. But we can look down through the history of science where the Bible said one thing and contemporary scientists said another and the Bible turned out to be correct and scientists wrong. You ask, Why would God write the Bible with incorrect information? But realize, the Bible is confirmed all the time as new research is done and as a result we realize that God was not trying to confuse anyone. He was seeking to enlighten them.

    If we tell a kid looking out a skyscraper window that those are actually people below and not ants, does the kid wonder if we are lying? Why would we deceive him when he can tell that those are just little tiny insects.

    Only later does he realize that we were right. His subsequent observations tell him that we were not trying to confuse him but to inform him.

    One of my favorite examples of this from the Bible is Paul’s description of the elements that make up all that we see. He explained in Romans that the universe is made up of things too small to observe with the naked eye. At the time, the scientists reading his letters surely would have scoffed given that it was commonly understood that the elements were obviously Earth, Wind, and Fire.

    But we know this was a fantasy.

    But place ourselves in the shoes of the secular scientists of the day. Why would God claim that the physical universe was made up of things that were invisible when everyone knew that it was made up of earth, wind, and fire? Was God just being figurative or trying to confuse us?

    Just because we don’t understand why God says he created in 6 days even though it appears that the earth is much older doesn’t mean there isn’t a scientifically knowable explanation. Just as the Psalmist wrote there are currents in the oceans (and he wrote this at a time when people thought that the oceans were just big lakes) doesn’t mean that the Psalmist was wrong. In fact, there are currents and scientists first made conjectures about such currents from reading Scripture.

    God is not joking with us and he is not putting out false clues. How about if we just assume we don’t know everything and take him at his Word?

  120. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Grits & Beeblebrox said:

    I have a hard time believing God scattered fossils about after the time of Adam and Eve.

    Fossils are the dead remains of creatures instantly covered by mud, sand, and debris. God did not “scatter” them but rather, the animals (and some people but not a lot) were caught in some kind of deluge that trapped them.

    You are right, God didn’t scatter them about. A lot of people don’t understand that fossils are only preserved when a creature is buried alive. Or they don’t want to believe it. But if you understand that simple fact, then the mixed-up strata suddenly make a lot more sense. They weren’t laid down over time after all. They were created as one big mass grave when the eruption — and I mean that literally — of litterally megatons upon megatons of water erupted out of the earth to cause the flood in which only Noah and his family and a few animals escaped in the ark.

    People miss a lot of things in the Bible sometimes. Often it’s because they have a preconcieved notion and they just read what they expect to find. Or sometimes its just intellectual laziness. But a lot of people miss a key phrase in Gen 6:13:

    And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.[emphasis mine of course]

    Not only were the people killed but the entire rest of the world was destroyed as well. This, btw, Beebs, is almost certainly what that passage you refer to in Jeremiah was talking about. There were, after all, cities before The Flood and if the people and the animals couldn’t survive such massive eruptions of water the odds are pretty good the cities didn’t either. Some of them were no doubt buried under miles of dirt, but some were merely broken into peices that were scattered about.

    So we are left with two destructions — the Satanic rebellion destroying the initial creation and the flood of Noah’s day. I expect both actually created fossils, but I could be wrong on that. But Satan is described as a serpent and other angels are described as having forms like animals. And we know that Lucifer was given charge over the earth before he rebelled. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the Earth had been populated with animal forms of similar physiology to Satan before his rebellion, but in his temper tantrum at being cast back to Earth in his failed rebellion he destroyed that initial creation. God then recreated the planet but then destroyed it himself in the flood. The initial recreation was idylic and perfect for mankind to live long healthy lives in, the post-flood ecosphere, however, was not. And the so-called cromagnon man and neanderthal man and such were merely the remains of the much more powerful, healthier, longer-lived humans that existed prior to the flood.

    It does all fit. Is it right? Well, only God will be able to tell us that for sure. But it definately fits.

    RH

  121. LC HJ Caveman82952 Comment by LC HJ Caveman82952

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Thank you, Beeblebrox, your posts have been both informative and enlightening. I have been reading your site. Normally I ignore these debates, seems the same old mantra again and again. Nothing I could say that hasn’t been stated by those more informed than I. Thanks again.

  122. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Beeblebrox sez:

    One of my favorite examples of this from the Bible is Paul’s description of the elements that make up all that we see. He explained in Romans that the universe is made up of things too small to observe with the naked eye. At the time, the scientists reading his letters surely would have scoffed given that it was commonly understood that the elements were obviously Earth, Wind, and Fire.

    But we know this was a fantasy.

    But place ourselves in the shoes of the secular scientists of the day. Why would God claim that the physical universe was made up of things that were invisible when everyone knew that it was made up of earth, wind, and fire? Was God just being figurative or trying to confuse us?

    I find it really funny that so many people do not realize where this came from. These were not actually scientists who came up with that idea. Or at least they weren’t using scientific methods to get there — they were philosophers and they were using logical analysis to try to get there… but unfortunately for them they were building upon a flawed premise and so they couldn’t get to the right answers. They were getting their ideas from the religions they had grown up in — false relgions that derived from the Babylonian Mystery Religion.

    This was the religion that gave us the myths of the “elementals” which were supernatural creatures that have since appeared in many mythological tales. It was probably the source of the idea of taking drugs to get closer to “the gods” as that’s exactly what their preists did. It’s also the source of the trinity as Semaramis claimed that her son was the reincarnation of Nimrod in order to justify her rulership of the city after she had murdered him. Nimrod was worshiped as a diety in ancient Babel (babylon) for his incredible strength and hunting skills. He became the “god” and Semaramis was the “spirit” through which he was recreated in “the son”. Notice the similarities to Catholic trinitarianism? They aren’t a coincidence. It’s also the source of many of the new age religions today — new age my butt they’re older than dirt, just repackaged in a new way.

    Its also the great great great grandparent of Gnosticism which Paul and Peter and John spent so much blood sweat and tears trying to keep out of the early Christian Church. You should consider picking up Primitive Christianity in Crisis for a much more thorough treatment of that matter. It’s an excellent book that can explain it far better than I can.

    RH

  123. Unregistered Comment by Azygos

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    You may say my belief in factual science is a “faith” (which it isn’t, it’s just fact and being an atheist I find it funny anyone would tag the “faith” title on. Do people following a certain football team have a specific faith too?).

    This is certainly a target rich statement. The main problem I have with it is that evolution is not a factual scientific theory and as I wrote before cannot even be considered a theory because it is not a repeatable or observable process.

    I find it just plain stupid to declare yourself an Atheist. This implies that you have omniscient knowledge that G-d does not exist. One cannot prove that G-d does not exist but this does not prove that G-d does exist. If you had omniscient knowledge that G-d does not exist then you would be G-d and hence your assertion would be false anyway.

    Abiogenesis seems irrelevant to me as life was either created or sprang forth from nonliving chemicals. As has been demonstrated (elseware) mathematically life from nonlife is just impossible. So what does that leave us with? Faith in science or Faith in a Creator. One does not prove or disprove the other as Clavain would have us believe. Even if microevolution in existing cells were to be believed (and not mistaken for adaptation as usually happens) where did the first signs of life come from?

  124. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Azygos, I usually say the problem is that people forget there are two separate theories of evolution. And both are misnamed.

    First, there is the LAW of evolution that species change over time. Within the same species, this is an absolute provable fact, the evidence is all around us. Just look at the average height of men over the last century, for example, and there are tons of others out there if you want to spend the time on it.

    Then there is the wildly insane and inane notion that one speicies can turn into another over time. This is not even a hypothesis much less a theory.

    Both are misnamed. One is really a law. The other is an absolutely insane notion with no basis in reality whatsoever.

    RH

  125. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Beeblebrox sez:

    Fossils have been found that were formed in just a few hundred years.

    When my wife and I vacationed in Boston in 1984, we visited the USS Constitution, “Old Ironsides“,the oldest warship in the word, launched in 1797. One of the pamphlets in the museum office gave a brief history of this craft. Extensive repairs were conducted on the vessel between 1927 and 1930.

    By 1927 her hull had already begun to petrify. After only 130 years, the minerals in salt water had already begun to replace the contents of the wood cells.

  126. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Beeblebrox:

    Hey Wil, feel free to be bored :smirk2_ee: but I have to disagree with the assertion that “no one has ever proven anything” in these discussion forums.

    Sir, my boredom is not with you - indeed, I find your expositions both entertaining and informative.

    My frustration is that these Theological arguments invariably degenerate into three or four frustrated participants shouting past each other; usually about now, someone is being invited to continue the discussion outside in the alley. Thus, my assertion that nothing is proven other than the short fuses of the participants. I truly dislike when long time participants here go immediatly to daggers drawn when their long held beliefs are challenged.

    Perhaps I should expand my comments to include such explainantions.

    Just because I am a nosy old fart to satisfy my inante curiosity, would your first name be Zaphod, sir?

  127. LC Wil Comment by LC Wil

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    . . . aaand the strikeout doesn’t like me again. Luvly.

  128. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Wil sez:

    Just because I am a nosy old fart to satisfy my inante curiosity, would your first name be Zaphod, sir?

    I called him that once or twice last year to see if he’d get the joke. He either didn’t think it was funny or missed it.

    RH

  129. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Here are some of the measures used by creationists to determine the age of the earth:

    1) Accumulation of helium in the earth’s atmosphere.
    Helium-4 is created by radioactive decay and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth’s gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate into large quantities over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in 200,000 years or less.

    2) Decay of the Earth’s magnetic field.
    Over the time that measurements have been recorded, the dipole component of the earth’s magnetic field has decreased. Assuming the earth’s initial magnetic field has been decreasing ever since its creation would lead to the conclusion that the Earth is young. Assuming a half-life of 1400 years based on 130 years’ worth of data, the earth’s magnetic field would have been impossibly high, even as few as 8,000 years ago.

    3) Accumulation of metals in the oceans.
    Based on the amount of metals currently present in the oceans and the amount of metals carried by rivers into the oceans each year. Assuming the amount of metals carried into the oceans by rivers has been constant since the creation of the Earth, this method indicates that the Earth is young. These estimates vary widely depending on what metal is considered. However, all metals yield an age for the Earth of much less than one billion years, using this method.

    4) Escaping natural gas.
    Oil and gas are usually located in a porous and permeable rock like sandstone or limestone. Fluids and gas can easily travel through the containing rock, but more slowly pass out through the impermeable rock cap. The rate of gas escapement has been found to be far too rapid to agree with long ages. If the theory were true, all the natural gas would now be escaped.

    5) Oil pressure.
    When drillers first penetrate into oil, there is a “gusher.” This is caused by high pressure in the oil vein. Analysis of surrounding rock permeability reveals that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but it has not happened. These deep rock formations and their entrapped oil cannot be older than 7,000 to 10,000 years.

    6) Topsoil
    It has been calculated that 300 to 1,000 years is required to build one inch [2.54 cm] of topsoil. Yet the average depth of topsoil is about eight inches. On this basis, the earth could only be a few thousand years old.

    7) River deltas
    The Mississippi River dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cm] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico each year—continually enlarging the delta area. Yet the Mississippi delta is not large. Calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years (4,620 years, to be exact). If the world were 120,000 years old, that delta would extend all the way to the North Pole.

    8) Ocean concentrations
    We have a good estimate of the amount of various elements and salts in the ocean, and the amount being added each year. On this basis, our world is fairly young. For example, the age of the earth, based on nitrate analysis, would be 13,000 years.

    9) Growth of coral.
    Coral growth rates indicate the earth is quite young. No known coral formation is older than 3,500 years.

    10) Tree rings
    Sequoias are never older than 4,000 years, yet are the oldest living thing in our world. Bristlecone pines are said to be older (over 4,000 years); however, it is now known that some years they produce a double tree ring. Therefore, the sequoias remain the oldest. Only man or flood can destroy the sequoia. It appears that climatic conditions, prior to 600 B.C., were erratic and produced difficult conditions, enabling tree-ring counts to provide longer ages than actually occurred.

    11) Solar collapse
    Stellar evolution is keyed to the theory that stars are fueled by hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion). It is thought that hydrogen is converted to helium, releasing some of the energy in the nucleus. The amount of mass / energy that it would have to lose daily amounts to four million tons a second.

    But the problem here is that, along with heat and light, the fusion process should produce a multitude of sub-atomic particles called neutrinos. If the stars were fueled by hydrogen explosions, each square inch of earth’s surface would be hit by a trillion neutrinos each second, day and night.

    And that is not happening.

    The main alternative explanation to fusion is called “solar collapse.”

    If each star is slowly contracted, great amounts of energy would be released all the time. But there is a reason why scientists dare not accept solar collapse as the cause of sun and star shine; it would mean the universe is much younger than theorized. It would also mean that the earth is much younger! The long-ago framework of modern evolutionary theory requires hydrogen explosions as the fuel instead of solar collapse. Nuclear fusion will give billions of years for a star’s life, solar collapse only a few million years.

    A change in the radius of our sun of about 80 feet [24m] a year is all that would be necessary to produce our sun’s actual energy release. In addition, if hydrogen were the solar fuel, then we should be receiving a very large quantity of neutrinos, but careful measurements reveal that they are arriving much more sparsely. Without hydrogen explosions (nuclear fusion) as the cause of solar energy and light, the entire theory of the Big Bang is undercut.

    There are more measures that you can look up. But the evolutionists picked up a double edged sword when they choose uniformitarianism as the basis for their alleged science. If the processes we witness today are the same as they have always been, then the measures given above deny the billions and billions of years needed to give evolution a foot hold.

    You can’t have it both ways.

  130. Emperor Misha I Comment by Emperor Misha I

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Abiogenesis, however, does. And we have seen it work.

    No, we haven’t.

  131. Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur Comment by Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    To hell with it. I seem to recall a similar debate sometime back with Cheapshot. We resolved to view the issues differently and discussed having a drink. Its been a long week, and I’m tired. Yo! Cheapshot! I’ll take you up on that offer now!

  132. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Wil asked:

    would your first name be Zaphod, sir?

    Well, as a pseudonym I pretty much stick with Beeblebrox even though the real (!) guy’s first name is Zaphod. I don’t recall ignoring the comment by Robert in the past but maybe I did. Having been a long time fan of Douglas Adams (despite his agnosticism) it seemed a worthy pen-name. Of course, Zaphod is “just this guy”, simultaneously witty, brilliant, egotistical, and moronic. Just like me :smile2_ee:

    BTW Wil, thanks for the kind words.

  133. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    RH said:

    I called him that once or twice last year to see if he’d get the joke. He either didn’t think it was funny or missed it.

    Sorry about that.

    I do appreciate your comments re: the Noahic Flood. People who routinely fly cross country and get a window seat quickly notice that, at least this continent, has obvious marks left by a major flood. I am talking about one that covered the entire continent.

    Missler makes note that the pre-flood world was very different than we see today. No rain (which explains why the people of Noah’s day thought the guy was insane. Here he is building a giant boat in his driveway for a hundred years because of the threat of an impending flood and meanwhile, his neighbors had never even seen a rain storm up until then), a global climate (such that flora and fauna would live even at the poles), and an atmospheric pressure about twice what we have today. In fact, paleontologists are mystified that Pterodactyls could actually fly. The only way that their wingspan would support their weight is if the atmospheric pressure was around two and a half times that which we see today. Interesting.

    BTW, no one got my Earth, Wind, and Fire joke a few comments up. I guess you would have to be a fan of classic pop to have noticed it.

    P.S. Could you explain your comments about the Trinity a little more. I think I may be misunderstanding you but I am not sure.

  134. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    A long, long time ago, (post #4) I mentioned that there was a similarity in the methods of delivery used by evolutionists and global warming(ists). I’m sorry. Really, really sorry. First beer is on me. :drunk_tb:

  135. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Azygos said:

    …evolution is not a factual scientific theory and as I wrote before cannot even be considered a theory because it is not a repeatable or observable process.

    You are so right. What amuses me is that Evolutionists think they are being so main-stream scientific yet blather on about Evolution being a “fact” when it is nothing of the kind. I worked at a very liberal university a few years ago and while the bulk of the professors were evolutionists, the more tenured life sciences professors would never claim that the TofE was “fact”. Many of them had spent their careers trying to PROVE it was a fact but that reality remained and remains elusive.

    Many evolutionists like to condescendingly dismiss Intelligent Design or Creation Theory as some kind of unscientific myth but the reality is that it is the evolutionist who is completely unaware that claiming the TofE is “fact” is really an accidental admission that they know just about zero regarding the scientific method.

    This is not to say that the TofE (or Creation Theory or ID for that matter) is not science but rather, that it falls into a special category of science called Forensics. I should mention that the TofE has one thing going for it that Creation Science does not. Creation Science is not disprovable and indeed, because of its grounding in Scripture, this is probably a justifiable criticism. It does not mean that it is not science but rather that it transcends the currently defined secular scientific method.

    Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution is disprovable and indeed, has been disproved. The nail in the coffin (and there are many) of the TofE was, I think, Michael Behe’s Irreducible Complexity argument. To wit: there are many things in nature that, if you removed one component, the remainder of the organ (such as the eye) would be useless. it could never have evolved without all components arising simultaneously. He uses the analogy of the mousetrap which has 5 parts. Remove any one of those parts and you don’t catch 4/5ths as many mice but rather you catch none because the the trap is useless if it is missing even one component.

    Likewise, Abiogenesis failed as a theory but for other reasons than because some brilliant Creationist debunked it. Rather, DNA was discovered and from that point on, it became abundantly clear that a code of the complexity of DNA could not randomly form even with an infinite amount of time.

    Nowadays, the center of gravity in origins research has moved to the information sciences and away from the soft science of evolutionary biology. Because DNA is a 3 out of 4, self-replicating, self-correcting digital code, the whole notion of a programmer becomes easier to contemplate and thus, many non-religious scientists are moving toward ID as the only reasonable explanation for the existence of the information found in every living cell on this planet.

  136. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    10-10 said:

    Really, really sorry. First beer is on me

    Hey, no need to apologize. I had the same thought when reading through the epilogue in Crichton’s State of Fear. I found it ironic that he so thoroughly debunked Global Warming for the hoax that it is but then finished by talking about evolution as if were true!

    The very same arguments that he used in that novel to demonstrate how GW is a ridiculous concept can be applied to evolutionary dogma just as easily.

    There is money to be made in promoting GW just like there is money to be made in promoting evolution. Meanwhile, there is no money out there for researchers who don’t tow the line of either of those religions.

  137. Grits Comment by Grits

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Geeze, guys. Let’s get a grip! Look around you. Look at all the stuff. Look at the moon and the stars. Realize you are seeing it through one of the most incredible parts of your body. Now, all this stuff got here somehow. I didn’t make it and you didn’t make it and it is for damn sure the government didn’t make it. I don’t think it just happened by accident. The complexity of my eye or even a common leaf tells me that. Though unthinkable in the minds of many of you, I think the options are limited.

    Grits

  138. Unregistered Comment by Azygos

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    BeeebleBrox, SiG94 Thanks for your comments.

    I was going to add to my comment that evolutionists like to skip right to a process and seem to overlook the big picture. Where the hell did all this stuff come from? Even if our ancestors traveled here through a singularity of stoopid and stepped through the Stargate now hidden under magic mountain one still has to ascertain where they came from. Evolutionists always want to start at step two and fail to ask where the stuff came from in step one. Where did the material come from to make everything we see, touch, taste etc…

  139. Agent Orange Comment by Agent Orange

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Not going to comment on the evolution vs. creationism debate - rather, my interest is in this particular comment:

    You mean like the EFA or the Su-37 which are more than a match for the F-15C

    Oh please. Comparing 5th generation fighters to a plane which made its first flight in 1972 is worse than apples and tomatoes.

    and are only outdone by the F-22A which is so horribly overpriced the USAF can’t have the thousand they wanted and might barely get 200?

    The cutbacks for the F-22 are not because they can’t afford it; it is because they’d rather have the cheaper F-35 which is in some ways comparable to the F-22. No, “can’t” is not the same as “won’t”.

    BTW, Britain’s Defence Evaluation and Research Agency projected a 10:1 kill ration against the Su-35. While the study was done using quite old data, that’s still an impressive record.

    Perhaps you’d like to mention the Crusader artillery piece, the M16 or V-22.

    What was wrong with the Crusader, other than the fact that it was scrapped?

    The M16 is bad? Name one superior European/Russian assault rifle that isn’t made by Heckler & Koch.

  140. George guy Comment by George guy

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The best thing to do about the Darwin controversy would be to accumulate a massive pile of cash (This part is always where things get hung up) to bribe a bunch of scientists from each major side to sit together and re-examine everything they think they know from top to bottom. And make a TV show out of it. For a bit more detail scroll up to the link in my post #98.

    Something similar could probably work for the global warming thing as well. The problem is that scientists start to think that you can’t be a real scientist unless you accept X and begin to demand that the acceptance of X become a condition on which certification is awarded. The problem with peer reviewing everything in a single scientific community is that there is the possibility of a mob mentality on issues, and that gets in the way sometimes.

    In a purely practical perspective, it makes sense to have, in parallel, somewhere out there, an alternative system with its own channels of funding, institutions, researchers, and journals simply to ensure competition. Science is, in a sense, a competition to find the best explanation for what is happening and how it works. Competition cannot properly occur if funding is contingent on avoiding heretical subjects.

  141. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Beeblebrox sez:

    I don’t recall ignoring the comment by Robert in the past but maybe I did.

    Well it’s also possible I missed the responce. I don’t always read every comment…

    Missler makes note that the pre-flood world was very different than we see today. No rain (which explains why the people of Noah’s day thought the guy was insane. Here he is building a giant boat in his driveway for a hundred years because of the threat of an impending flood and meanwhile, his neighbors had never even seen a rain storm up until then), a global climate (such that flora and fauna would live even at the poles), and an atmospheric pressure about twice what we have today. In fact, paleontologists are mystified that Pterodactyls could actually fly. The only way that their wingspan would support their weight is if the atmospheric pressure was around two and a half times that which we see today. Interesting.

    Yup. I’ve heard that too. The idea of rain was totally foreign to these folks. And the idea of enough rain to cover the earth? Preposterous! But the fact that the “fountains of the deep” were also unleashed helps. God certainly COULD have done it with nothing but rainfall but it appears he chose to do it with a combination of both. Plus it also helped create all those fossils, or at least a large number of them. Depends on whether there already were some from dinosaurs before the Satanic rebellion or not, my opinion is that there probably were but I can’t prove it.

    And that would make a very interesting hash of a lot of claims by evolutionists, because all of their radiometric dating (with C-14 at any rate) REQUIRES the atmospheric partial pressures to be unchanged back through the dawn of time. Of course, radiometric dating is already tough enough given that you can take five datings from five areas of the same fossil and get five different dates varying by millions or even billions of years (on their models of course). But there is plenty of evidence, including pterodactyls, that at least strongly suggests this is not true. And if the partial pressure was different on even one element (to say nothing of the total pressure as well) then everything before the Noahic Flood is unmeasurable with current models. It may be possible to construct new ones that account for the change in atmospheric pressure… but it might not. I have no idea to be honest, it’s at this point I have to go “way over my head dude”.

    One last thing I find interesting — radiometric C-14 dating can be matched up with historical records in many cases for items less than 4000 years old. But I’ve never heard of an item that was dated 5000 years old. Have you? And if not, is that a coincidence? I don’t think so, at any rate.

    BTW, no one got my Earth, Wind, and Fire joke a few comments up. I guess you would have to be a fan of classic pop to have noticed it.

    Doh I’m not exactly a fan of classic pop but I think I know what you were going for… now that you pointed it out. Hahaha. Sorry I missed it.

    P.S. Could you explain your comments about the Trinity a little more. I think I may be misunderstanding you but I am not sure.

    Weeeellll. Depends on how far you want to go in the discussion. I’ll start with a clarification and some more details. If you want me to explain it and provide more evidence later I’ll be happy to do so, but if you want to dismiss me as a wacko or yell at me then I’ll just quietly mosey off afterwards. What I was saying was the first version of the Trinity was Nimrod, his wife Semaramis, and their son (can’t remember the name). Nimrod, who founded the city of Babel (Babylon) and the Babylonian Mystery Religion (as it has been named by historians) was worshiped as a diety by his subjects (may also have been one of the first versions of emperor worship). The BMR is the forefather of nearly every modern religion in some way or another, after all. Nearly every religion ever invented has carried at least some minor or major influence from the BMR, with only two exceptions — the original religion of YHWH in the OT, and the Apostolic Christianity that existed before Catholicism took over.

    There are a couple of likely logical explanations for worshipping Nimrod. Very likely as a great-grandson of Noah he still had a lot of the more “neanderthal” genetics — or “pure creation” genetics as I prefer to term them — and was thus faster, smarter, and more powerful than many of the people even a mere two or three generations afterward. Ham and his wife after all were also full-blooded Neanderthals, and their son Cush very likely would still have maintained many or even all of their traits and passed them on to Nimrod. We know that it took some time before people got down to the “three score and ten” — Abraham lived to be 175, but Isaac was probably only a few more than 130 and Joseph was only 80 or so at the end of Genesis. And Nimrod was a powerful individual and a mighty hunter. But after he married semaramis she murdered him and then claimed that her unborn son was Nimrod reincarnated. Thus was born the trinity concept of father, life-giver, and son. This later became Father, Son, and Spirit… except that it was a false doctrine introduced by the father of Catholicism, Simon Pater. This was the man who gave us the name for the sin of simony and was cursed by Peter for trying to buy with money the ability to give the Holy Spirit to a convert. After he did this he took the name of Simon Pater (pater meaning father, from which we get the practice of calling catholic priests “father”) and married a harlot and had a son with her… and although she didn’t murder him to the best of my knowledge, the idea was reborn in new form. He claimed to be God and his son was the reborn Jesus. Except it wasn’t true.

    I’d be happy to discuss this in more detail if you want… but if not, that’s fine too. I’d prefer to avoid a cranky name-calling fest if possible, and while I think you’d probably be nice about it I don’t know if everybody else would. But the short version of what I’m saying is that both Arianism and Trinitarianism are deceptions. I believe that God will have mercy on those who were innocently decieved, but they are still decieved. They both go off into a ditch. The ancient Isrealites only knew YHWH. They didn’t know that was “The Word” which became Jesus Christ, which was why they tried to stone Him when He claimed to be I AM (which He was, but they didn’t understand). Jesus said over and over that He came to reveal the Father… but nothing more. Jesus and the Father are the only two God-beings at this time. And the Holy Spirit is Their power, Their essence, but not a separate being.

    RH

  142. Trooper THX1138 Comment by Trooper THX1138

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    I’ll probably get it from both sides for this, but…

    I think it’s possible to believe in a form of evolutionary theory and in God at the same time. Now, Robert huntingdon will probably call me a heathen papist :P (it’s alright, I am a Catholic, I’ve been called worse!), but as I’ve been taught, some parts of the Bible are History, some parts are Allegory, some parts Parable, etc. Do I think all of Genesis is exactly literal? No. But I do believe that all of humanity came from one man and one woman, that a massive flood did in fact wipe out most life at one time, that it was through the first two humans that sin and death came into the world.

    Of course, if I’m wrong, I’m pretty sure God will let me know if/when I reach Heaven.

    Could God have created the universe in 6 24-hour days? Sure. He’s God. Omnipotence comes with the territory. Could he have used tools such as evolution along with that, or set things in motion so that His creations changed over time as well? Sure. I think to say differently puts limits on God just much as saying He must have done it that way. Frankly, I don’t know exactly how He created, and I don’t know that it really matters that much. The theologically important question is WHY He created. Science can tell us how things happen, but doesn’t bother (or rather, shouldn’t bother) with the Why. Faith can tell us the Why, but isn’t all that helpful with the How.

    My point? (If in fact, I have one.)

    To say that Reason and Faith are opposed and mutually exclusive is like saying Thought and Act are opposed and mutually exclusive. Both are faculties of the Human Mind, made in God’s Image, and each requires the other to reach its fullness. To act without thought is to be a beast, and to think without action is to be frozen in place.

    I guess that’s more like 2 dollars worth than 2 cents….

  143. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Excuse me I meant that Jacob/Israel was 130, not Isaac. Got my names mixed up, sorry about that.

    RH

  144. LC RobertHuntingdon Comment by LC RobertHuntingdon

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Trooper THX1138 sez:

    Now, Robert huntingdon will probably call me a heathen papist

    Papist? Well, it’s what you are, you follow the Pope… why should that be an insult to you? And if it’s not an insult, then why should I waste my breath trying to insult you with something that’s not insulting?

    RH

  145. Agent Orange Comment by Agent Orange

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Reading the thread again, one particular statement by Beeblerox caught my eye:

    The nail in the coffin (and there are many) of the TofE was, I think, Michael Behe’s Irreducible Complexity argument. To wit: there are many things in nature that, if you removed one component, the remainder of the organ (such as the eye) would be useless. it could never have evolved without all components arising simultaneously. He uses the analogy of the mousetrap which has 5 parts. Remove any one of those parts and you don’t catch 4/5ths as many mice but rather you catch none because the the trap is useless if it is missing even one component.

    Behe’s mousetrap analogy is fatally flawed: it is possible to make a reducibly complex mousetrap, in fact using just one part.

  146. NCLivingBrit Comment by NCLivingBrit

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    This is the benefit of believing the Sleeping Ones will rise from Ry’leh and tear out conciousness into flinders to feed their bright and shining spawn.

    Evolution, Evilution, Creationism, Intelligent Design…. What does it matter when I know for my service to the Elder Gods I’ll get to die -first- and not see the time beyond their rising.

  147. Unregistered Comment by DukeFenton

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    # Comment by sig94 UNITED STATES

    Oh bullshit DukeFenton. There were frigging scientists in the USSR that tried to combine socialism with agriculture and believed that is was a valid scientific effort. They damn near starved the country.

    True, but you answered your own question - *scientists* (humans, remember) tried to mix politics with science, instead of sticking to evidence and reason. Just like the Saudis erred when they based their ’scientific’ pronouncements on the Koran. This shows the fallibility of humans, not the science itself. Yes, the scientific process is imperfect - as is *ANYTHING* humans do, including religion. The difference is that science eventually can, will, and *must* correct its missteps. Religion carves them in stone and beheads the unbelievers.

    Scientists throughout the centuries have fervently believed so called facts that later turned out to be crap or out right falsehoods.

    True, but again this was either the result of incomplete information, or the interference of *non-scientific* influences. It wasn’t the proponents of the heliocentric theory that went around executing Church officials, was it?

    Remember the Pitdown Man and the Nebraska Man? The Pitdown Man was such an embarassment to the Royal Academy that this hoax was more or less swept under the carpet; it was still showing up in science textbooks in the 1950’s because scientists were more concerned with sparing their reputations than the truth.

    Half-right. Piltdown was an embarrassment, and rightly so; and it occurred for the same reason as many other embarrassments, because *scientists* are people, ergo fallible. But it was also the nature of scientific inquiry and peer review which revealed the hoax in short order, far sooner than any anti-scientist would ever admit. If it was still showing up in textbooks years later, this says more about the textbook author’s laziness than anything else. I had a science text in the 1970’s which still predicted man would ‘one day’ walk on the moon; some would say this was left in by careless editing, others would take it as a SEKRIT admission of the Capricorn One conspiracy.

    And you and I both know that if it were the remains of Saint Piltdown, it would still be housed in a silver box and drawing pilgrims looking for a miracle.

    # Comment by juandos UNITED STATES

    Oh dear, yet another pseudo scientist (#89)

    Thank you for proving my point exactly. Anyone brings up something you don’t want to be true, and you think you can change reality by waving away the inconvenience. So, do you know me? Can you actually prove that I am a ‘pseudo’ and not an actual scientist? Are you, yourself, capable of evaluating what distinguishes a ‘true’ scientist from a ‘pseudo’ scientist? Didn’t this whole discussiion start with Dr. Cullen’s intent to invalidate the credentials of others who simply had a different point of view? What you are attempting to do, sir, is in no ways different.

    So DukeFenton does your belief in evolutionary processes rest on real world facts or the need to cling to the politically correct atmosphere that prevades many of the so called institutions of higher education?

    Begging the question, poisoning the well. Do you know what these terms mean? Because that’s what you’re doing. As my father said, ‘never let school get in the way of your education.’ I’ve been studying biology long before I even heard of college and far beyond anything in the classroom. I use both observation and reason every day to save lives, so ’science’ did not stop with the last exam.

    Neither the facts nor the method could have ever come from holy text; if they could, you’d go to a priest instead of a doctor, wouldn’t you? . And FYI, not that it should matter but the actual science departments tend to be far more conservative than the university population at large.

    This tends to make me wonder if you to believe in the myth of global warming?

    It depends on what you mean by ‘myth.’ In recent years the Earth’s average temperature has gone up; this is causing certain changes which in turn may have certain effects on wild species, ecosystems and even we grumpy monkeys. This much is not really in dispute by anyone who can read a thermometer. What is *not* clear, which the likes of Dr. Cullen and Al Gore don’t want to allow, is how much if any effect human activity is contributing to this.

    What’s interesting is that skeptics of human influence on global warming are quick to point out - and rightly so - that the best scientific evidence available suggests both short and long-term periods of significant warming (and cooling) in the past which could not possibly have been caused by human activity. Yet, when the same scientists using the same methods of inquiry - and sometimes the exact same evidence - conclude that living things have changed over time and the Earth is much older than 6,000 years, all of a sudden they’re a bunch of close-minded cultist idiots intent on a plot of global deceit. You can’t have it both ways.

    # Comment by Beeblebrox UNITED STATES

    As for “seeing” Abiogenesis work???!!? I know that the classroom long ago abandoned quality teaching on origins but I did not realize it was still teaching that Abiogenesis is how life first came to be. WOW!

    It’s not ‘abiogenesis’ as you’re probably thinking of it - like the medievel idea of frogs popping out of mud, mice from sweaty shirts, and geese from barnacles. (That’s right, medieval naturalists didn’t know barnacles were living; therefore all scientists are dolts and everything they say is wrong.)

    But it has been shown that if one duplicates the chemical and physical conditions of the Earth at the time the first impressions thought to represent unicellular life appear in the record, a 10L reaction chamber within a week will produce amines, purines, amino acids, and short phosphate chains - IOW the basic building blocks of proteins and nucleic acids. Now imagine if you had a reaction chamber about, say, 6X10^12 times as large and let the experiment run about 500 million years…

    Many evolutionists like to condescendingly dismiss Intelligent Design or Creation Theory as some kind of unscientific myth

    Not so much *un*scientific as *non*scientific. Intelligent Design is a valid philosophical proposition, but it is not science. Creation Theory is a religious doctrine wearing a lab coat and pretending to be science; it is, in fact, based on mythology. I apologize to those believers who resent having their faith described as a myth, but the fact is that there are *many* creation myths, and to those who believe in them these myths are just as real and true as the Bible is to Christians.

    But it’s still religion, not science. It doesn’t help the case when primary advocates of teaching ‘Intelligent Design’ have admitted IN SO MANY WORDS that it is actually a stalking horse to force the teaching of Creation Theory - which means specifically the Judeo-Christian form of said myth - as though it were proven fact.

    And yes, there is legitimate fear among the scientific community that it is only a couple of short steps from requiring the ‘discussion’ of Intelligent Design (which is really Creation Science), to an actual restriction on evolutionary theory. It *HAS* happened in the past (remember Clarence Darrow, and more recently the Kansas Board of Education); history also shows that scientists have been executed and murdered for disputing religious dogma, while the reverse is not true. We have not forgotten this.

    but the reality is that it is the evolutionist who is completely unaware that claiming the TofE is “fact” is really an accidental admission that they know just about zero regarding the scientific method.

    Another example of poisoning the well. It would be amusing if not for the fact that this claim is usually made by persons who are themselves completely unfamiliar with the scientific method. This makes about as much sense as Herve Villechez wandering onto the court and trash-talking Michael Jordan.

    I should mention that the TofE has one thing going for it that Creation Science does not. Creation Science is not disprovable and indeed, because of its grounding in Scripture, this is probably a justifiable criticism.

    Once again, I suspect that this analysis was made, and likely spoon-fed to you, by someone who was either unfamiliar with the scientific method or has a vested interest in muddying the waters. If it’s not disprovable, it’s not science.

    If it’s based on observations which cannot be reproduced and experienced in the same manner by any person regardless of their preconceived notions - or worse yet no actual observations at all but mere assertions - then there is no way to objectively evaluate those claims. One might as well try to make a cake from the words of the recipe without the actual ingredients - really, it’s a cake; trust me, the book says so.

    It does not mean that it is not science but rather that it transcends the currently defined secular scientific method.

    This is another way of saying ‘this proposition cannot stand on its own merits so we demand special rules which we can work with.’ It’s called special pleading, and is an unmistakable indicator of pseudoscience. Affirmative action is bad enough as social policy; as science it is atrocious.

    To wit: there are many things in nature that, if you removed one component, the remainder of the organ (such as the eye) would be useless. it could never have evolved without all components arising simultaneously.

    Again, this is a popular ‘disproof’ favored by those who wish to discredit evolution but who themselves have little knowledge of the topic or have an interest in promoting false knowledge. It is one of several disproofs commonly spoonfed to true believers so they can go out and feign actual expertise. (I think there’s something in Scripture about that practice.)

    The fact is that many types of eyes, from simple spots to the complex vertebrate eye as we know it, do exist in living organisms. The evidence suggests - as near as anyone actually studying real creatures can tell, as distinct from those who take their ‘truth’ from the pulpit - that eyes have evolved on several distinct occasions, including at least twice among the molluscs alone.

    And FYI, the vertebrate eye contains a major design flaw which no intelligent designer would make, but which is entirely consistent with existing evolutionary theory. Maybe Pat Robertson can explain this to you in terms you’ll accept.

    Because DNA is a 3 out of 4, self-replicating, self-correcting digital code, the whole notion of a programmer becomes easier to contemplate and thus, many non-religious scientists are moving toward ID as the only reasonable explanation for the existence of the information found in every living cell on this planet.

    Sounds very convincing, if you don’t know much about genetics. First off, there’s no ‘3 out of 4′ coding; you’re confusing (or perhaps intentionally conflating) the 3 bases in each codon with the 4 possible bases. There are 64 possible codons, many of which code for the same amino acid and some of which code for nothing at all.

    Roughly 60% of human DNA has no known or demonstrable function, and on average 50% of every gene product is culled (i.e. goes to waste) before the final product is complete. That’s a pretty inefficient code, which suggests a pretty stupid designer.

    Oh, and current theory is that RNA preceded DNA; any real biologist would know that, and why it matters. See if you can find the answer in Scripure, it must be in there somewhere. :)

  148. Unregistered Comment by DukeFenton

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    # Comment by Agent Orange MALAYSIA

    Behe’s mousetrap analogy is fatally flawed: it is possible to make a reducibly complex mousetrap, in fact using just one part.

    Why make mousetraps at all? After all, the Intelligent Designer of the Universe has foreseen your need, and created an irreducibly complex mousetrap which no mere mortal can hope to match.

    It’s called a cat. :)

    (OK, a really intelligent designer wouldn’t have had the mice in there to begin with. Details, details…)

  149. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    *sigh*
    You still don’t get it DukeFenton. Many if us here detest the politicalization of science from BOTH ends. I have no problem with peer review but your well stated “interference of *non-scientific* influences” has changed. The politicalization has crept into the universities, government and research centers. It is now the interference of *scientific* influences.

    This is just as hard to root out as the RCC stranglehold on science doctrine centuries ago and there are real consequences for modern day theorists who refuse to board the evolution bandwagon. But so be it. Personal courage sometimes is needed to produce truly revolutionary science.

    There are just too many questions (see post #134) that are ignored and/or perfunctorily dismissed. And I have yet to see one theorist/scientist describe the mechanism whereby the incredible amount of new genetic information needed to create a new species or even to create a functioning eye or ear is introduced into an existing species.

    This is in response to the “hopeful monster” model postulated by evolutionists. Or has this been abandoned in favor of yet another flavor?

    True science must respond to its critics just as the flat earthers found out. Peer review does not help the process when everyone is ignoring the elephant in the elevator for fear of losing research privleges or grant funding.

  150. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Agent Orange said:

    Behe’s mousetrap analogy is fatally flawed: it is possible to make a reducibly complex mousetrap, in fact using just one part.

    Pardon me AO if I respond with a guffaw to this statement. Just because someone can come up with a mousetrap that has less parts does not mean that the analogy is “fatally flawed”.

    Put bluntly, John McDonald’s assertion is BS. Here’s why… Behe is saying that the standard 5 part mousetrap cannot be reduced in complexity. Removing any part makes it non-functional. McDonald says, “wait a second, I can make a functional mousetrap with less parts so not only is your argument fatally flawed but so is the entire ID theory” (which is silly leap of logic in itself).

    The obvious response to McDonald’s inanity is to remind him that Behe didn’t say that you couldn’t make a simpler mousetrap using a different design but rather, that a conventional 5 part mousetrap would not work without all its parts. Reading through the detailed explanation on McDonald’s page one has to wonder why someone would go to all the effort to try to debunk an analogy that he doesn’t fundamentally understand.

    Behe’s analogy cannot be debunked on its face because it is obviously true. You DO need all five parts to make it work. Furthermore, Behe never said that you couldn’t make a DIFFERENT mousetrap with less parts and beyond that, he will point out that for a 5 part mousetrap to come into existence, each of the 5 parts must arise simultaneously rather than the trap improving in quality of catching mice as each part is added.

    What is really amusing about McDonald’s mousetraps is that he is basically saying that you can make a trap with a piece of wire bent a certain way. I would argue that each of the 5 bends is a “part” of the trap. Bending any of the five a different way makes it non-functional. In other words, if even the most simple of traps on McDonald’s web site has a wrong turn in the wire, it fails to work. ALL five bends must be bent that way ALL AT ONCE for the trap to work.

    Of course, the most simple trap on McDonald’s site would be useless since a wire stuck up against a wall is not going to be very effective. If this was evolution at work, the trap would fall into disuse and by way of natural selection, would disappear for lack of success.

    Bottom line. Even McDonald’s traps are irreducibly complex and he doesn’t even apparently realize it. Thus, Irreducible Complexity is still one of the nails in the TofE’s coffin.

  151. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Dukefenton:

    It’s not ‘abiogenesis’ as you’re probably thinking of it -

    I know what abiogenesis is. I don’t think you do though based on your next quote:

    But it has been shown that if one duplicates the chemical and physical conditions of the Earth at the time the first impressions thought to represent unicellular life appear in the record, a 10L reaction chamber within a week will produce amines, purines, amino acids, and short phosphate chains -

    Abiogenesis requires you to go farther than this. NO ONE has produced a living cell in the lab from a prebiotic goo. Saying that given enough time and a big enough lab is simply not enough since all experiments to this point have not gotten anywhere close to an RNA molecule much less DNA. Your wishing that it could happen does not make it science and it certainly does not make it abiogenesis.

    Intelligent Design is a valid philosophical proposition, but it is not science.

    So say you. The truth is that it is clearly forensic science just like evolutionary research. Neither is testable since we’re talking about the past here.

    You demonstrate a classic flaw with evolutionist thinking. You protest too much. You must dismiss alternate views to your own by wrapping your argument in semantics. “ID is not science the way I define it so it is not science.”

    What a narrow-minded and medieval way of thinking.

    Creation Theory is a religious doctrine wearing a lab coat and pretending to be science; it is, in fact, based on mythology.

    You use the term “in fact” as if you actually know what you are talking about. Are you saying that creation is PROVEN to be a “myth”? If you can’t produce a cite or two then I humbly suggest you don’t understand the definition of the word “fact”.

    But allow me to provide for you a thought experiment. Prove to me you can think outside of the little philosophical box you seem to live in.

    Let’s suppose that there is a God and that He really did create the universe we see around us as described in Scripture. Here’s a question for you: Can science, as you apparently view it, apprehend how He did it? Can it inform our thinking?

    If you agree with science writer George Johnson who said, “the point of science is…to explain the world through natural law.”) then I assume that we are at impasse. I maintain that God DID create the way the Bible said and if science accepted this reality then it would be farther advanced than it is in its understanding of the universe.

    If your definition of science is that God CANNOT be involved in creation then what if He was? Is science then useless to us? I would simply maintain that the scientist who narrowly defines his pursuit as that which can only pertain to a world without God’s intervention is, himself, irrelevant.

    I apologize to those believers who resent having their faith described as a myth, but the fact is that there are *many* creation myths, and to those who believe in them these myths are just as real and true as the Bible is to Christians.

    Again, you speak as if you know what you are talking about when it is obvious you do not. Calling something a myth does not make it so and calling something a fact when it is obviously not doesn’t help your argument either. You would need some kind of evidence to prove your point, which you clearly do not have.

    OTOH, I can show that the Bible, of which Genesis is a part, demonstrates that it was authored by God and not by men. Time and again the Bible proves that an extra-dimensional mind is behind its words. A couple of examples:

    1. Prophesy. There are 3000+ prophesies in the Bible. There are 300 alone relating to the first appearing of Jesus Christ, all of which were fulfilled. Nostradamus barely gets to 50% correct (if you are really generous) and he is revered as a great seer. Meanwhile, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Moses, and the other prophets who predicted Jesus Christ’s appearance with 100% accuracy are to be dismissed? No, the prophetic nature of the Bible is God’s way of proving that He exists since no human (or alien) can predict the future with 100% accuracy.

    2. Science. The writers of the Old and New Testaments routinely refer to scientific concepts as givens even though many times these same concepts were far from mainstream. In fact, some were not understood by the writer’s contemporaries at all. I referred to one earlier about the physical universe being made up of elements that were invisible. In the last century, skeptics condescendingly pointed out that Paul’s assertion about the universe being made up of things that were invisible was scientifically false. The thinking was that Paul was talking about atomic particals which SEEM to be invisible and thus he was PARTIALLY correct, but actually new technologies allow us to see atoms so they are not really invisible after all. Therefore, Paul and the Bible are wrong. QED.

    The funny thing about his is that, as we now know. Paul was right. If he were here today he would say that he wasn’t talking about atoms but rather, things SMALLER than atoms. Truly invisible things. We now know that he was correct and the Bible right. The universe IS made up of things that can only be inferred mathematically and cannot be directly observed.

    Another example is Isaiah’s assertion that the earth is a sphere. A third is the Psalmist’s comment about there being currents in the oceans. There are hundreds of examples of scientific statements that the writer himself could not have known at the time he was writing. Indeed, I often wonder what the writer was thinking as the Holy Spirit inspired the words:

    ISAIAH: “wait a second, the earth is a sphere? Everyone knows it is flat and people will think I am an idiot if I write that down.
    HOLY SPIRIT: “Trust me, if you write down that the earth is flat, in a few hundred years people WILL think you are an idiot, so just do what I say, mmkay?

    But it’s still religion, not science. It doesn’t help the case when primary advocates of teaching ‘Intelligent Design’ have admitted IN SO MANY WORDS that it is actually a stalking horse to force the teaching of Creation Theory - which means specifically the Judeo-Christian form of said myth - as though it were proven fact.

    You make several logical errors in this statement, not the least of which is that many evolutionists have admitted that evolution is stalking horse for the teaching of atheism. Some very noteworthy evolutionary “scientists” have been quoted as saying essentially that since there is no God, evolution must be true. Indeed, one of the primary arguments for abiogenesis is the statement “since at one time there was no life and now there is, it must have arisen by random processes”. This is a faith statement if there ever was one.

    And yes, there is legitimate fear among the scientific community that it is only a couple of short steps from requiring the ‘discussion’ of Intelligent Design (which is really Creation Science), to an actual restriction on evolutionary theory.

    Ah yes, the slippery slope.

    STALIN: “If we allow any form of capitalism then eventually collectivism will be restricted, even outlawed. Can’t have that.”

    Hey, even if evolution were restricted (which I doubt we’ll see) your fears have already been realized by proponents of creationism regarding the teaching of Creationism. Your type has managed to outlaw free speech in the classroom by banning this teaching. Your type has imposed your own variant of religion on several generations of students, by claiming that the God of the Bible does not exist. Evolution is, itself, an attempt to undermine Christian teaching and thus, by definition it is in violation of the first The evolutionary theory will stand or fall of its own volition if allowed to be challenged but evolutionists fear this more than anything because they know it cannot win minds on its merits. Today, it is propped up through fascistic methodologies and threats. Like any vacant idea, it has to be supported by the force of violence in order to sustain itself.

    I suspect that this analysis was made, and likely spoon-fed to you, by someone who was either unfamiliar with the scientific method or has a vested interest in muddying the waters. If it’s not disprovable, it’s not science.

    You evidently completely missed my admission that Creation Science is NOT falsifiable based on the current definition of “science”. However, evolution IS disprovable based on information theory. It has been shown to be impossible in the time frame available to us. Since evolutionists simply can’t grasp this simple reality, they have made their belief system an article of faith and codified it with the power of the state.

    Dukefenton, the bulk of the rest of your criticism of ID and Creation could just as easily (if not more so) be applied to the TofE. Especially the comment about making a cake using a recipe and not the ingredients. This is a telling slip on your part since evolution claims to make the cake with ingredients but no recipe.

    In the immortal words of Carl Sagen, “In order to truly make an apple pie from scratch, first you must invent the universe.”

    Too true.

    P.S. You apparently missed my comment that RNA precedes DNA in the evolutionary model. Nevertheless, for your reading pleasure, may I suggest that there are “real” biologists who have serious doubts about the vaunted “RNA World”.

  152. LC Mrs. M Comment by LC Mrs. M

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    A scientist comes before God:

    scientist:

    “God, we don’t need you anymore. We have uncovered the secret to creating life in our image. We have unlocked the mysteries of DNA. We have learned to create new life by cloning. We can use stem cells to create new organs. We have made great strides in eradicating diseases. We can extend life. We have become our own gods. You are no longer needed.”

    God:

    “Oh really? You have done all that have you?”

    scientist:

    “Yes we have. We have advanced far in our pursuit of science. We can do what you did when you created man. You have no part in our lives now.”

    God:

    “Ok…show me.”

    *Scientist bends down and starts scooping up a handful of soil*

    God:

    “HEY HEY HEY!!!….

    Get your own dirt.”

  153. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    A common problem I see with debates between Bible believing Creationists and secular evolutionists is that the evolutionist likes to set the ground rules. They love to throw around the words “fact” or “myth’ when there is no possible way to prove such assertions.

    It would be one thing if they were simply claiming that their words were opinion in which case, their constant unsupportable statements would be palatable. But when they condescend to the rest of us from their high scientific “mountain of evidence” and then proceed to make statements that they themselves know to be unsubstantiated, they simply look foolish.

    More honesty in this debate would be nice but I don’t expect it from the other side. This is why I will state openly that my creationist perspective is not falsifiable by way of the definition of science as secular science defines it (i.e. only naturalistic methodologies can be allowed to explain the universe). Obviously, if “Science” is defined as anything not involving God then the discussion is over.

    Now, I think Creationism is science but not in the narrow-minded manner from which secularists proceed. Likewise, I also grant that evolution IS science because it IS falsifiable. It is a forensic science that cannot be duplicated in the present but we can point to things that would, THEORETICALLY, disprove the notion of evolution even though it happened in the past.

    I don’t claim that evolution is “myth” even though by most secularists standards (at least when they are applying said standards to Creationism) it is. But I am not using those standards because they are dishonest.

    There are two verifiable ways of KNOWING that God created just as the Bible says. Neither are provable using the scientific method as secularists define it. However, it is provable using another method…

    The Bible itself proves it.

    If God created the clockwork universe and human life as we know it, He would have a rationale for doing so. It would stand to reason that He would explain this rationale in a way that could not be forged or faked but that would not bias free will. He would simply provide evidence of His love for us and let the chips fall where they may.

    So how to explain this without bias? The Bible is an amazing answer to this conundrum which is missed by so many people.

    -It is full of scientific and prophetic statements that no man could ever conceive of writing on His own yet it reads in an honest and human way.
    -It is 66 books written by over 40 authors and yet it holds together as one story with an overarching plot that does not contradict itself.
    -It constantly uses the technique of telling the future in advance to prove that mere mortals were not the actual authors but rather, a type of scribe.
    -It proves that said author is outside of the dimension of time so as to give credence to the words without beating people over the head with the message.
    -It is subtle yet profound.
    -It has great importance for those who accept that it was authored by God but means little (i.e. is a “myth”) to those who choose not to believe.
    -It is chock full of verifiable scientific and prophetic statements that no writer of the era could know. So much so that many skeptics try to show that it was written AFTER the fact because it would be impossible for it to have been written ahead of the events it foretells or the science it envisions. Yet, all such debunking attempts have failed.

    Because the Bible is true.

    Quite simply, the Bible demonstrates the reality of a transcendent Being of immeasurable knowledge and power and it is this book that says that this Being created the universe. It also specifically says that God DID NOT use evolution as his preferred method of creation. It is as if God knew that there would be a future divide between those who would take Him at His word and those who would not. He gives us no middle ground.

    People who dismiss what He has to say do so, I believe, at their own peril. This debate IS important because evolution is specifically designed to undermine the message of the Gospel. If evolution is true then Christ died for nothing and therefore, he is not God. Leading evolutionists know this and this is why such a weak idea, from a scientific standpoint, still remains as central as it does.

    Cheers!

  154. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    LC Mrs. M:

    “Get your own dirt.”

    LOVE IT! :clap_tb:

  155. Unregistered Comment by P

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Trooper THX1138,

    Well, the dirty little secret of evolutionary thought and naturalism (the denial of the supernatural in philosophy) is that if evolution is true, there can be no such thing as “truth” if naturalism is the case, since there is no viewpoint independent of the determination of evolution.

    To give a sad example that our Beeblebrox has some familiarity with, Douglas Adams bought into Dawkins’s evolutionary “Just So Stories” completely. At one of his memorial services one of the eulogists talked about how, although we are sprung from naturalistic processes, our imagination sets us free. Gee, really?

    Where did that imagination come from? Did the Evolution Pixies sprinkle magic dust on our foreheads and give it to us? No, it is a result of evolutionary processes itself, and does not enable us to escape from the process. Drawing on the concepts of a 19th century naturalist, Dr. Alvin Plantinga developed The Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism.

    You can read the lecture notes here:

    http://hisdefense.org/articles/ap001.html

    and listen to it here (Real Player required):

    http://www.hisdefense.org/OnlineLectures/tabid/136/Default.aspx

  156. Unregistered Comment by P

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Fitelson and Sober try to get around the argument by claiming that it is more probable that true beliefs are formed by evolution than not, and that as long as “50%+1″ of our beliefs are true, the naturalist has nothing to worry about.
    (Well, so much for scientific objectivity!)

    Following Prof. William Alston, I’d like to ask “Which 50%+1?.” The argument doesn’t say that it is impossible that we can form true beliefs, it contends that we have no grounds for distinguishing them from “false” beliefs generated by evolution.
    (as the 19th century naturalist points out, “Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind…?”)

    Dawkins is an excellent example of this. He’s argued in the past that evolution preconditions us to find evolution difficult to believe, but wants to call skeptics of the theory “wicked.” He can’t have it both ways.

  157. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Dr. Alvin Plantinga developed The Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism.

    It’s a fascinating piece of logic. I don’t expect evolutionists to buy it but then, Plantinga proves that the only way to accept naturalism is to be irrational. The very definition of secular evolutionary thinking.

  158. Unregistered Comment by P

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Here’s a nice review of Dawkins’s latest book by an evolutionary biologist:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775

  159. Unregistered Comment by P

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    “Plantinga proves that the only way to accept naturalism is to be irrational.”

    …and the best part is, he does so by completely accepting the truth value of Darwinian evolution, a classic reductio ad absurdiam.

    Especially in the light of the 19th century naturalist. :lol_wp:

  160. sig94 Comment by sig94

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?

    Aside from the normal cussedness that plagues us all, why do we keep on having these circular conversations that devolve into a handful of Christian LC’s tirelessly debating an even smaller number of atheists?

    I’ll tell you why. These discussions define and delineate the very nature of our society. We are not simply debating whether or not a gaggle of naïve, under aged, left-handed molecules were some how coerced into performing unnatural acts with proteins in a primordial college dormitory.

    We know that life was created, that it came into being. Darwin postulated that all life was created as a result of natural selection and random variation. Creationism postulates that a Supreme Being created all life.

    We have allowed the liberals to separate knowledge and belief from any discussions of origin. Why did they do this? Because our origin determines our world view, our politics, and the way we arrive at decisions. Our origin defines who we are.

    We are debating wildly divergent world views on whether there can be transcendent laws that ought to shape our very existence. If there is an eternal, transcendent God, then His laws should have a prominent role in society. If there is no transcendent God, then men are free to establish whatever laws appeal to them at any time they want.

    Our Constitution was written with “inalienable” rights ascribed to men from a Creator God. These rights come from the notion of “Lex Rex” – the law is king and God is the law giver, not “Rex Lex” – the king is law. Through force of arms we embraced this notion and have enjoyed the rights and privileges of Lex Rex for several centuries.

    We have also seen governments that were founded on human ”reason.” These governments include the unholy terrors of the French Revolution, fascism and communism. Any society ruled by human reason alone will always result in some form of tyranny.

    Back to the separation of knowledge and belief. Knowledge is fact; knowledge is valid for everyone at all times. Belief is value based; belief is only valid for the believer. To the liberal, who is usually also a naturalist, all beliefs are equal. Therefore all religions are the same.

    And since there is no transcendent God, there are no laws written that are based on transcendent truth. Because nothing is sacred, nothing is safe. There are no rights other than those conferred by the State, and these can be rescinded at any time. Therefore there are no inalienable rights and no intrinsic value to life. We have seen this come to fruition in the last thirty-five years in abortion and euthanasia.

    In the sixties we started the transition to a value free educational system. That worked well didn’t it? Welcome to the humanist society.

    Since transcendent law (which includes morals) has no place in a humanist society, other factors now influence our decisions. Primary among these are economic considerations. Since it is so costly to raise a child with Down Syndrome, a simple test of the amniotic fluid will often result in an abortion. Many insurance companies refuse to pay for the services required for these children in the first years of life, but they will pay for the abortion. And yet there are many people waiting to adopt these very children.

    But even economic considerations in a humanistic society are inconsistent. Anti-smoking initiatives are taken because of the economic costs associated with healthcare, but the same economic considerations are ignored for unsafe sex (AIDS) practiced by homosexuals and rampant illegal immigration stressing the healthcare systems of border states.

    Reexamine the results of the French Revolution, fascism and communism and compare them with the most vile behaviors of the RCC, the Inquisition and any other Christian persecution. Christians are pikers compared with the humanists. Communism alone has over 100 million victims in the last century.

    There are some who will say that humanism and communism are not the same; they are. Both deny the existence of a Creator and disparage the tempering effect of this belief on the actions of men.

    The question of how to make the world a better place is also determined by worldview. Christians look to the Gospel to start the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, the new birth, arising from accepting God’s gift of His Son as a propitiation for sin.

    Humanists seek other means of course, and they have Fifteen Commandments to the Christian’s Ten. The humanist’s answer to the world’s problems is more government. From the Humanist Manifesto:

    THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

    FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

    Doesn’t this sound familar? Even the wording of the 14th humanist commandment is inconsistent. They look to establish a

    “universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good.”

    Well that doesn’tsound too bad. People volunteering for the common good. Sounds like the early Church in the Book of Acts. Then on the other hand they say:

    A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established

    and

    Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

    Like all those gulag residents volunteered for the trip to Siberia.

  161. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sig94:

    WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?

    Why debate anything Sig? Because we can!

    There are countless political and religious debates going on all the time here and elsewhere, most of which are populated by people who believe strongly in what they are posting about. Maybe it is circular maybe it isn’t. Keep in mind that even though this thread is surpassing 166 comments, there are also 777 views! That’s a lot of lurkers. Hopefully some of them are getting info that they have never previously considered.

    Beyond that, it gives the atheists something to ponder given that eventually, even the most closed-minded person can wake up if they have any wisdom whatsoever.

  162. Xystus Comment by Xystus

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Last!

    No comments on content; it’s become much too big a mess.

  163. Crunchie JR Comment by Crunchie JR

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    “Sorry, 6,000 years is incorrect. Please consult your Biology and Geology books and try again.”

    Actually it’s 7000 years.

    The Bible never once states that the earth or the universe is 6, 7, 10, or any other number of thousands or millions of years old. Those numbers were put together when biblical scholars traced the geneological time line from adam, to noah and his descendants, then to christ and the 2,000 or so years that have passed since then. So if anything the bible states that HUMANITY is 6 or 7 thousand years old. The Bible states that it took 7 days for the universe and everything in it to be created. So logically Christians (which i am so no one is confused)and scholars of the bible take that geneological time line, add 7 days and get the age of the universe. Couple of problems though. First the hebrew word (Moses the author of the pentatuche *SP?* would have written it in hebrew) for day also carries other meanings such as era, or period of time . Seven days could have meant any amount of time that would have passed between the “days” or “eras” of creation. It probably did not mean seven 24 hour periods. I am no historian or geologist but my understanding is that the time scale most commonly used at that time was the egyptian one, that, again to the best of my knowledge, was based on the number 60. The twenty-four hour system of time came later with the Romans( someone please fell free to correct me if the history is wrong). Another thing, the Bible says that God is eternal. It then goes on to try to explain this mind numbing concept to the lay man by saying “a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day to the lord”. Eternal is described as existing outside all relations of time. Saying that God took 7 days to create everything is foolish because 7 days does not exist to God. I know this is an extremely difficult concept to understand. Mathematics and Physics can pretty much prove that the universe is far older than 6,000 years. One simple test to prove this would simply be to walk outside and look up. The closest star beyond the sun to our planet is Proxima Centari (again fell free to correct, im going off of stuff I learned in 5th an 6th grade). This star is over 40,000 light years away, meaning it takes light 40,000 years to travel from there to our rock. Yet we can still see it. Meaning that our planet and universe is at least 40,000 years old. Still, we can see light from stars far beyond P.C., stars that are millions of light years away. Mathematics and physics have also traced our expanding universe back to one point, the ultra-dense speck of matter that seems to confirm the “big bang” theory. So lets use our imaginations and go back the creation of the universe. Keeping in mind that God is eternal, and that moses, as educated as he was (he was an egyptian prince) could not have possibly known the science of what he was writing about, lets piece together science’s “big Bang” with moses’ creation account. Day/Era one of creation. “And God said ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light (Genesis 1:3). In my mind this relays something catastrophic taking place ,i.e., an explosion. I read somewhere online that the two things most evident from the big bang where the same two things first evident from any high energy explosion, light and radiation. Photons of light, electrons, and protons were in fact what came out of the explosion. The heat from the explosion was enough to bond electrons and protons together to form the first elements. I could get into the 2nd through the 7th day/eras of creation and how they match up with science but I’m tired, and frankly in my mind it doesn’t matter shit. I’m convinced that what science is finding about the origins of the universe matches exactly with scripture. As for evolution, I don’t see any evidence in the fossil record of one species evolving into anything other than an adapted version of itself, certainly not into another species entirely. Even if evidence of this is found I will still be convinced that it points to an ordainer and creator. Unfortunately, many of the church’s traditional ways of interpreting the scripture make it clash with science in areas that it shouldn’t an wouldn’t if it simply weren’t read so literally. Remember, it is a very old gathering of texts that has been translated, and re-translated many times.

  164. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Crunchie said:

    It probably did not mean seven 24 hour periods.

    This is actually 180 degrees off of likely. Rather it probably DID mean 24 hour periods. There is absolutely NOTHING in the text to indicate otherwise. The Bible clearly states that there was no physical death before Adam sinned. So we have two options:

    1. The days were 24 hour periods as specifically stated in Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah and elsewhere.

    2. Things lived a VERY long time before they died.

    Now, I am not dismissing the second possiblity as it could be that the days were longer than specifically and textually detailed in the Bible as long as there was not physical death prior to Adam’s sin. However, harmonizing the Bible with current scientific understanding has always produced error. OTOH, hen science is harmonized with the Bible, science is the better for it. So, although it seems hard to imagine life on earth being a recent addition, the Bible says it and it always turns out to be correct while scientific understanding lags behind.

    Good thoughts nonetheless but may I made a suggestion that you visualize paragraphs? :grin1_ee:

    P.S. The gap of time that is sometimes theorized between vs. 1 and 2 of Gen. 1 occurs PRIOR to the 6 day creation week which means that the universe itself may be much older, possibly eons, but it is a misapplication of the gap theory to suppose that this is when the fossils and sedimentary stratification were created. These must have been come later during the Noahic flood, the only time that huge amounts of fossils could be created.

  165. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Xystus, we are not commenting on the content of Misha’s comments. We are commenting on other things now. :cheese1_ee:

  166. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Crunchie JR, one of the tenets of Christianity is that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If you’re a Christian you believe this. If you do not read the Bible literally, it will take you down a rabbit hole you should really avoid. Left to man’s imagination and mental capacity, Every aspect of the text will be questioned. Remember, we are talking about Almighty God. If He says it took 6 days, then you need to believe it took 6 days. We need to stop trying to rationalize something that our (no offence) limited minds cannot possibly fathom. Again it all comes down to faith.

  167. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Um, a single flood can’t create huge amounts of fossils because at any one time there aren’t enough living things to form hundreds of vertical feet of fossils, the kind I routinely go caving through.

    That’s one reason why catastrophism was abandoned before Darwin, although serious scholars abandoned the global flood idea with the discovery of the New World. Obviously all the animals over here didn’t swim the Atlantic or the Pacific.

  168. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    And 10-10, it doesn’t really take that much faith. If you ask any geologist how long a fossil or a sedimentary layer takes to form they will admit that it takes virtually no time at all. The sedimentary layers that are found near Mt. St. Helens in Washington look 100s of thousands of years old but were, in fact, laid down in a few days.

    Most of the mountain ranges we see around the world are very young geologically so the crustal architecture of the world does not connote an old earth.

    The only real issue is the matter of the size of the universe and the relative distance of the stars to us here on earth. Most people assume that since light takes multiple light years to get here then the age of the universe is X billions of years old. I could argue this point based on research on the declining speed of light but for purposes of argument I can grant that the universe might be very old while life on earth is very young. There could have been a pre-exisiting creation that was destroyed, at least as far as the earth is concerned while leaving the stars the age that they are understood to be. The Bible does not disallow this possibility so I don’t worry about it.

    Nevertheless, it does disallow for long developmental ages of life here on Earth and given that the evidence supports a young earth, I am inclined to believe it is young, both from a scientific and Biblical perspective.

  169. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sir George:

    Um, a single flood can’t create huge amounts of fossils because at any one time there aren’t enough living things to form hundreds of vertical feet of fossils…

    Sir George, are you aware of how many living things there were before the Noahic Flood? Are you aware of how long it took for the waters to rise? Are you aware that there were no oceans as we know them today before the flood? You would need an understanding of these issues before making a categorical statement like a single flood “can’t” do such and such. In fact, the famous hydrologist, Dr. Henry Morris, founder of ICR has written extensively on how the Noahic flood would produce exactly what we see today.

    And furthermore, only a flood of catastrophic proportions can create fossils like you see in a cave. Uniformitarian processes produce just about zero fossils and so you can thank God (literally) that you see any at all.

    That’s one reason why catastrophism was abandoned before Darwin, although serious scholars abandoned the global flood idea with the discovery of the New World. Obviously all the animals over here didn’t swim the Atlantic or the Pacific.

    There are many serious scholars who believe in a catastrophism so I think you are misinformed on this point. Furthermore, there were no “serious” hydraulics researchers in 1492 so again, your bias is showing. You almost sounded informed until you made that statement. :huh_tb:

  170. Ten-Ten Comment by Ten-Ten

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Most people assume that since light takes multiple light years to get here then the age of the universe is X billions of years old.

    How about this: An All Powerful God spoke the universe into being. The physical laws of nature don’t apply, because He invented them, and as such He isn’t subject to them. At the instant a star existed, it’s light reached the earth. Call me naive, but it works for me.

  171. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sir George, are you aware of how many living things there were before the Noahic Flood? Are you aware of how long it took for the waters to rise? Are you aware that there were no oceans as we know them today before the flood? You would need an understanding of these issues before making a categorical statement like a single flood “can’t” do such and such. In fact, the famous hydrologist, Dr. Henry Morris, founder of ICR has written extensively on how the Noahic flood would produce exactly what we see today.

    Sorry, but clams live at the surface of the mud. They don’t stand on top of each other in stacks ten feet high.

    Genesis 1:9
    And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be collected to one place, and let the dry land appear. And it was so.
    10 And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the collection of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good.

    Are you saying God was too dumb to know a sea when he saw one?

    If there were no seas, how did Noah’s neighbors know what a boat was?

    The flood would require heavier rain than ever recorded on Earth, and more water than is presently found on this planet. Immediately prior to the rain, the air pressure at the Earth’s surface would be enough to crush a nuclear submarine like an egg.

    And furthermore, only a flood of catastrophic proportions can create fossils like you see in a cave. Uniformitarian processes produce just about zero fossils and so you can thank God (literally) that you see any at all.

    Um, no. Fossilization is pretty well understood. In caves we even see the fossilized burrows of sea creatures. How do you fossilize a burrow, then fossilize other burrows on top of it, ad nauseum, in a single flood? And do the clams tread water so mud can appear between them and the clams buried two feet further down?

    Sir George said:That’s one reason why catastrophism was abandoned before Darwin, although serious scholars abandoned the global flood idea with the discovery of the New World. Obviously all the animals over here didn’t swim the Atlantic or the Pacific.

    There are many serious scholars who believe in a catastrophism so I think you are misinformed on this point. Furthermore, there were no “serious” hydraulics researchers in 1492 so again, your bias is showing. You almost sounded informed until you made that statement.

    Um, when they found the New World it was filled with species that weren’t found in the Old World. Obviously these species didn’t swim the ocean to get on a boat so they wouldn’t drown, and then swim all the way back. Some of them can’t even escape their current ranges because they live in the middle of a desert. The problems became worse with the discoveries in the Pacific, especially Australia. How did koala bears manage to swim to the Middle East? How did they tow enough ecalyptus leaves behind them to last the entire journey, in addition to the boat ride with Noah? Why didn’t the ecalyptus leaves rot before they got there?

    Where were the bluegill and brook trout hiding out during this flood, as they can’t survive in salt water. How did related fish species know to end up in the same watersheds when the flood was over?

  172. Beeblebrox Comment by Beeblebrox

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    Sir George, I notice you say “um” a lot. Are you having trouble finding the right words? :dry_tb:

    It is clear that the world we see today, the seas we see today, the continents we see today, all are different than the pre-Noahic period. This would answer all your questions about how the animals traversed from place to place.

    The earth had never seen rain before the flood and the Bible is clear about this. It also is clear about the fact that the “fountains of the deep” opened up and contributed, probably very heavily, to the flood. Again, this is thoroughly explained in Morris’s book on the flood and its aftermath including how clams could stack up, tunnels burrowed, etc.

  173. Unregistered Comment by Sir George

    Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method emotions::filter_text() should not be called statically in /home/misha/public_html/2007/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 59

    The earth had never seen rain before the flood and the Bible is clear about this.

    Zoinks! It might help if you’d read the Bible instead of Morris’s lunatic babblings.
    Note:

    Genesis 2
    5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

    6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

    7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

    8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

    9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

    10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

    ***

    In the Bible, the document you claim to defend, but in fact lie about, rain appears in Genesis 2:6 and precedes the creation of man, much less the flood.

    Genesis 2 continues with this:

    13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

    14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

    ***

    Note that the rivers precede the flood. These rivers are fed by rain. These rivers and places still exist. There are no shifting continents anywhere in the Bible. The Euphrates river obviously didn’t get buried under a mile of mud, limestone, and fossils, while still being the same river in the same place in the same land. What you present is a dark perversion of the Bible, a perversion invented by a man to score political points and mislead the flock about the Bible’s contents.