Steve Reuland posted Entry 2133 on March 22, 2006 11:28 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2128

Appearing in this morning’s Greenville News (SC) online opinion section:

The theory of evolution does not and cannot explain so much about the universe that we know. For instance, when and how did water evolve? How does it happen that gravity can hold us to the Earth, and at the same time allow us to step up without any trouble? How did it happen that the Earth is spinning at the exact rate that keeps us from feeling that movement?

This is your brain on creationism. Be afraid.

(Hat tip to Rodney Wilson of SCSE.)

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #88437

Posted by MaxOblivion on March 22, 2006 12:02 PM (e)

Dont be silly water didnt evolve it was created, water comes from rain and the rain is god tears.

Comment #88438

Posted by Flint on March 22, 2006 12:04 PM (e)

Isn’t it amazing that we drive on parkways and park on driveways? Is it colder in the north or in the winter? Evolution is revealed as a failure when such basic questions remain unanswered.

Comment #88440

Posted by PvM on March 22, 2006 12:05 PM (e)

Wow, now that is scary. I understood the poor state of science education in the US but this seems to show how a little ‘knowledge’ can be quite dangerous.
So what would ID do to help these poor people understand science?

Is “Icons of Evolution” the answer to their needs? For better of for worse?

Comment #88442

Posted by Julie Stahlhut on March 22, 2006 12:06 PM (e)

Oh, well. At least there’s also a letter in the same section by a mainstream Protestant who sees Christian Exodus for the political extremist movement that it is.

Comment #88443

Posted by Tiax on March 22, 2006 12:06 PM (e)

That’s it, I’m convinced. The logic is indisputable.

Comment #88447

Posted by PaulC on March 22, 2006 12:12 PM (e)

Something I noticed years back (and I think I’m not the first) is that if I read something that is wrong on some specific points, a counterargument kicks in and I soon have a response, but if read something that is just mind-blowingly wrong on too many levels to enumerate, I freeze up and cannot even figure out where to begin.

Assuming the quoted text is not a parody, this is about the best example ever of that effect. Just to avoid this being a complete cop-out, I’ll try to respond.

Water evolving? Water simply occurs as a repeatable chemical reaction wherever hydrogren and oxygen are present. Hydrogen, consisting of a single proton is the most common element in the universe, and oxygen is also reasonably abundant. Water is the ubiquitous result of chemical laws.

I’m not even sure what the point about gravity allowing us to step up is supposed to mean. The author has identified a “paradox” on the order of: how is it that a bungee cord can let us drop and yet pull us back away from the ground at the same time.

“How did it happen that the Earth is spinning at the exact rate that keeps us from feeling that movement?” Arghghgh! No, this has got to be a joke. And I fell for it and wasted this much time responding to it already. In fact, your inability to feel (approximately) inertial movement has nothing to do with the spin of the earth. It could be spinning at any rate you wanted… ANYWAY AS LONG AS YOU’RE WEARING HEAVY ENOUGH BOOTS AND NEITHER ID NOR EVOLUTION EXPLAINS HOW A THERMOS KNOWS WHETHER TO KEEP YOUR COFFEE HOT OR YOUR JUICE COLD… IT’S GOTTA BE THE WORK OF THE FAIRY FOLK, DON’T YOU THINK?

Comment #88448

Posted by Unsympathetic reader on March 22, 2006 12:14 PM (e)

Explorers must have a hard time walking near the poles if they didn’t have the benefit of centripetal acceleration to precisely counter the otherwise crushing gravity of the Earth.

500 Quatloos to the first person who calculates (in g’s or %g), the centripetal acceleration experienced by a person at the Earth’s equator…

Comment #88450

Posted by wamba on March 22, 2006 12:14 PM (e)

From the same letter:

Now we have an “educated” minister who claims that seminaries have proved that the beginning chapters of the Bible were not written according to the Word of God, but by unknown authors and added to the Bible by some editor. How about the words in John 1:1-4?

There you go. The Bible is the word of God. How do we know? It says so in the Bible.

Comment #88453

Posted by Jim Wynne on March 22, 2006 12:19 PM (e)

Now we have an “educated” minister who claims that seminaries have proved that the beginning chapters of the Bible were not written according to the Word of God, but by unknown authors and added to the Bible by some editor.

My guess is it was someone from CNN or the New York Times.

Comment #88455

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 22, 2006 12:26 PM (e)

Julie Stahlhut wrote:

Oh, well. At least there’s also a letter in the same section by a mainstream Protestant who sees Christian Exodus for the political extremist movement that it is.

Yeah, but even that’s a little disquieting. I suspect the letter writer felt the need to explain what’s wrong with Christian Exodus because too many Greenville News readers like the idea.

Comment #88457

Posted by PaulC on March 22, 2006 12:29 PM (e)

Christian Exodus? You mean they’re all gonna pack up and leave?

Comment #88458

Posted by BWE on March 22, 2006 12:31 PM (e)

Why is it that these evolutionists are trying so hard to deny that God created the Earth and all that is on it? Now we have an “educated” minister who claims that seminaries have proved that the beginning chapters of the Bible were not written according to the Word of God, but by unknown authors and added to the Bible by some editor. How about the words in John 1:1-4?

Help! We are being attacked by the educated, intelligent segment of our population!

Comment #88459

Posted by stranger on March 22, 2006 12:32 PM (e)

About .003 g’s.

You can donate my Quatloos to PT.

Comment #88460

Posted by Registered User on March 22, 2006 12:35 PM (e)

The theory of evolution does not and cannot explain so much about the universe that we know. For instance, when and how did water evolve? How does it happen that gravity can hold us to the Earth, and at the same time allow us to step up without any trouble? How did it happen that the Earth is spinning at the exact rate that keeps us from feeling that movement?

So David Heddle is writing for the Greenville News now?

Too proud to beg, I guess.

Comment #88462

Posted by Ogee on March 22, 2006 12:40 PM (e)

500 Quatloos to the first person who calculates (in g’s or %g), the centripetal acceleration experienced by a person at the Earth’s equator

It’s roughly 0.0034 g.

Comment #88464

Posted by Ogee on March 22, 2006 12:41 PM (e)

Curses!

Comment #88465

Posted by sgent on March 22, 2006 12:45 PM (e)

The sad thing is that Behe has 10X the science education of whomever wrote this.

Comment #88466

Posted by BWE on March 22, 2006 12:47 PM (e)

http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/14156088.htm

this, relating to the post, is for Lenny.

Comment #88467

Posted by BWE on March 22, 2006 12:54 PM (e)

AAARRRGGG! The whole second half of my post dissappeared!

I will have to summarize.

The opinion piece that I posted above more accurately represents what we are up against I think. ID Is about religion and not all religious folks look as phycologically twisted and dangerous as the one steve posted.

So what happens is that we think we are dealing with sane people who have simply been brainwashed by a very large cult when in fact, that is not the case at all. We are dealing with highly functional insanity.

Comment #88471

Posted by steve s on March 22, 2006 1:06 PM (e)

So David Heddle is writing for the Greenville News now?
Actually the arguments are isomorphic. Heddle says that if the cc wasn’t tuned to it’s present value (whatever that is), if it were instead way bigger, life wouldn’t be possible. Since Heddle doesn’t know the CC to within even say 3 orders of magnitude, let’s say the earth was rotating 1000 times faster. Whoops! We’re all flung into space. No life! and there you have it. The earth’s rotation is so Sensitive, it required an Intelligent Designer. Named Jesus.

Comment #88472

Posted by Walter Brameld IV on March 22, 2006 1:06 PM (e)

The theory of evolution does not and cannot explain so much about the universe that we know. For instance, when and how did water evolve? How does it happen that gravity can hold us to the Earth, and at the same time allow us to step up without any trouble? How did it happen that the Earth is spinning at the exact rate that keeps us from feeling that movement?

What…the…hell?

Comment #88473

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on March 22, 2006 1:08 PM (e)

PvM said: “I understood the poor state of science education in the US but this seems to show how a little ‘knowledge’ can be quite dangerous.
So what would ID do to help these poor people understand science?”

A little science is a dangerous thing, combined with pseudoscience it’s fatal.©

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #88474

Posted by Dan Hocson on March 22, 2006 1:16 PM (e)

I’ve interviewed schizophrenics that made more sense than this.

Comment #88475

Posted by UnMark on March 22, 2006 1:19 PM (e)

The quoted part reeks of satire to me. Then I read the rest. *sigh* I still vote for satire.

Comment #88476

Posted by UnMark on March 22, 2006 1:21 PM (e)

Curses! Simply using angle brackets is apparently enough to fool the software.

That whole article reeks of satire to me.

Comment #88478

Posted by Registered User on March 22, 2006 1:27 PM (e)

The theory of evolution does not and cannot explain so much about the universe that we know. For instance, when and how did water evolve? How does it happen that gravity can hold us to the Earth, and at the same time allow us to step up without any trouble? How did it happen that the Earth is spinning at the exact rate that keeps us from feeling that movement?

And more importantly, why is it that sharks haven’t evolved legs and taken over the earth?

Comment #88479

Posted by jeffw on March 22, 2006 1:31 PM (e)

So David Heddle is writing for the Greenville News now?
Actually the arguments are isomorphic. Heddle says that if the cc wasn’t tuned to it’s present value (whatever that is), if it were instead way bigger, life wouldn’t be possible. Since Heddle doesn’t know the CC to within even say 3 orders of magnitude, let’s say the earth was rotating 1000 times faster. Whoops! We’re all flung into space. No life! and there you have it. The earth’s rotation is so Sensitive, it required an Intelligent Designer. Named Jesus.

Well then, I assume that Jesus paid a personal visit to all of the other 10 billion or so planets in the the observable universe that may harbor some form of life, and he died for their all of their sins, each and every one of them. Busy guy, this Jesus.

Comment #88480

Posted by James Taylor on March 22, 2006 1:41 PM (e)

I wish that Rapture thing would just hurry up so the rest of the world can get back to sanity.

Comment #88481

Posted by Karen on March 22, 2006 1:45 PM (e)

The theory of evolution does not and cannot explain so much about the universe that we know.

So true…for instance, how do neutrons reproduce, since neither protons nor electrons are attracted to them?

Comment #88482

Posted by steve s on March 22, 2006 1:46 PM (e)

Registered User, there’s no way a shark with legs would take over the earth. It’s survival of the fittest.

“Contrary to what most people say, the most dangerous animal in the world is not the lion or the tiger or even the elephant. It’s a shark riding on an elephant’s back, just trampling and eating everything they see. “ -Jack Handey

Comment #88485

Posted by Kurt on March 22, 2006 2:05 PM (e)

Sharks decided to simply rule over the 3/4 of the planet that has a water covering. Why spend all that extra time on directed development ;) in order to run about a sparsely and relatively inhospitable environment that would require all those additional adaptions (think kidneys) beyond simply getting some feet.

Comment #88487

Posted by Raging Bee on March 22, 2006 2:15 PM (e)

I think this is the next phase in the faux-Christian right’s attempt to dominate every aspect of public debate: bogus logic didn’t work, outright lies didn’t work, so now they’re down to shrieking non-sequiturs, lashing out at everyone who looks just a little bit weird, and generally trying to scare everyone into silence by sheer unyielding irrationality.

Comment #88488

Posted by badger3k on March 22, 2006 2:16 PM (e)

OMID! The water line is up there with the monkeys, or “if global warming occurs why do we still have winter”.

How can someone be that ignorant? The really sad part is that I’m sure they think they are smart and proud of their ignorance. Gah.

Comment #88489

Posted by Shenda on March 22, 2006 2:27 PM (e)

UnMark:
“That whole article reeks of satire to me.”

While it is often difficult to separate satire from reality when dealing with biblical literalists, I have heard similar statements (and even worse) in church and in bible studies when I was a fundie. It is probably legit.

Comment #88491

Posted by k.e. on March 22, 2006 2:29 PM (e)

Dan Hocson said:
I’ve interviewed schizophrenics that made more sense than this
Interesting.
You are not the first to make that observation look up “fundamentalist schizophrenia”

Joseph Cambell and Jung made some observations which attempted to show that self discovery “the internal journey’ and the religious ‘heroes journey’ had a parallel with the descent into schizophrenia. Resolving internal conflict with reality and for the ‘hero’ the subsequent self healing. I’m not trying to make light either condition however the state that overtly religious people get themselves into vis a vis their take on the world and that view being so far removed from reality IS a schizophrenic state of mind. To me this is the direct result of fantasy told as objective truth to children. When the time comes to make the step from adolescence to a functioning adult the fundamentalist path is one of such sterile mind control it surprises me that mass psychosis is not the result (irony).
For anyone interested look up Joseph. Campbell schizophrenia the Inward Journey”

There is an excerpt from “Myths to Live by” on Amazon
" rel="external nofollow">The Impact of Science on Myth.

Campbell proposed that today science was an ‘external journey’ of discovery whereas in the past it was the opening up of the new territorys (traditional exploration)and provided a way of allowing the collective psyche to satisfy a need to expand the individuals horizons.

Comment #88497

Posted by Glen Davidson on March 22, 2006 2:52 PM (e)

While this is one of the more humorous creationist “set of arguments”, it is a serious matter that a great many creationists/IDists do confuse evolution as a kind of myth of origins of all things. Generally your IDist isn’t going to bring up evolving water, yet will bring up “cosmological ID” to bolster “biological ID”, since it’s all just creationism anyhow.

The creationist/IDist is primarily interested in what science can’t explain, since he has an “explanation” for everything whatsoever. If the anti-evolutionist gets tired of endlessly losing the evolution arguments, then the issue becomes abiogenesis, or, “where did the matter/energy come from?” Carol Clouser and Heddle can generally be expected to bring up the last question, in particular.

If one can sneak God in anywhere as a “valid explanation”, then of course there’s little reason to leave God out in other areas (an effective God is the aim of many religionists). And since the pseudoscientific brand of theists frequently understand evolution to be an alternative to their own beliefs, well, if evolution doesn’t explain everything, it explains nothing.

So this might be a particularly naive person speaking of “water evolving”, but the DI is as intent in showing that the universe had to be created as that life had to be (actually, water does evolve out of the reaction of oxygen and hydrogen, according to standard chemistry language). Getting God “back into science” to essentially explain everything, at least everything having to do with origins, is their goal, and science be damned. On the whole the DI “fellows” are little different from this letter writer, just a bit more careful to use language with a broader appeal to ignorance.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #88499

Posted by snaxalotl on March 22, 2006 3:01 PM (e)

I’m a little amazed how much those questions sound like Steven Wright, who asked “what does the inside of water look like?”. On gravity, Steve says “It’s a good thing we have gravity, or else when birds died they’d just stay right up there”

Comment #88501

Posted by mark duigon on March 22, 2006 3:02 PM (e)

We often speak of the “geochemical evolution of water along a ground-water flow path.”

But if water evolved, how come there’s still hydrogen?

Comment #88505

Posted by Daryl Cobranchi on March 22, 2006 3:24 PM (e)

Sure. Y’all Low Country folks always makin’ fun of us Upcountry folks. Snobs. :-)

Comment #88507

Posted by Daryl Cobranchi on March 22, 2006 3:26 PM (e)

“Upstate.” Duh.

Comment #88509

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 22, 2006 3:31 PM (e)

There you go. The Bible is the word of God. How do we know? It says so in the Bible.

Wamba, that’s not what John 1 says. Alas, I fear that the letter writer may have meant exactly what you wrote. They don’t even know the Bible. No wonder [John 11:35].

Comment #88512

Posted by JohnS on March 22, 2006 3:51 PM (e)

Carol has another letter to the editor on-line.

http://greenvilleonline.com/news/opinion/2004/11/25/letters20041125.htm

Just to help you decide if she is writing satire. Can I sue her high school for the mental anguish their negligence has caused me?

Comment #88513

Posted by Bruce Thompson GQ on March 22, 2006 3:57 PM (e)

Daryl Cobranchi complains: “Sure. Y’all Low Country folks always makin’ fun of us Upcountry folks. Snobs. :-)”

“Never a gentlemen born west of the fall line.” Old southern saying.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Comment #88514

Posted by Corkscrew on March 22, 2006 4:09 PM (e)

when and how did water evolve

I haven’t laughed so hard in months. Am having trouble typing straight.

Comment #88515

Posted by Sir_Toejam on March 22, 2006 4:11 PM (e)

And more importantly, why is it that sharks haven’t evolved legs and taken over the earth?

How do we know at some point in the last 340 million years that they have essentially existed they haven’t?

Unlike Dinos, elasmos don’t posses bones for nice fossilization; it requires very unique circumstances to get a fossil impression of a cartilaginous animal.

maybe the sharks ruled the surfance of the earth before the dinos did…

*shudder*

;)

Comment #88516

Posted by Flint on March 22, 2006 4:20 PM (e)

On another forum, I found this reaction to the recent evidence supporting the cosmological notion of inflation:

trying to explain how the entire universe EVOLVED into everything it is .. in less than one trillionth of a second .. will sure keep evolutionist pondering for some time. with discoveries as problematic as this one to explain, i’d say its a tough time to be an evolutionist.

Comment #88522

Posted by AC on March 22, 2006 5:01 PM (e)

One Carol Crooks wrote:

How does it happen that gravity can hold us to the Earth, and at the same time allow us to step up without any trouble?

Perhaps I should thank Gravity for allowing my muscles to work, in the same way that Ms. Crooks surely thanks God for providing the food she buys at the grocery store.

Comment #88523

Posted by Henry J on March 22, 2006 5:03 PM (e)

Re ‘Unlike Dinos, elasmos don’t posses bones for nice fossilization; it requires very unique circumstances to get a fossil impression of a cartilaginous animal.

maybe the sharks ruled the surfance of the earth before the dinos did…”

With cartilege for bones? Seems like they wouldn’t walk too well that way… ;)

Henry

Comment #88524

Posted by Sir_Toejam on March 22, 2006 5:15 PM (e)

With cartilege for bones? Seems like they wouldn’t walk too well that way… ;)

well, I didn’t say their reign was a long one…

Comment #88527

Posted by Jason on March 22, 2006 5:36 PM (e)

Is this the same Greenvile where some official called Katrina victims “yard apes”?

Comment #88528

Posted by Mike Rogers on March 22, 2006 5:39 PM (e)

Oh my Flying Spagetti Monster!!! Is this a joke? How can anybody so abysmally ignorant of basic physics feel confident enough, let alone justified, to air such an ignorant rant in a public forum?

Comment #88529

Posted by BWE on March 22, 2006 5:41 PM (e)

http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050915/NEWS04/509150321

Comment #88530

Posted by David B. Benson on March 22, 2006 5:42 PM (e)

I realize this thread is a bit punch-drunk for this quotation, but I thought all of you might find it useful:

“The theory of evolution is the great unifying theory of biology. But the impact of the theory extends even further: Evolution serves as a unifying description of all intelligent processes.”

D.B. Fogel
“Evolutionary Computation: toward a new philosophy of machine intelligence”, 3rd ed.
IEEE Press, 2006.

Comment #88532

Posted by Sir_Toejam on March 22, 2006 5:56 PM (e)

but I thought all of you might find it useful…

er, useful for what, exactly?

Comment #88533

Posted by David B. Benson on March 22, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

Then ID depends upon evolution!

Comment #88534

Posted by Tony on March 22, 2006 6:16 PM (e)

Is this a joke? How can anybody so abysmally ignorant of basic physics feel confident enough, let alone justified, to air such an ignorant rant in a public forum?

If there was any justice in the world, Carol’s high school should have the right to revoke her diploma. Or maybe the taxpayers in Greenville should sue the school district for both malpractice and for a refund of their taxes used to support the school where Carol got her so-called education.

Actually, scratch the last sentence. Carol was probably “home-schooled.”

Comment #88536

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 22, 2006 6:39 PM (e)

http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/1…

this, relating to the post, is for Lenny.

God, I love fundies. I really really do. After the most famous court case of the 21st century so far rules that ID can’t be taught because it’s just religious preaching, what do IDers do? They write to every newspaper in the United States proclaiming that ID is just religious preaching.

I love ‘em.

To all you wonderful fundies out there; PLEASE keep stupidly shooting yourselves in the head like this. PLEASE. After twenty-five years of fighting against you, I’m tired and I want to take a break. And if y’all just continue the way you are, I’ll get my opportunity, and will be able to take a nice vacation while y’all continue to shoot yourselves in the head, thus removing any ecessity for me to do it for you.

Thanks.

Comment #88537

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on March 22, 2006 7:08 PM (e)

How can anybody so abysmally ignorant of basic physics feel confident enough, let alone justified, to air such an ignorant rant in a public forum?

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”
BERTRAND RUSSELL (1872-1970)

Comment #88538

Posted by normdoering on March 22, 2006 7:37 PM (e)

Anybody going to blog on the California school district that now allows criticisms of Darwin’s theory? It’s new on Dembski’s site. Could another Dover be in the making there?

Comment #88539

Posted by Registered User on March 22, 2006 7:46 PM (e)

It’s new on Dembski’s site. Could another Dover be in the making there?

I hope so – the last Dover case made the creationists look like lying asses!

Comment #88540

Posted by Gary Hurd on March 22, 2006 8:02 PM (e)

BTW, The letter quoted above was in reference to an editorial written by AAAS CEO Alan I. Leshner and the Rev. Baxter M. Wynn, minister of pastoral care and community relations at First Baptist Church of Greenville.

To see the full Greenville News commentary, click here.

Comment #88542

Posted by J. Biggs on March 22, 2006 8:20 PM (e)

I hope so — the last Dover case made the creationists look like lying asses!

In other words it made them look exactly like what they are.

Comment #88546

Posted by Richiyaado on March 22, 2006 8:38 PM (e)

Though I’ve long been partial MDT, specifically the Invisible Tinkering Warrior Army hypothesis, I am beginning to be persuaded that the FSM (BBUINA) truly is the source of all things. As for the origin of water, my money’s on the BIG BOIL, the semolina creation event whereupon the FSM brought the entire universe into being.

Pastaman vibration, yeah!

Comment #88547

Posted by Gerry L on March 22, 2006 8:43 PM (e)

Carol’s letter is really quite clever and delivers a potentially lethal blow to biological evolution. If you read between the lines, what she is really saying is “If evolution is true, why am I still here?” Case closed, huh.

[With apologies to all my non-human primate friends for the above lame attempt at humor.]

Comment #88548

Posted by steve s on March 22, 2006 8:55 PM (e)

according to the retards at Uncommonly Dense, it’s evolutionists’ fault that…um…the guy wrote such ignorant things about evolution…somehow.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/941

Comment #88550

Posted by M. L. Green on March 22, 2006 9:11 PM (e)

If I live to the age of 100 (and I bloody well won’t), that is just too damned funny!

“Yes, and when water refuses to think rationally and critically it evolves into urine!”

Comment #88551

Posted by bdeller on March 22, 2006 9:18 PM (e)

“For instance, when and how did water evolve?” Duh about 2 years ago it did. How do you think we got Vitamin Water.

“How does it happen that gravity can hold us to the Earth, and at the same time allow us to step up without any trouble?” Not only does it let us step up, but it even allows us to walk upright.

Comment #88554

Posted by djlactin on March 22, 2006 10:23 PM (e)

I find it much easier to believe that Genesis tells us the truth

here’s the root of the problem. thinking is hard. not thinking is easier. i choose “not thinking” i think. or actually, because thinking is so hard, someone else thunk it for me.

Comment #88555

Posted by JohnS on March 22, 2006 10:28 PM (e)

Talk about chutzpah. Davescot gets one thing right. The education Carol got did not serve her well. Then he appropriates “rational thinking” to describe what he and his would add to the school system and labels what he would remove as “fairy tales”.

He must have been told hundreds of times that fairies = supernatural = god and yet his brain still spits it out.

Comment #88556

Posted by speck on March 22, 2006 10:32 PM (e)

Just you wait… As soon as the department of physics over at Bob Jones University determines how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, they’ll get to the bottom of this evolving water thingy…

Comment #88557

Posted by Torbjorn Larsson on March 22, 2006 11:16 PM (e)

Evolving water… that’s Perrier, right?

The latest discovery at the DI institute is that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a creationist to enter the kingdom of science.

Comment #88558

Posted by Lynn on March 22, 2006 11:23 PM (e)

BWE said: “The opinion piece that I posted above more accurately represents what we are up against I think. ID Is about religion and not all religious folks look as phycologically twisted and dangerous as the one steve posted.”

Now, there’s no need to go flinging insults right and left. What do innocent algae have to do with this?

Lynn

Comment #88560

Posted by Zero on March 22, 2006 11:26 PM (e)

Word equals God x God

Letting a=1, b = 2, c = 3, etc, mathematically:

God x God x God ….….….….….….….…… . = 47,900,160
70 seven fold x 99 x love….….….….….…. . = 47,900,160
God x 1260 x love ….….….….….….….……. = 47,900,160
10 % of heaven seven fold x God x God = 47,900,160
704 x 54 x 1260 (Rev 12:6.)….….….…… = 47,900,160
word x (3xGod) ….….….….….….….….….. = 47,900,160
1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x11x12….….….…… = 47,900,160
Jesus said, “ I have chosen you 12.”
word x 2112 (u 12) ….….….….….….……. = 47,900,160
47,900,160 minus (Jesus x Jesus x one) …….= 47,160,900
word = God (54) x G x 0 x d (7 x 15 x 4)
word = First ( i ) x Last (14) x 360 over 2
word = God x God (John 1:1)
word = one (ace) x 1 week (168 hours)
word = 90 % of 70 360’s (the remainder is 2 1260’s)
word = first x last x it ( i x [a+m] x i x t )
word = 126 (az) x 180 (9 x 20)
word = 22,680
word = 2/3 of iron ( 9 x18 x 15 x14) (Rev. 12:5)

Comment #88561

Posted by Sir_Toejam on March 22, 2006 11:28 PM (e)

just to alert those not conversant:

Lynn is referring to phycology, which is the study of algae, as opposed to psychology.

Comment #88562

Posted by Lynn on March 22, 2006 11:35 PM (e)

Shenda said: “While it is often difficult to separate satire from reality when dealing with biblical literalists, I have heard similar statements (and even worse) in church and in bible studies when I was a fundie. It is probably legit.”

Sadly, very true. I had a student once submit an anti-evolution paper in which she quite sincerely spent fifteen pages arguing about how evolution was impossible, using the evolution of “arms” as her primary example. Her arguments were of the “what use would they be when only partially formed? They’d just flop around and get in the way. What good is half an arm?” style.

This was a paper submitted to a college biology course. Somehow she’d completely missed the notion that, before they were arms, they were legs. She envisioned evolution as suggesting that they started out as little nubs and just got longer and longer, and eventually got things like bones and fingers and such.

This was back in my early days of teaching, and I was totally stunned at the level of simple ignorance. Needless to say, there were no references of any quality cited. I don’t think the “arms” argument has come up with anyone since. Or anyone before, come to think if it. But she had to get it from somewhere.

Lynn

Comment #88563

Posted by mrgoodbar on March 22, 2006 11:53 PM (e)

I grew up in Greenville, SC (live in Chicago now) and I can testify (heh) that this is entirely typical of the Op/Ed page of the (Gannett owned) Greenville News. Nearly every edition has at least one or more letters to the editor condemning either evolution and/or homosexuality.

A few facts about Greenville:

It’s home to Bob Jones University - an unaccredited religious “college” where interracial dating is banned and where biblical creation is “taught.”

It’s the future site of the Christian Exodus crowd chosen because of it’s religiosity. They hope to settle there in numbers and eventually cede from the union.

It was the first test market for a new radio format called “God & Country.”

No kidding, people down there obsess over evolution - it drives them crazy. In a way I suppose its a good thing that the subject is talked about so much but unfortunately the “godly” types tend to shout down those who actually have an understanding of basic biology.

When I lived down there I would routinely get into protracted arguments with these folks about evolution… some people talk about it because they are genuinely curious, but most talk about it because they view it as a threat (which it is) to their basic model for the way to the world works.

I’m much more laid back/jaded now a days so when the subject comes up and the person is passionately attacking evolution I ask them about their education. Usually these folks don’t have a strong science background (I do) so I invite them to put their money and time where their mouth is a take a few intro level biology courses at their local community college…

Which brings me to my last point: the problem in talking about evolution with the average person from a place like Greenville, SC (pop: 60,000) is that it’s impossible to find common ground - the gulf between language is too deep (and I’m not talking about the southern draw.) I can spend all day talking about the fossil record and mitochondrial DNA but these folks aren’t familiar with those concepts - at the same time I’m not entirely clear on seven-day creation, geocentrism, etc… so what you’re seeing is a breakdown of communication. The fact that this person would even ask “how did water evolve” shows that there is a great disconnect between common perceptions and what we know through science.

Comment #88570

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 23, 2006 7:59 AM (e)

Could another Dover be in the making there?

I certainly hope so.

I *love* the smell of fundies frying themselves in court.

Comment #88590

Posted by Torbjorn Larsson on March 23, 2006 9:47 AM (e)

“the southern draw” - the move that brought law an awduh.

Comment #88591

Posted by Zero on March 23, 2006 9:50 AM (e)

I sent my post # 88560 to the Greenville News.

It’s pure math so it could be pure science.

Zero

Comment #88598

Posted by Torbjorn Larsson on March 23, 2006 10:26 AM (e)

“It’s pure math so it could be pure science.”

Blasphemer! You will have mathematicians jumping all over you since math isn’t regarded to be science as such.

It isn’t science until you apply math in a theory or model. OTOH, your model of religion as word games makes as much sense as any other I’ve seen. :-)

Comment #88602

Posted by Zero on March 23, 2006 10:50 AM (e)

Comment #88590
Posted by Torbjorn Larsson on March 23, 2006 09:47 AM (e)

“the southern draw” - the move that brought law an awduh.

I have a coffee cup that has a drawing of a sheep running towards a fan.
Printed beneath is: “The sheep is gonna hit the fan.” Inside the lip it
cautions, “stay cool”

I said to my housekeeper one day, “ Heaven is hell without law and order.
When hell meets the law, the shit will hit the fan.”

The next morning, after making some notes about what I had said, I walked
outside and picked up my newspaper. The front page top
headline read, “Helmet Law Enforcement Begins”.

Torbjorn, I’m talking about one plus one equals two.
Anything you can find, you can count,
be it science or religion.

Zero

Comment #88605

Posted by Gordon on March 23, 2006 11:03 AM (e)

The Discovery Disco Institute should make Carol Crooks a Fellow associate of some sorts since DI does state that Non-technical work by some Fellows is available on there website. Carol should properly qualify for a fellow position since now the Dover decision proves religion is their main entity of all source and knowledge for ID.

The DI Research Fellowship Program
Initial submitted proposals should include two copies of the following:
1. A curriculum vitae, including a list of publications
– I am sure The Greenville News would be more than happy to submit her opinions showing her vast writing skills and knowledge on subjects including politics, religion, Poof magic, Fundy economics, astrology, alchemy, big bang evolution, Dembski bio-mathematics,puff the magic dragon physics, polka dancing, mud wrestling, grand canyon geology, creation biology, paranormal psychology, and critical stinking skills. Her curriculum vitae are probably relevant to creation happy courses from Bob Jones University of the absurdity academics standards that the DI uses for their fodder.

2. A 2 - 3 page description of your research project (1000 words or less) – She should submit her research on the evolution of water (Alchemy based), and gravity (Newton be damned) and that should be less than 100 words or less from her.

3. A budget enumerating release time, travel, and research expenses – This should not be to hard for her to include all the taxi rides to and throe from the many churches in Greenville and the Bob Jones University Library to tabulate.

4. A letter of endorsement and allowance of release time from department faculty head or college administrator (if relevant) - Bob Jones University probably has offered her honorary doctorates in many fields of subject by now, I bet through her many letters to the Greenville news that shows her qualifications as a bogeyed creationist extraordinaire.

5. A relevant published writing sample Proposals should be sent to: Jay Richards, DI -Such as http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060322/OPINION/603220407/1010

Still imaging Carol’s arms just flapping around like useless appendages – wait do I see noodles sprouting from her body! OMG! FSM has arrived to the rescue. We wish,sigh!

Comment #88614

Posted by Zero on March 23, 2006 11:37 AM (e)

From FSM:

“It’s not over till the fat lady sings”

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject:

No, it’s already been mathematically proven that Zero is God:

Dr. Otis Lansa wrote:
hereoisreal wrote:

Mathmatically:

God X God = Word
3 X God X Word = God X God X God

Let God= g and w = Word = (God x God) = g^2

g x g = g^2 = w

3 x g x w = g x g x g
3 x g x g x g = g x g x g
3g^3 = g^3
3g^3 - g^3 = 0
2g^3=0
g^3=0
g=cube root of 0
g=0

So God=Zero

Is there something you’d like to tell us?

….….…..

I”m not to good at math but
I do know how to measure since I am a retired carpenter.

Would one or two of you mathematicians check out
Dr. Lansa’s figures and
get back with us?

Zero

Comment #88616

Posted by steve s on March 23, 2006 11:48 AM (e)

Speaking of BJ-U, weren’t they or Liberty or somebody looking for a young earth creationist professor of geology or something? Anybody know how that turned out?

Comment #88619

Posted by bigdumbchimp on March 23, 2006 12:06 PM (e)

“Dont be silly water didnt evolve it was created, water comes from rain and the rain is god tears.”

And’s he’s crying because you’re an idiot Mrs. Crooks

Comment #88630

Posted by Mike Rogers on March 23, 2006 12:58 PM (e)

Bill Gascoyne wrote:

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”
BERTRAND RUSSELL (1872-1970)

Ah, yes, I do understand this. But I was just so shocked by the appaling ignorance of those comments that I could hardly believe somebody actually sent them to a newspaper and got them published. It may have been satire but, as others have here pointed out, many fundamentalists are actually that clueless about science.

Comment #88631

Posted by hessal on March 23, 2006 1:03 PM (e)

I’m so confused. How is word = 22680? Please explain it in baby steps for me. I’m not math literate.

Comment #88643

Posted by Tice with a J on March 23, 2006 1:31 PM (e)

Zero, I’m afraid your math is bad. You just stuck in that 3 out of nowhere; it’s a magic number. By the g^2 = w hypothesis, g^3 = g*w and not 3*g*w.

However, if g^3 = 3*g*w is taken as a previous assumption (which it could be, if you find the right verse) along with g^2 = w, then g must be equal to 0, because you get g^3 = 3*g^3.

Comment #88646

Posted by Monimonika on March 23, 2006 1:44 PM (e)

Tice with a J,

The “3” comes from the Trinity. You know, how God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three separate entities that are at the same time only one entity?

Comment #88647

Posted by Zero on March 23, 2006 1:45 PM (e)

Comment #88631
Posted by hessal on March 23, 2006 01:03 PM (e)

“I’m so confused. How is word = 22680? Please explain it in baby steps for me. I’m not math literate.”

….….…….

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Word equals God x God

word = God (54) x G x 0 x d (7 x 15 x 4)
word = 54 x 7 x 15 x4

God = 1260 (alpha, omega & nothing )
God = 704 (beginning, end & nothing)
God = 54 (first, last,& nothing) (Ass + 15) Zec 9:9
God = 26 ( a through z ) also (7 + 15 + 4)

Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Zero

Comment #88651

Posted by Miah on March 23, 2006 1:52 PM (e)

I thought this would provide some fun reading, and I wasn’t sure where to put it. I think it fits this post because of the questioning of Science and Evolution. So I found this rebuttal Are We Smarter Than God? as a great tool to show those fundies how inerrant the bible really is. *SARCASM ALERT*

My answer is a definate YES.

Comment #88673

Posted by Torbjorn Larsson on March 23, 2006 4:04 PM (e)

“Anything you can find, you can count”

Unly countable things. I dare you to count the real numbers between 0 and 1.

But please refrain posting part results before you have satisfied yourself whether you can do the whole of it or not. Otherwise we will never finish this thread. And yes, that is a hint to the answer. :-)

Comment #88681

Posted by Henry J on March 23, 2006 5:19 PM (e)

Re “I dare you to count the real numbers between 0 and 1.”

Or even just the rational numbers in that range, never mind the irrational and transcendental ones.

Henry

Comment #88683

Posted by Zero on March 23, 2006 5:55 PM (e)

Posted by Torbjorn Larsson on March 23, 2006 04:04 PM (e)

“Anything you can find, you can count”

Only countable things. I dare you to count the real numbers between 0 and 1.

Torbjorn, the number of
‘whole’ pieces of a pie,
as you know, depends upon
how thin you cut it. But
is just a smell a real piece?

Zero

Comment #88684

Posted by Mike Rogers on March 23, 2006 5:56 PM (e)

“Re “I dare you to count the real numbers between 0 and 1.”

Or even just the rational numbers in that range, never mind the irrational and transcendental ones.

There is also a Chaitin’s number Omega that can be shown to exist but cannot be computed. You can’t even provide the number apart from a description of its meaning.

Incidentally, is Zero actually teasing us (I can’t tell here anymore) or is he using a descriptive name.

Comment #88686

Posted by brightmoon on March 23, 2006 5:59 PM (e)

ny state has an evolution controversy bill in the works HELLLLP!!!!

Section 1. The education law is amended by adding a new section 803-b
2 to read as follows:
3 S 803-B. COURSES OF STUDY IN THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING EVOLUTION AND
4 THE ORIGINS OF MAN. 1. ALL PUPILS IN GRADES KINDERGARTEN THROUGH TWELVE
5 IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE STATE SHALL RECEIVE INSTRUCTION REGARDING
6 ALL ASPECTS OF THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING EVOLUTION AND THE ORIGINS OF
7 MAN. SUCH INSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY OR UNDER THE DIRECT SUPER-
8 VISION OF REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHERS, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH
9 INSTRUCTION MAY BE PROVIDED BY ANY OTHER AGENCY, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE.
10 2. THE COMMISSIONER, SHALL PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO ASSIST IN
11 THE DEVELOPMENT OF CURRICULA FOR SUCH COURSES OF STUDY WHICH SHALL BE
12 AGE APPROPRIATE AND DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS AND ABILITIES OF
13 PUPILS AT SUCCESSIVE GRADE LEVELS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE INFORMATION
14 REGARDING ALL ASPECTS OF THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING EVOLUTION AND THE
15 ORIGINS OF MAN INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND
16 INFORMATION EFFECTIVELY CHALLENGING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
17 3. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OR TRUSTEES OF EVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL
18 PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TRAINING AND CURRICULUM MATERIALS FOR THE REGULAR
19 TEACHERS WHO PROVIDE SUCH INSTRUCTION, TO ENSURE THAT ALL ASPECTS OF THE
20 CONTROVERSY, ALONG WITH ANY SUPPORTIVE DATA, ARE FULLY EXAMINED THROUGH

EXPLANATION–Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
{ } is old law to be omitted.
LBD11536-06-6

A. 8036–B 2

1 SUCH COURSE OF STUDY. SCHOOL DISTRICTS SHALL RECEIVE STATE AID FOR SUCH
2 TRAINING AND CURRICULUM MATERIALS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE SUCH INSTRUCTION
3 PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH D-1 OF SUBDIVISION THIRTY-EIGHT OF SECTION THIR-
4 TY-SIX HUNDRED TWO OF THIS CHAPTER.
5 S 2. Subdivision 38 of section 3602 of the education law is amended by
6 adding a new paragraph d-1 to read as follows:
7 D-1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICTS MAY
8 UTILIZE AID PAYABLE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH B OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOR THE
9 PURPOSE OF TEACHER TRAINING AND CURRICULUM MATERIALS NECESSARY TO
10 PROVIDE INSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO SECTION EIGHT HUNDRED THREE-B OF THIS
11 CHAPTER.
12 S 3. This act shall take effect immediately

Comment #88687

Posted by Mats on March 23, 2006 6:02 PM (e)

You guys know nothing about science. See, water only appears to have evolved. If there is one thing we learned with Reverend Dawkins is that there are many things in life that only “appear to be” but, thanks to science, we now know they are not. ;-)

Comment #88693

Posted by normdoering on March 23, 2006 6:40 PM (e)

So I found this rebuttal Are We Smarter Than God?

It’s why they don’t trust us:
http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

Comment #88712

Posted by RBH on March 23, 2006 7:59 PM (e)

Posted by brightmoon on March 23, 2006 05:59 PM (e)

ny state has an evolution controversy bill in the works HELLLLP!!!!

What state is that? SC?

Comment #88713

Posted by khan on March 23, 2006 8:16 PM (e)

Sadly, very true. I had a student once submit an anti-evolution paper in which she quite sincerely spent fifteen pages arguing about how evolution was impossible, using the evolution of “arms” as her primary example. Her arguments were of the “what use would they be when only partially formed? They’d just flop around and get in the way. What good is half an arm?” style.

This was a paper submitted to a college biology course. Somehow she’d completely missed the notion that, before they were arms, they were legs. She envisioned evolution as suggesting that they started out as little nubs and just got longer and longer, and eventually got things like bones and fingers and such.
===========================
I recall a troll on alt.atheism demanding an explanation as to how a human arm evolved from being straight to having an albow.

Comment #88715

Posted by snaxalotl on March 23, 2006 8:21 PM (e)

…INSTRUCTION REGARDING ALL ASPECTS OF THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING EVOLUTION AND THE ORIGINS OF MAN

I can hardly wait. “listen up you banjotards. evolution is established scientific fact. the “authorities” you uncritically accept as having disproved evolution are wrong in several hundred ways you are currently too ignorant to understand. state law mandates we will spend the next three years explaining it to you. point one…”

Comment #88721

Posted by Gordon on March 23, 2006 9:53 PM (e)

brightmoon… wrote:

ny state has an evolution controversy bill in the works HELLLLP!!!!

RBH wrote:

What state is that? SC?

I am assuming ny means New York

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/NY/875_intelligent_design_legislati_3_21_2006.asp

Comment #88723

Posted by Henry J on March 23, 2006 10:15 PM (e)

Water evolve? Nonsense. Water happens when hydrogen loses its phlogiston.

Henry

Comment #88728

Posted by Zero on March 23, 2006 11:11 PM (e)

Comment #88683
Posted by Zero on March 23, 2006 05:55 PM (e)

Posted by Torbjorn Larsson on March 23, 2006 04:04 PM (e)

“Anything you can find, you can count”

Only countable things. I dare you to count the real numbers between 0 and 1.

Torbjorn, the number of
‘whole’ pieces of a pie,
as you know, depends upon
how thin you cut it. But
is just a smell a real piece?
….….….….….

Do you know why my fanger smells like limon pie?
It’s got my rang on it.

This story has a ring to it:

In January, 2004, I was on my patio when I noticed my neighbor out in his backyard

with a metal detector. He must have spent 3-4 hours scanning his grass.
I asked him the next day, as I leaned over our fence, what had he lost. He said that he

was losing weight and had lost his gold wedding ring but didn’t have any idea where or

when. I then glanced to my left about 8-10 feet and spotted his ring in the grass.
A few days later, Joan’s sister and her husband were over and I told them the above

story. The next day after we had done some shopping , we were having lunch at home

when Shirley, my sis-in-law discovered one of her gold ear rings was missing. We

searched the house for about an hour, then backtracked. While Bob and I went to one

store, my wife and Shirley went to another.
They pulled into the yard about 5 minutes after Bob and I with the ear ring.
Joan said that the one parking spot I had used that morning was empty so she parked

there. They searched through the whole store and around the parking space before

finally getting back in the car. Then Joan told Shirley to get out one more time and

look around the parking spot, which she did and got back in. As Joan was backing out,

she spotted the ear ring in the sand
In February of 06, I was playing golf and riding with Dick Ledger in his cart
when he mentioned that he was having trouble keeping his wedding ring on
because he was losing weight.
The remark brought back memories of the above story from the year before so
I told it to him.
When I arrived home that afternoon, my wife told me that she had spoken to
Janet White on the phone and learned that Bill, her husband, had lost his
ring finger while trying to lift something heavy from his son’s truck.
A few days later, Bob and Shirley came to visit again and I told them all of
the above. Just before they were about to leave, Bob discovered he had
lost his wedding band. (He had been losing weight.)
After they left, my wife continued to look for the ring and asked me to help.
I didn’t and I said to her, “ He’ll probably find it in his trunk”
Our maid, Susan came that day so my wife asked her to keep an eye out
for it also. I told her the complete story up till then and also told her
a ring joke.
I said, “Do you know why my fanger smells like limon pie? It’s got
my rang on it.”
That night Shirley called. She said Bob had found his ring in the car trunk.
The next time Susan came, I told her that Bob had found his ring.
She replied, “After you told me the ring joke, I went home to find
my mother in the kitchen. I asked her what she was baking and she replied,
‘Limon meringue pie’.”

Zero

Comment #88731

Posted by Gary Hurd on March 24, 2006 12:13 AM (e)

I sent this on to the Greenville Times (with some minor editing). I doubt that they will run it.

The editorial mentioned above in the Greenville Times provoked a letter written by a South Carolinian that says (in part)

“Why is it that these evolutionists are trying so hard to deny that God created the Earth and all that is on it? Now we have an “educated” minister who claims that seminaries have proved that the beginning chapters of the Bible were not written according to the Word of God, but by unknown authors and added to the Bible by some editor. How about the words in John 1:1-4?”

“The theory of evolution does not and cannot explain so much about the universe that we know. For instance, when and how did water evolve? How does it happen that gravity can hold us to the Earth, and at the same time allow us to step up without any trouble? How did it happen that the Earth is spinning at the exact rate that keeps us from feeling that movement?

1) All “evolutionists” don’t try to deny the existance of God anymore than Christians all try to deny the existance of science.

2) In Genesis 1, God commanded “the Earth to bring forth …” (significant words “eretz” and “barim”). There was no simple ‘poof you are a cow’ creation in the Bible.

3)This one is complicated. Now we have an “educated” minister who claims that seminaries have proved that the beginning chapters of the Bible were not written according to the Word of God, but by unknown authors and added to the Bible by some editor.

Err, actually that is all really simple- it is true. The facts known to biblical scholars for decades have not been communicated to the rank and file.

4) John 1 etc. doesn’t say what she thinks it says.

Second half:

5) Evolutionary biology does not attempt to explain all the facts of the universe. It merely explains the diversity of species. There are numerous other sciences that explain other aspects of the universe.

6) It is impossible to know what science can not explain unless you know all that every science has explained and the total truth of all that is universally possible.

7.1) Water did not evolve.

7.2) “How” water “evolved” is meaningless.

7.3) “When” water “evolved” is meaningless.

8) Gravity does not “hold us to the Earth.” We attract the Earth to us just as the Earth attracts us to it. If you travel to different parts of the Earth, you and the Earth will have different amounts of attraction.

9.1) Our ability to “step up without any trouble” is incoherent. Those creatures capable of “stepping” at all have various difficulties. Ask anyone with a bad back.

9.2) More generally, the molecular strength (AKA bond energy) of various molecules exceeds that of the gravitational forces upon them. Calcite in the form of calcium oxilate dihydrate and Apatite join with the proteins osteocalcin and callogen to form bone. The bond energy of these molecules is greater than the gravitational force against them.

10) The general theory of relativity given to us by Einstein tells us why we fail to feel movement whn we move at the same speed as our “frame of reference.” This can be the Earth, or the inside of your car. If you are moving at the same speed as your frame of reference you can not experience any “speed” at all.

It is pathetic that there are still Christians who lacking in both biblical and worldly knowledge will assert their opinions in public. This failing was warned aginst well over one and one half thousand years ago by Augustine of Hippo (Saint Augusine to many Christians). He warned that, “Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics (The material facts of creation, gh); and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh o scorn.” Or as explained by Thomas Aquinas in his “Summa Theologica,” “In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

Comment #88732

Posted by Kevin from nyc on March 24, 2006 12:23 AM (e)

“Anything you can find, you can count”

heck lets count just integers…..get back to me when you’re done.

also there was a bill in NY state last year by a known fundie wacko.

it went into the education committee and died…same thing this year….i expect

Comment #88869

Posted by Torbjorn Larsson on March 24, 2006 7:46 AM (e)

“Or even just the rational numbers in that range”

“heck lets count just integers…..get back to me when you’re done.”

Eh, I think the sets of rational numbers and integers are both countable and countably infinite.

Comment #88875

Posted by Corkscrew on March 24, 2006 7:58 AM (e)

Eh, I think the sets of rational numbers and integers are both countable and countably infinite.

“X is countable” means “there is a 1:1 mapping between X and the natural numbers”. This doesn’t mean that you can actually count all of them in a finite length of time (in fact you can’t).

Comment #88906

Posted by Rodney on March 24, 2006 8:53 AM (e)

Well, it seems Davescot didn’t want to post my comments that should have appeared around comment # 8 of the uncommondecent blog. Well, here they were, innocently enough:

“You’re right. Teachers from elementary school all the way up through high school failed to teach this person the basic premises of chemistry, physics and biology. That failure coupled with a tendency to equate physics and chemistry with biology (seen in most creationists) helped sharpen her ignorance of science. Oh, and most likely a personal bias against evolutionary biology stemming from fundamentalism.

You know, instead of ranting against Steve, maybe you guys should join with actual scientists and take a stand against this creationist crap and misinformation. Well, that’s assuming that you aren’t just a political/religious scam trying to put your foot in the door where creationism failed.

Oops, Dover. My bad. “

Comment #88951

Posted by Mike Rogers on March 24, 2006 12:15 PM (e)

Thanks Gary Hurd. It’s a good thing somebody sent a response to the Greenville News, although it’s kinda sad that somebody would have to.

Also, it’s nice to see that Zero was just pulling our legs the whole time (comment #88728).

Comment #88970

Posted by Miah on March 24, 2006 1:20 PM (e)

normdoering wrote:

It’s why they don’t trust us:

Maybe they should read this vs this?

Based on those two articles, I’d say I’d rather be an antheist.

Comment #89048

Posted by Zero on March 24, 2006 8:20 PM (e)

Happy Gilmore

About four and a half years ago, I think it was

the day my wife Joan had her hole - in - one

at La Cita, she and I were discussing spectacular golf shots.

I said, “ You may not have heard about this, but Andrew

Magee had a hole - in - one while playing a par 4

on the PGA tour this year (2001) at the Phoenix

open. A player on the green was practicing his

putting stroke when Andrew’s drive ricocheted

off the back of his putter into the hole.”

Then I continued, “ I remember, years ago,

reading about something even stranger…a golfer on a par 3

overshot the green. His ball glanced off of a

Volkswagen going by on the road, fell back onto the

green and rolled in the cup.”

At the time I had read it, I imagined a specific colored

car, yellow.

That night I asked Joan what she would like to do.

She replied,

“ Let’s watch one of the DVDS we got when we bought our

player the other day”.

We had never used it.

Since I had golf on my mind, I inserted a movie titled “Happy Gilmore”.

It is about an x-hockey player who gets

on the PGA tour basically because he had hit a hole - in - one

on a par 4 hole. He also used a hockey stick sometimes

as an iron or putter.

He makes his last shot of a tournament to win by glancing

his ball, first, off of a yellow Volkswagen, then through a Rube

Goldberg maze, (a fallen tower), into the hole.

At the time we owned a cocktail lounge.

Sometime later I installed another TV down the bar which

included a DVD player, away from the one I always had on

mostly for live sports.

One Sunday afternoon I was tending bar alone. I had only

one customer, a young man in his twenties. We both were

watching PGA golf and I had “Happy Gilmore” playing on

the DVD.

The young man made a comment, “ I could hit that ball if

they let me use a baseball bat.”

I replied, “ Why not use a hockey stick like Happy?”

I glanced over to the other TV to see Happy putting

with his hockey stick.

The announcer on live TV said at that moment, and I don’t

know what prompted his remark, “ If you hit a golf ball with a

hockey stick, you have to hit it straight on.”

I told someone at the bar the above story a few days later,

then left the bar, got in my truck and drove south toward Mims,

thinking about what I had just discussed.

As I pulled up to the red light at 46, a yellow VW turned

left in front of me.

Two weeks later, Joan and I drove to Ft. Myers to try

to locate her brother she hadn’t heard from in 46 years.

After finding him and talking for a while, he remarked,”Let

me show you my old cars.”

We walked around to the back and when he raised the

garage door, a yellow Volkswagen appeared.

Now when I see a yellow VW, it’s special to me.

Last week, just after seeing one pass, I crossed the

street and walked into a thrift store. Just inside was a

yellow toy model VW on a pedestal.

If you click on ‘Zero’ above,you will find 342 simular stories in my life.

Zero
stories

Comment #89074

Posted by Torbjorn Larsson on March 24, 2006 11:10 PM (e)

““X is countable” means “there is a 1:1 mapping between X and the natural numbers”. This doesn’t mean that you can actually count all of them in a finite length of time (in fact you can’t).”

Zero wasn’t discussing finite sets, he was making a statement about what he thought one could count. “Anything you can find, you can count”. This could mean being able to start or finish counting, it’s ambigious. (I agree that the natural translation is being able to finish, ie finite sets.)

Reals are uncountable, you can’t even start counting. Integers and rationals are not uncountable; but you can never finísh counting.

Comment #89080

Posted by Glenda on March 25, 2006 1:28 AM (e)

I’m astonished at the stupidity of posts here in response to an inocent poem penned by an inocent human being. Did anyone consider that this person is not the least bit interested in science, but instead is interested in the poetry of the workings of our universe? Nothing this person wrote is untrue. This is a poem guys. Grow up and smell the roses. Let’s all try to table our irrational contempt of the faithful for a moment and rewrite the post in plain english:

The theory of evolution cannot explain everything about the universe.
For example, how did hydrogen and oxygen come to be and why can they form water so easily on earth and yet seem so rare everywhere else we look?
And how does gravity work so consistently throughout the university that men can walk on the moon with the same motion as on the earth without worying about sudden changes in Newton’s laws?
The earth itself spins at precisely the right frequency needed to prevent undampened oscillations or wobbles that we would easily feel - dizzying undulations - why is this the case?

Granted that the poetry isn’t the best, but that’s all is is. It does take a bit of imagination to think this way - a certain respect for nature and awe at her doings. Apparently none of you have either (imagination or respect, that is).

Comment #89113

Posted by Sir_Toejam on March 25, 2006 5:11 AM (e)

Granted that the poetry isn’t the best, but that’s all is is. It does take a bit of imagination to think this way - a certain respect for nature and awe at her doings. Apparently none of you have either (imagination or respect, that is

uh, surely you’re joking.

poetry???

If that was poetry I think we can call poetry dead.

It takes far more than imagination to think this way, it takes plumb ignorance.

I think you interpret too widely, there, glenda the good witch.

each one of the arguments presented as “poetry” (urk) are simply arguments of incredulity that have NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory, so if she was trying for poetry, why did she decide to include that first line, eh?

nope. you’re way off base with your poetry interpretation.

Comment #89142

Posted by Zero on March 25, 2006 7:56 AM (e)

Comment #89074
Posted by Torbjorn Larsson on March 24, 2006 11:10 PM (e)

““X is countable” means “there is a 1:1 mapping between X and the natural numbers”. This doesn’t mean that you can actually count all of them in a finite length of time (in fact you can’t).”

Zero wasn’t discussing finite sets, he was making a statement about what he thought one could count. “Anything you can find, you can count”. This could mean being able to start or finish counting, it’s ambigious. (I agree that the natural translation is being able to finish, ie finite sets.)

Reals are uncountable, you can’t even start counting. Integers and rationals are not uncountable; but you can never finísh counting….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…..
>Please notice that no one , since my 88650 post, has done anything but try
to reduce the subject to split ting numbers.
Only one preson, hessal, asked a question and I answered.

Zero wasn’t discussing finite sets, he was making a statement about what he thought one could count. “Anything you can find, you can count”. This could mean being able to start or finish counting, it’s ambigious. (I agree that the natural translation is being able to finish, ie finite sets.)
….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….….…..
Mathematically, the First & Last (IN) = end
Zero has no beginning or end.

Yellow Blobs On Yellow Brick Roads

Last night I dreamed I was in a head-on automobile

accident and wound up in car heaven. Everything was

sooo beautiful. But lots of yellow. Yellow houses.

Yellow streets. Yellow garbage cans, etc… You get the idea.

Among other things, I could see a lot of little yellow

car - shaped blobs moving along the golden streets.

When I ran into an angel, no pun intended, who had yellow stains on his shirt, I asked

him what the blobs were and he replied:

“Well, we get a lot of different models and makes coming up here. Some

with just minor damage, like finder benders or worn out engines. We

try to do the best we can with repairs but with the price of help and all…

The old ones and total wrecks, we just recycle.”

I asked, “How do you do that?” so he continued:

“We have this special process where we grind them up,

put them in a vat, add gelatin, water, and a little yellow

gold dust trash. Then we bring it all to a boil while

stirring before pouring into a mold. Those that have

a record of speeding or hitting dogs, we pour into a

form that’s shaped like a fire hydrant. They’re shipped

off to dog heaven. Because they don’t have wheels,

they never come back.

.

The others we use to fill the Volkswagen shaped molds.

We’ve thought several times about breaking that mold

but actually it works pretty good. They come out docile

and soft like new born babies. They’re kinda slow so

they can’t hurt anyone and they don’t kill dogs.

That’s the mold we’re going to pour you into so

when you happen to meet up with another, you can

yell, “Oh! Hello fellow mellow yellow jell-O.”

I woke up a total wreck. I thought to myself, “ What is this

yellow sand doing in my bed?”

Ps:

I ran in to this guy the other day who had yellow, orange,

purple, and blue splotches of color on his T - shirt.

Across the front it said, “I ran into Tammy Faye.”

Zero

Comment #89209

Posted by stevaroni on March 25, 2006 12:00 PM (e)

The theory of evolution cannot explain everything about the universe.

Nor does it try. Instead, it explains, rather reliably, one aspect of one science - biology. Newtons laws don’t explain everything either, but they’re damned useful for the subjects they cover.

For example, how did hydrogen and oxygen come to be

Again, not exactly the province of biology.

and why can they form water so easily on earth and yet seem so rare everywhere else we look?

Um… Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, and apparently, the precursor to all the heavier elements. Hydrogen, oxygen, and all the rest tend to amalgamate in gravitational piles with quaint names like “planets” and “stars”. Asking why we see more of this stuff here is the same as asking why dust bunnies concentrate under the fridge: it’s a quiet place that has some basic attractions (static and gravity, or with dust bunnies, grease and air currents) and nothing disturbs them.

And how does gravity work so consistently throughout the university that men can walk on the moon with the same motion as on the earth without worying about sudden changes in Newton’s laws?

Well - and I could be off base here - I’m almost sure that the basic laws of physics are pretty much supposed to apply everywhere. But if you’re asking why the astronauts could walk around on the moon just like they could on the earth, they couldn’t. The real Lunar EVA suits were, in fact, way too heavy for earthbound training, necessitating expensive work-arounds.

The earth itself spins at precisely the right frequency needed to prevent undampened oscillations or wobbles that we would easily feel - dizzying undulations - why is this the case?

Mercury, Venus, Mars and the moon are all large, rocky masses that spin at dramatically different rates. None of them oscillate. Since the forces involved are static, there’s no particular reason any solid (actually, thixotropic) mass revolving at a constant speed without substantial drag would oscillate any differently from one standing still. In fact, after some time to damp out, you wouldn’t expect it to oscillate at all.

Comment #89218

Posted by Glenda on March 25, 2006 12:46 PM (e)

SirToejam: “If that was poetry I think we can call poetry dead.”

I can’t think of a better way to validate my assertion. You probably wouldn’t know poetry if it bit you in the toe.

If you’re going to have enemies, you’d best know them. This poem wasn’t a litteral poem. Calling it that was an analogy. It is analagous to a poem in that it is an expression of the awe a certain unscientific person sees in the universe. That person doesn’t claim to be a scientist, rather they claim to be a person of faith. People of faith see the universe from a totally different perspective. Expressing that perspective is not the same as claiming to be an authority, it is just poetry.

Until you understand their perspective, you aren’t fit to debate them.

But having said all that, you didn’t seem to want to comment on the factual truth of their “poem”. What say you, is it not true that we don’t know how or why hydrogen and oxygen came into existence and that the earth’s frequency of rotation is vital to preventing destructive wobbling? I know it wobbles, you moron, but if the earth’s spin were just a little more or a little less we probably would’t want to live here.

My assertion stands and thanks to you it is even better supported. As a scientist I am ashamed of the vast majority of commentors on this blog who are so blinded by their own egos and faith in self that they can’t even recognize when an inocent is simply trying to communicate his or her perspective on the world as an aspect of their deep faith.

Know thine enemy.

Comment #89220

Posted by Renier on March 25, 2006 12:49 PM (e)

but if the earth’s spin were just a little more or a little less we probably would’t want to live here.

Give us your est figures please.

Comment #89241

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 25, 2006 2:25 PM (e)

Glenda wrote:

This poem wasn’t a litteral poem. Calling it that was an analogy.

An extremely poor analogy. There was nothing poetic about that outpouring of stupidity. And it wasn’t intended to be an “expression of faith” or “awe at the universe”. This person clearly knows nothing about the universe. What she wrote was an attack on the theory of evolution from a supposedly scientific point of view. No more no less.

And as for “deep faith, being a believer doesn’t excuse ignorance. Frankly, I think it’s an insult to people of faith to treat them as children like that.

Comment #89244

Posted by Sir_Toejam on March 25, 2006 2:34 PM (e)

Until you understand their perspective, you aren’t fit to debate them.

again, as i said before, it’s clearly yourself that doesn’t understand the perspective.

and again, read the first line.

now ask yourself again, is this REALLY a person expressing wonder at the universe, or is it simply a person who thinks science in the whole is without merit?

how on earth can you call yourself a scientist?

If you want to see how one can express wonder at the universe without expressing contempt and ignorance at the same time, I would refer you to the writings of Carl Sagan, or Rachel Carson.

this isn’t poetry, it’s an attack, pure and simple.

If you want to ignore direct attacks against your claimed profession, go right ahead.

The rest of us who see through this drivel won’t.

Comment #89249

Posted by Sir_Toejam on March 25, 2006 2:42 PM (e)

But having said all that, you didn’t seem to want to comment on the factual truth of their “poem”. What say you, is it not true that we don’t know how or why hydrogen and oxygen came into existence and that the earth’s frequency of rotation is vital to preventing destructive wobbling? I know it wobbles, you moron, but if the earth’s spin were just a little more or a little less we probably would’t want to live here.

ok, now i see, you’re simply an idiot.

you want to claim that the “poem” represents faith and wonder, and at the same time claim it as “factual truth”??

make up your mind.

as to the “factual” content of your statements about wobbling and spin and the creation of elements…

if the earth wobbled, you would have no physical sense that it does. know why?

as to elements.

starstuff.

your own arguments from incredulity strain my own.

Comment #89277

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 25, 2006 4:22 PM (e)

What say you, is it not true that we don’t know how or why hydrogen and oxygen came into existence

Um, no that is not true. We do know how hydrogen and oxygen came into existence.

And Fred Hoyle should have won a Nobel Prize for discovering it.

As a scientist

Let me guess —– an engineer. Right?

Comment #89283

Posted by Moses on March 25, 2006 5:18 PM (e)

Comment #89080

Posted by Glenda on March 25, 2006 01:28 AM (e)

I’m astonished at the stupidity of posts here in response to an Innocent poem penned by an Innocent human being. Did anyone consider that this person is not the least bit interested in science, but instead is interested in the poetry of the workings of our universe? Nothing this person wrote is untrue. This is a poem guys. Grow up and smell the roses. Let’s all try to table our irrational contempt of the faithful for a moment and rewrite the post in plain english [sic]:

The theory of evolution cannot explain everything about the universe.
For example, how did hydrogen and oxygen come to be and why can they form water so easily on earth and yet seem so rare everywhere else we look?
And how does gravity work so consistently throughout the university that men can walk on the moon with the same motion as on the earth without worying [sic] about sudden changes in Newton’s laws?
The earth itself spins at precisely the right frequency needed to prevent undampened oscillations or wobbles that we would easily feel - dizzying undulations - why is this the case?

Granted that the poetry isn’t the best, but that’s all is is. It does take a bit of imagination to think this way - a certain respect for nature and awe at her doings. Apparently none of you have either (imagination or respect, that is).

I’m astonished at your stupidity and grandiosity. Well, no I’m not. There’s no poetry in that woman’s screed. It’s about superstition, hate and ignorance disguised in self-righteousness. Which you support in your idiotic creationist drivel comments and self-righteous indignation.

Comment #89319

Posted by Zero on March 25, 2006 9:34 PM (e)

Great news: God’s wife is pregnant!

Who’s gonna have the baby shower?

Zec 14:17 And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the

earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall

be no rain.

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun,

and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Rev 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be

delivered.

Her husband said in Jhn 16:21, “A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because

her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no

more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.”

Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of

iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.

It’s not over till the fat lady (pregnant wife) sings.,

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold,

thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon

an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
She said, “If I come back, I’m comin’ as a man. My husband rests every seventh
day. He sits on his ass, but woman’s work is never done.”
Rev 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might

fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times,

and half a time, from the face of the serpent. (She’s a stay-at-home mom.)

It’s all about family.

Zero

Comment #89423

Posted by Timothy J Scriven on March 26, 2006 11:59 PM (e)

This has got to be intentional, there’s no way anyone could be so stupid.

Comment #89424

Posted by Timothy J Scriven on March 27, 2006 12:01 AM (e)

I mean evolution is about the simplest core scientfic idea there is, how could anyone misunderstand it like THIS!

Comment #89440

Posted by Zero on March 27, 2006 8:32 AM (e)

Comment #89423
Posted by Timothy J Scriven on March 26, 2006 11:59 PM (e)

This has got to be intentional, there’s no way anyone could be so stupid.

Comment #89424
Posted by Timothy J Scriven on March 27, 2006 12:01 AM (e)

I mean evolution is about the simplest core scientfic idea there is, how could anyone misunderstand it like THIS!

Zero

xxxxxxxxxxx

Tim, what is “THIS?”

Comment #89448

Posted by Dizzy on March 27, 2006 9:31 AM (e)

I’m astonished at the stupidity of posts here in response to an inocent poem penned by an inocent human being.

And I’m sure we’re all astonished by the sheer hypocrisy of statements like this. Unfortunately, it’s not just limited to a few internet boards. N.B. according to your definition, my first sentence above was “poetry,” i.e. expression of awe.

Maybe you should look up “poetry” in a dictionary, and while you’re at it, look up “innocent” and “literal” for spelling purposes, too.

What say you, is it not true that we don’t know how or why hydrogen and oxygen came into existence

No, it’s not true. Someone explained that to you 45 minutes before you posted that (again). Also, every eighth grader I know understands that this is the realm of physics, not biology.

I know it wobbles, you moron, but if the earth’s spin were just a little more or a little less we probably would’t want to live here.

And this is based on…what? The idea that if our days were slightly longer or shorter than ~24 hours there would be no life on our planet? Please explain.

Ignorance comes from an inability (stupidity) or unwillingness (laziness) to acquire knowledge. It’s funny how the stupidest and laziest among us seem to be the most eager to call others “stupid.”

Comment #89450

Posted by k.e. on March 27, 2006 9:37 AM (e)

Zero
maybe Tim means THIS “this”

THIS is the meaning of life.

should be up your ally ;)

Comment #89698

Posted by brightmoon on March 27, 2006 8:46 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #89702

Posted by brightmoon on March 27, 2006 8:56 PM (e)

btw i was concerned about that NY bill because so many other states are currently flooding their state assemblies or the senate with these IDC bills …..

as far as that specific bill that NY asemblyman IDiot keeps changing the language …and ive noticed that in some of the other state bills as well …..theyre REALLY trying to push this crap thru so that it’s legal and it seems to me that they are trying to spread ALCU (and scientists/educators who are able to testify in these cases) thin

i really wish i could actually do more to fight this superstitious claptrap

Comment #89712

Posted by KL on March 27, 2006 9:36 PM (e)

“And this is based on…what? The idea that if our days were slightly longer or shorter than ~24 hours there would be no life on our planet? Please explain.”

I second that. The earth didn’t always have a 24 hour rotation interval-it used to be shorter.

Comment #89788

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 28, 2006 12:10 AM (e)

btw i was concerned about that NY bill because so many other states are currently flooding their state assemblies or the senate with these IDC bills …..

It’s just grandstanding. The people who introduce these bills KNOW that none of them will pass – most of them won’t even get out of committee. That’s not why they introduce them — they’re just a sop that they can throw to the fundies so they keep those checks and votes coming.

The fundies are just suckers. (shrug)

Comment #89812

Posted by k.e. on March 28, 2006 12:57 AM (e)

Kim said in reply to:
“And this is based on…what? The idea that if our days were slightly longer or shorter than ~24 hours there would be no life on our planet? Please explain.”

I second that. The earth didn’t always have a 24 hour rotation interval-it used to be shorter.

Well THAT would explain where all the EXTRA time came from. No wonder man invented gods, he had all that EXTRA time left over because the days got longer.

Man those fundies, all they need to do is sit down and think for a few minutes and they figure it out all by themselves!

Comment #95596

Posted by Mark on April 8, 2006 4:09 PM (e)

What you have effectively done is created a straw man argument. I have never heard this argument before and I hope to never hear it again. Just because a newspaper prints uneducated comments doesn’t mean that this is the majority viewpoint. In fact, I would be willing to say that they pick the less educated responses just to make the creationists look bad. And guess what? You’re perpetuating the problem.

Hey did you guys know about the whole “evolution of the developing fetus” argument? Wikipedia. For those who don’t know, it says that humans develop a tail and gills in their developing process. It was disproven long ago (although the theory survives today in a much, much more subdued manner, read the article). I keep hearing it from sources that should be more educated: textbooks, movies, etc., even though it’s not regarded as a decent theory anymore. Yep, it’s not just creationists who use old and/or bad arguments.

This is your brain on evolutionism. Be afraid.

Comment #95598

Posted by steve s on April 8, 2006 4:19 PM (e)

No Mark, we’ve never heard about this ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’ stuff. Wow! Thanks for the link! There’s so much we could learn from you!

Comment #95647

Posted by Mark on April 8, 2006 8:40 PM (e)

Steve: from reading this article, I can rightfully assume that there are people who made it through grade school that lack a basic grasp of common sense. I figured a little background information wouldn’t hurt. :-P

Comment #95649

Posted by Bennyp on April 8, 2006 9:04 PM (e)

What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to say that because of this one ‘creationist’s’ ignorance, that all ‘creationists’ are ignorance? That is fallacious reasoning, something I’ve found the ‘evolution-only’ camp to be quite adept at.

Comment #95650

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 8, 2006 9:27 PM (e)

Are you trying to say that because of this one ‘creationist’s’ ignorance, that all ‘creationists’ are ignorance?

no, I think that you’re doing a fine job of that all by yourself.

Comment #95656

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on April 8, 2006 10:27 PM (e)

Why have a bunch of nutters suddenly decided to invade a two-week-old thread …. ?

Comment #95661

Posted by mclaren on April 8, 2006 10:53 PM (e)

The only possible comment on statements this insanely foolish and ignoran is “[expletive deleted].”

And these are the people who run Congress and the White House. Boy, that explains a LOT.

Coming soon: “Evolution explains so little. It doesn’t explain why Joanie loves Chaci. It doesn’t explain how those little candies get into the Pez dispenser. It doesn’t explain why my couch makes a creaking noise when I sit on it.”

Wait…I shouldn’t say stuff like that. It has a way of coming true…

Comment #95669

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 8, 2006 11:55 PM (e)

It doesn’t explain why Joanie loves Chaci.

mate choice theory, subset of sexual selection, subset of natural selection, subset of evolutionary theory.

works for me.

Comment #95717

Posted by TJ on April 9, 2006 12:56 PM (e)

It would be great if most people here in the US could explain why these questions are naive.

As a former science teacher, I have to say … alas, they couldn’t.

While evolution has nothing to say about water, chemistry and astrophysics have a great deal to say about it. All of which is backed up by careful observation.

It’s great that people have other points of view on how things are. It’s only when they try to impose them on others that there’s a serious problem. We’re now in that, twilight, zone.

Comment #95808

Posted by David on April 9, 2006 11:40 PM (e)

If you are so sure God doesn’t exist why have you filled up pages talking about how you know He doesn’t exist? How come you are waisting time trying to persuade people. Why do you live inside of a society instead of do whatever you want. If after this life you believe that’s it, well, you sure are making some dumb choices spending time posting stuff on the Internet.

Comment #95810

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 9, 2006 11:55 PM (e)

If you are so sure God doesn’t exist why have you filled up pages talking about how you know He doesn’t exist?

oh? where do you see us talking about how god doesn’t exist? I thought we were talking about scientific theories vs ideology.

How come you are waisting time trying to persuade people.

why did you come here? Who is trying to persuade who again?

Why do you live inside of a society instead of do whatever you want.

what’s the price of eggs in outer mongolia?

If after this life you believe that’s it, well, you sure are making some dumb choices spending time posting stuff on the Internet.

so sayeth the person posting stuff on the internet. did you think you will be able to continue posting nonsense on the internet after your life is over? Otherwise, it must have been a complete waste of time for you to post what you just did, right?

Comment #95911

Posted by jim on April 10, 2006 3:52 PM (e)

Very funny. I love stupid. Makes me feel right smart.

Comment #95915

Posted by BWE on April 10, 2006 5:08 PM (e)

Most people familiar with religious debates will have certainly come across Pascal’s Wager at some point or another. The general formation of this is as follows:

God exists or does not exist, and you can wager for or against this belief. This gives you four possibilities:

1. God exists, and you believed.
2. God exists, and you did not believe.
3. God does not exist, and you believed.
4. God does not exist, and you did not believe.

The pay offs for this wager after you die are as follows:

1. Infinite (ie, you go to heaven)
2. Negatively Infinite (ie, you go to hell)
3. Nothing (no afterlife).
4. Nothing (no afterlife).

It is generally assumed that the pay offs before you die are insignificant either way. Thus we end up with the following total pay offs:

God: Some infinite value.
Disbelief: Some negative infinite value.

Therefore, the argument follows, that you should believe, because in that case you have a shot at an infinite payoff in heaven, whereas if you don’t believe, you get nothing or a spell in hell.

This is all well and dandy. But having demonstrated that Pastafarianism is a religion, we need to introduce this additional complication into the scenario, which I shall call Pasta’s Wager.

1. God exists, and you believed in God.
2. God exists, and you believed in the FSM.
3. God exists, and you did not believe.
4. FSM exists, and you believed in God.
5. FSM exists, and you believed in the FSM.
6. FSM exists, and you did not believe.
7. Neither God or FSM exists, and you believed in God.
8. Neither God or FSM exists, and you believed in the FSM
9. Neither God or FSM exists, and you did not believe.

In order to calculate the pay offs, we need to understand what some of the tenets of Pastafarianism are regarding belief and disbelief:

1. The FSM’s Heaven is way better than your gods - because it features a beer volcano and stripper factory.
2. Every Friday is a religious holiday.
3. The FSM takes care of and loves all his creations, not just his followers - so everyone goes to heaven.
4. Flimsy moral standards.

This helps us work out the pay off for when you die:

1. Infinite value (you go to God’s heaven)
2. Negatively infinite value (you go to God’s hell) or infinite value (God lets you into heaven as you believed in a deity and merely got the details wrong) - thus averaging nothing
3. Negatively infinite value (you go to God’s hell)
4. A finite value (you go to FSM heaven but get annoyed about the stripper factory and beer volcano because of your strict moral standards, thus not an infinite pay off)
5. An infinite value plus a finite value (you go to FSM heaven and enjoy the beer and strippers too)
6. An infinite value plus a finite value (you go to FSM heaven and enjoy the beer and strippers too)
7. Nothing
8. Nothing
9. Nothing

As we can plainly see, the pay off for believing in the FSM is the same as the pay off for believing in God. It should also be nothed that the pay off for disbelief improves in Pasta’s Wager too:

God: A single infinite value plus some finite value
FSM: A single infinite value plus some finite value
Disbelief: Some finite value

Therefore to decide between the two best results, we need a tiebreaker of some sort. This is the pay off before death.

1. You believe in God - difficult moral standards to meet, few religious holidays.
2. You believe in the FSM - easy moral standards to meet, plus every Friday as a religious holiday.
3. You do not believe - whatever moral standards you decide upon (usually humanism), plus no religious holidays at all.

So what is the pay off for these? It seems obvious to me that the followers of the FSM get the best payoff in the Wager prior to death, and just as good a payoff as the believers in God afterwards.

Therefore, Pasta’s Wager suggests that you should believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster - not only is the pay off in the wager better, but the beliefs themselves aren’t as silly as those in other religions, and you get to talk like a pirate too :-D

http://www.pure-virtual.org/ian/PermaLink.aspx?guid=0b52cc66-1e2d-47aa-96b7-ef7b561d58d5

So there

Comment #96002

Posted by Griff on April 11, 2006 2:05 AM (e)

The thing that makes me the most crazy about what the original letter writer wrote is this bit at the end:

I find it much easier to believe that Genesis tells us the truth of the creation when we know from God’s own Word that nothing is impossible for him to do.

Circular Reasoning: see Reasoning, circular. The bible says that god wrote the bible, therefore god wrote the bible because the bible says that god wrote the bible.

Do these morons honestly not see the ridiculousness of this argument?