Dave Thomas posted Entry 2701 on November 6, 2006 01:37 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2693

It certainly has been a rough few days for disgraced Rev. Ted Haggard, quoted by AP/MSNBC as saying

The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem… I am a deceiver and a liar. There’s a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life.”

Why mention this on the Thumb? Because Haggard is also a barnstorming “Goo to you by way of the Zoo”-style creationist. As proof, I submit this 6-minute YouTube video that looks to be part of Richard Dawkins’ BBC television series “The Root of All Evil.” The appearance of Rev. Haggard in this series was mentioned on the Thumb waaaay back on Jan. 12th, 2006 by commenter Dean Morrison.

Anyway, watch this 6-minute YouTube clip to see just how really smarmy and oily Haggard can be when he’s not trying to explain his sexcapades.

Hat Tip: Thanks to Raw Story

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 #142818

Posted by Raging Bee on November 6, 2006 2:23 PM (e)

Evolutionist admits to being “not at all surprised.”

Comment #142832

Posted by Glen Davidson on November 6, 2006 3:35 PM (e)

Yes, it’s called homophobia, Haggard. You’d do better with science than ancient proscriptions to understand yourself and humanity.

I think that the lying part is what matters most here. We have odious people on our side, including liars and deceivers. But when you’re open to the meaning of the evidence you simply don’t have any reason to lie concerning origins, and the rest of science (including the psychology of homosexuals). This is why one needs to be honest about science, for it at least gives a person a foothold in the world of truth (small-t truth, naturally), and perhaps will lead to truthfulness about oneself (doesn’t always happen, certainly).

Too much can be made of Haggard, nonetheless it is true that lies lead to more lies, which is essentially the history of the ID movement. The lies must stop somewhere.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Comment #142843

Posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on November 6, 2006 4:36 PM (e)

Thanks for that. It was interesting. Despite Haggard’s obvious difficulties in understanding basic science, the guy interviewing comes across as sarcastic and mean-spirited. I’ve seen this before in debates, and it’s a shame. I think we can make a much greater impact in convincing the general public of the truth of evolution if we are polite and kind in our interactions, even with those who are so immensely lacking in understanding. The average guy on the street is probably not going to go with where the evidence leads, sadly. They’ll go with the person they like the best- the person who appears to be the nicest.

Comment #142844

Posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on November 6, 2006 4:38 PM (e)

Thanks for that. It was interesting. Despite Haggard’s obvious difficulties in understanding basic science, the guy interviewing comes across as sarcastic and mean-spirited. I’ve seen this before in debates, and it’s a shame. I think we can make a much greater impact in convincing the general public of the truth of evolution if we are polite and kind in our interactions, even with those who are so immensely lacking in understanding. The average guy on the street is probably not going to go with where the evidence leads, sadly. They’ll go with the person they like the best- the person who appears to be the nicest.

Comment #142861

Posted by Peter on November 6, 2006 6:36 PM (e)

That guy interviewing him is Richard Dawkins. I think it was a bit mean-spirited of him to say the bit about Goebbels and Nuremberg to Haggard but if you watched the enrapt audience, I don’t think it’s an unfair comparison. It’s just undiplomatic. Then again, how can you be diplomatic with the willfully ignorant.
It really irked me to watch Haggard lecture Dawkins about selectivity regarding science when he had just espoused how selective he is by regarding the entire Bible as never self-contradictory. That’s some disastrous (non)selectivity. “I believe in all of it even if the first two chapters of the first book contradict eachother.”
*stunned looks from close readers*

Comment #142862

Posted by Peter on November 6, 2006 6:38 PM (e)

That guy interviewing Haggard is Richard Dawkins. I think it was a bit mean-spirited of Dawkins to say the bit about Goebbels and Nuremberg but if you watched the enrapt audience, I don’t think it’s an unfair comparison. It’s just undiplomatic for Dawkins to say. Then again, how can you be diplomatic with the willfully ignorant.
It really irked me to watch Haggard lecture Dawkins about selectivity regarding science when he had just espoused how selective he is by regarding the entire Bible as never self-contradictory. That’s some disastrous (non)selectivity. “I believe in all of it even if the first two chapters of the first book contradict eachother.”
*stunned looks from close readers*

Comment #142863

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 6, 2006 6:51 PM (e)

I think we can make a much greater impact in convincing the general public of the truth of evolution if we are polite and kind in our interactions

Alas, the general public doesn’t know a prokaryote from a pachyderm, and doesn’t really care, either. (shrug) But then, the anti-evolutioners are not, have never been, and never will be, about science. It’s a political movement, and it has virtually nothing to do with science. And since people are not won TO creationism through science, they won’t be won AWAY from it by science either. No matter how politely it’s explained to them. Anti-evolution (by whatever name) is theocratic politics. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. It can only be beaten the same way every *other* political movement is beaten — by out-organizing it. We can talk “science” to people until we are purple in the face, and it just doesn’t help. It’s simply not what this fight is all about.

As for the fundies, they don’t listen to polite people. It doesn’t feed their martyr complex. (I am totally serious. Just ask Mr Suttkus about his little experiment online …. . )

I am *never* polite to fundies. I am also never polite to Klansmen, neo-Nazis, or Leninists. And all for the very same reasons. I see no need whatever to make nice-nice with them. Instead, my openly-proclaimed aim is to destroy them utterly as an effective political movement – to disrupt their organizations, to cut off their funding, to provoke as much internal dissent amongst them as I can, and to laugh at them savagely at every opportunity.

This is not a badminton match. It’s a boxing match. Punches will be thrown, teeth will be knocked out, and blood will spatter the walls. And in the end, one side will walk away, and one side won’t.

People who don’t want to get their hands dirty with a bare-knuckled political fight like that, had best seek some other intellectual past-time.

Comment #142865

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 6, 2006 6:55 PM (e)

It certainly has been a rough few days for disgraced Rev. Ted Haggard

Prediction: he will give his teary televised “I have sinned, forgive me !!!” speach, all will be forgotten, and within six months he’ll be right back to fleecing his flock, just like Bakker and Swaggart.

Hovind will do the same, as soon as he gets out of jail.

Fundies are chumps. Every one of them. (shrug)

Comment #142880

Posted by AnthonyK on November 6, 2006 7:56 PM (e)

Yup, Professor Dawkins does indeed come across as somewhat arrogant in this clip, and indeed in parts of “The God Delusion”. But he isn’t arrogant - he’s mad as hell and he is quite right to be so. For too long people like him, and me, and the rev Dr Lenny have have sat silently by while these appalling idiots say exactly what they want (well, not you Lenny) and we’ve been driven to understand that we must act, and speak, and confront these f___wits.
Expect to see Dawkins, and Sam Harris, and others yet to emerge be fully as strident against the hypocrisy of Haggard and others as they are against us.
And, BTW, the RD website www.richarddawkins.net really rocks and so far without the trolls that beset PT (not too much) and talk origins (sadly too much) - try it out.

edited for foul language - dt

Comment #142882

Posted by Anton Mates on November 6, 2006 8:08 PM (e)

Ted Haggard wrote:

The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem… I am a deceiver and a liar. There’s a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life.

Well, Ted, why don’t you take care of the “lies and deceit” problem by telling family, friends and flock whenever you feel attraction to a man or a hankering for illicit substances in the future? Then they can help you stay on the path of righteousness, and you can show them just how common these feelings are even in the most godly of folk.

Comment #142888

Posted by fnxtr on November 6, 2006 8:45 PM (e)

It’s kinda sad really. In a sane world, Haggard would just say “I’m gay/bisexual. Deal with it.”

Comment #142906

Posted by Altair IV on November 6, 2006 10:12 PM (e)

It never ceases to amaze me how people can fall so readily and so completely for hucksters like this. Even back when I was nominally religious I recognized that the evangelical movement was mostly just a scam. Yet millions of people eat this stuff up.

Tell me, is there any major evangelical leader left in the U.S. who hasn’t been outed for a “transgression” of some sort?

It sure feels good when one of these hypocrites gets exposed for what they really are. If only their followers would get a clue from it.

Comment #142908

Posted by Gary Hurd on November 6, 2006 10:41 PM (e)

Well, this is also an excellent object lesson that homosexuality is not an exclucive either/or practice, nor a simple “life style” choice.

Comment #142909

Posted by Parse on November 6, 2006 10:44 PM (e)

Fnxtr, the reason why he can’t say “Just deal with it” is because one of his major talking points is about how homosexual relations are evil, and are a blasphemy in the eyes of God. Any people who partake in them are the worst degree of sinner.

Seems a bit odd that those who are most vocal about the evils of homosexuals often are homosexual…

Comment #142914

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 6, 2006 11:11 PM (e)

Seems a bit odd that those who are most vocal about the evils of homosexuals often are homosexual…

actually, it shouldn’t be all that surprising. they likely come from very repressed households, and basically would be “excommunicated” from their peers if they voiced any reasonable arguments in opposition to the extremeist viewpoint.

this kind of thing gets constantly reinforced in millions of fundiebot households around the US, resulting in the constant spew of homophobia.

to survive in that environmnet, someone who really IS gay would have to quickly learn to compartmentalize.

when they have to do it to the extreme level we see in Haggard’s case, you get an extreme desire to do anything to counter the repression in private.

I imagine having sex with hookers and snorting meth is just scratching the surface of Ted’s private life.

yes, the point is the insanity involved in the repressive and ingorant peer groups and family groups to begin with, not that folks like Ted end up junkie whores.

of course, try to tell that to some redneck fundiebot gaybasher, and he’ll think you’re just some screaming liberal anti-US pussy, that should be run out of “their” country on a rail.

go figure.

Comment #142916

Posted by Gary Hurd on November 6, 2006 11:27 PM (e)

Seems a bit odd that those who are most vocal about the evils of homosexuals often are homosexual…

Not really. It is called in old school psychotherapy “resistance” or “avoidance,” transactional therapy language used different words for the same thing. I don’t really know, but I will guess that even scientology has some sort of term for the same thing.

I have thought for many years that the biblical author Saul/Paul was a homosexual. Most OT biblical injunctions against homosexuality stem from the “temple cleansing” in 2 Kings 23.7 which actually refers to ritual prostitution. This was common in all Mesopotamian temples, and was an early practice in the Bethel, and Jerusalem temples as well. It was strongly polytheistic, and the montheists grouped it with all the other annathamas. Paulist writing merely extended these earlier texts.

Comment #142939

Posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on November 7, 2006 12:42 AM (e)

Peter-

I think actually Dawkins was coming across mean a number of other times in the clip- just in general tone and demeanor.

Flank-

I was once a Literal Creationist. I saw the Light in undergrad studying biology, as I was progressively convinced of the evidence. What I’m saying is I can feel where these guys are coming from. I agree that people won’t be convinced away from Literal Creationism through science- I mean I was, but most won’t be. That’s my point. Yeah, I’m angry with the way the Fundamentalists respond to science, how they are lying and cheating their way to convince people and denying science. I don’t like how I was treated. Yes, we need to start going on the offensive, and not pull our punches, in our arguments. But it’s not about convincing the Fundamentalists, just as it’s not about convincing the Hard Right or the Hard Left in this upcoming election. It’s about convincing the unconvinced, the undecided. And unless they have a scientific background, and precious few of them do, they’re going to be convinced by personality, by someone being nice, rather than the logic of their arguments. I’ve seen debates between an evolutionist and a Discovery Institute guy. The evolutionist had all of the evidence on his side. But he was obnoxious, mocking, and sarcastic the entire time. And the audience went with the ID guy. I was almost convinced- just because the guy for our side was so mean-spirited. We can’t underestimate the value of our approach, as well as the ideas themselves. Ethos is as important in convincing as logos.

Comment #142992

Posted by Peter Henderson on November 7, 2006 6:31 AM (e)

That guy interviewing Haggard is Richard Dawkins. I think it was a bit mean-spirited of Dawkins to say the bit about Goebbels and Nuremberg

Yup, Professor Dawkins does indeed come across as somewhat arrogant in this clip

Peter,Anthonyk, I think Richard Dawkins probably has every right to be angry with the creationists. You may be unaware of what they did to him in 1997:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm

I still think he (Dawkins) should take them to court.

Comment #142999

Posted by Peter on November 7, 2006 6:52 AM (e)

I think that Dawkins had every right to be inflammatory given the spectacle he just watched. It was Nurembergish. Goebbels could have learned a thing or two there if only through the integration of massive film screens and how to use informality. The Creationists who visited him before suck. Those people, though, are/were not Haggard or his “flock.”
It’s clear that Haggard’s response was over-the-top. Look at his body language, the sneering and listen to the tone of his voice. He was definitely trying to intimidate Dawkins and there is no sense in Dawkins trying to feign diplomacy with a would-be Ayatollah who is clearly (at least the way the film was edited) interested in picking a fight. Dawkins was absolutely correct to retort, “Excuse me. But did you say ‘By accident?’” and then follow that with, “I don’t know a single scientist who believes that” and “You obviously don’t know anything about science.” Those statements are factually correct and Haggard, like way too many power-hungry deceitful leper messiahs (thanks Metallica) moves the goal posts around and changes the argument that he clearly couldn’t win (Biblical inerrancy and consistency) by making it about Dawkins arrogance.
Whether or not Dawkins is arrogant (a claim often directed at him that seems fairly accurate) is irrelevent when he is:
a) invited to a “fight” and
b) correct.
We can investigate everyone of the claims each of them made and learn, quite easily, that Dawkins’ claims are verifiable and that Haggard’s are, at best, highly questionable.
I am somewhat with Lenny on this one. This is a boxing match and sometimes, your boxing might turn into more of a fight in the octagon. We should be as diplomatic as possible in every case where it is worthwhile, but sometimes idiocy needs to be mocked for what it is and not treated with simpering wussitude. That will only make IDiots and YECers believe that we are limp-wristed (read: not gay) liberals. F*** that.

Comment #143017

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 7, 2006 7:36 AM (e)

Don’t worry. Haggard is going to be counciled by James Dobson. That will fix everything!

Comment #143020

Posted by Peter on November 7, 2006 7:42 AM (e)

Sorry about all of those type-os. I was in a hurry to go vote.

Comment #143032

Posted by Flint on November 7, 2006 8:05 AM (e)

In a way, I feel sorry for Haggard. By the time his body let him know that (a) he had homosexual desires; (b) it was totally unexpected and involuntary; and © there wasn’t anything he could do about it because it’s permanent and irreversible, he had already been permanently brainwashed into “knowing” that such people were sinners who “choose” evil.

What we’re seeing, at least what I think I’m seeing, is someone with directly opposing, hardwired requirements, trying to reconcile them. It tells me that no amount of sincere (not to mention desperately urgent) effort can overcome biological demands, and no degree of intransigence of those biological demands can penetrate the certain knowledge that they are NOT intransigent inculcated through early indoctrination.

Ted Haggard is a wonderful illustration of what happens when biology wars with brainwashing, and ONE of them must be abandoned. The result is a lifetime of confusion, misery, and deceit. Creationism is, by the time of puberty, no more open to choice than biology.

Comment #143037

Posted by steve s on November 7, 2006 8:31 AM (e)

Religion is mostly harmless. But in cases like this it leads to real anguish.

Comment #143039

Posted by Raging Bee on November 7, 2006 8:36 AM (e)

Just ONCE, I’d like to see one of these Christofascists come out and say, “I’m gay, I’m sorry I tried to cover it up and thus deceive everyone around me – and by the way, I learned a little something from all this, which is that if an upstanding Christian like me can be gay, maybe those homosekshuls aren’t such evil perverts after all, and maybe we should save our righteous rage for people who are REALLY dangerous, like child-abusers, polluters, and hucksters who get paid for bearing false witness against their neighbors…”

Hey, a guy can dream, can’t he?

Comment #143042

Posted by Flint on November 7, 2006 9:11 AM (e)

Raging Bee:

and by the way, I learned a little something from all this, which is that if an upstanding Christian like me can be gay, maybe those homosekshuls aren’t such evil perverts after all

But this was exactly my point. If they said any such thing, they would KNOW that they were lying. By the time the brain “sets up” with creationist doctrine, it is *permanent*. Haggard is yet another living proof (out of many such illustrations) that what you dream might be learned, CANNOT be learned. The hardwiring is no longer subject to change even under the most direct and overwhelming refutation.

Haggard has spent and will continue to spend his life knowing that he is an evil pervert, and unable to change either his perversion, or his conviction that it IS perversion. You don’t “unlearn” that sort of indoctrination anymore than you “unlearn” sexual orientation.

Comment #143045

Posted by Raging Bee on November 7, 2006 9:42 AM (e)

Flint: I disagree. The biggest obstacle to learning (or to admitting what one has learned) is not “hardwiring” (a word that carries a certain amount of prejudice); it’s peer-pressure: If Haggard had said what I dreamed him to say, he would have been instantly, quietly, disowned by everyone he “grew up” with; and it is this threat of ostracism that kept him living the lies for so long. To use Bruce Springsteen’s wording, there’s the “darkness on the edge of town,” and getting shoved out into this darkness is, at best, a form of death, to be avoided at all costs.

That’s why I dream of the occasional televangelist wingnut showing the bravery Jesus should have given him: every such admission weakens the peer-pressure, and makes honesty a little easier for future generations.

Comment #143052

Posted by khan on November 7, 2006 10:36 AM (e)

I wonder which closeted mega-church evangelist is going to be the first to infect his wife with AIDS.

Comment #143056

Posted by Flint on November 7, 2006 10:54 AM (e)

Raging Bee:

I hear you, but I don’t offhand know of any way to resolve this. My sense has always been that people like Haggard really do not have any choice. Sure, peer pressure would force him to do some zero-based reconstruction of his life, since he would surely be rejected (as you say) by everyone he’s ever known. And even knowing that he’d have earned the deep respect of a great many people he hasn’t met personally is small consolation.

But internalizing the recognition that homosexuality is neither sinful nor choosable after all? I can’t help doubting that this is possible. I suspect there are cases of creationism that are exactly as incurable as sexual orientation. Yes, you can control yourself to the extent of not acting on these things, but they’re still there.

(I smoked for 33 years, and 6 years ago I quit. The claim that I am now a “nonsmoker” is absurd - I want a cigarette every moment of every day. I believe this condition is permanent. I can SAY I’m cured, but I can’t say it honestly.)

Comment #143097

Posted by Peter on November 7, 2006 1:56 PM (e)

Flint,
This is getting off-topic but I smoked for 10 years and am now a high-level amateur XC bike racer. 10 years isn’t 33 but it’s a long time. I don’t crave smoking and I used to smoke Lucky Strikes when I worked in a plastic factory. (Wow I’m glad I went to school and beyond.) People can move away from these maladaptive practices but they require large shifts in daily behaviour that might be awful for some time.
I think that you are taking too hard a line or maybe overgeneralizing. I suppose I’d like some actual data.
Perhaps what you mean is that some people have been so brainwashed into believing Creationist doctrines that they cannot possibly logically unpack those beliefs without genuinely and (possibly) irreparably damaging their identities and psyches so it’s easier for them to maintain their worldview than dismantle it and begin anew? Much like scientologists are the hardest to remove from their belief system or Mormons leaving TLS? I think it’s clear that it can be done, it just might be dangerous to the identity make-up of the individual.
Am I understanding you? Am I moving in the right direction?

Comment #143100

Posted by Raging Bee on November 7, 2006 2:13 PM (e)

Seems a bit odd that those who are most vocal about the evils of homosexuals often are homosexual…

Reminds me of a dialogue from the movie Victor Victoria (as recounted from old and fading memory):

James Garner: “You CAN’T be gay! You’re the toughest sonofabitch in town!”

His newly-out Bodyguard: “When you’re gay, you HAVE to be the toughest sonofabitch in town.”

Comment #143112

Posted by fnxtr on November 7, 2006 2:51 PM (e)

Peter:

“Leper Messiah” is from Bowie’s “Ziggy Stardust”.

- Mr. Tidy Bowl.

Comment #143118

Posted by fnxtr on November 7, 2006 3:01 PM (e)

Parse:

Fnxtr, the reason why he can’t say “Just deal with it” is because one of his major talking points is about how homosexual relations are evil, and are a blasphemy in the eyes of God. Any people who partake in them are the worst degree of sinner.

Which is why I said ‘in a sane world’. Haggard has in his mind the false dichotomy that you can’t be both gay and Chrisian. Heck, I know straight, agnostic people (mostly women, which may or may not be relevant) who have trouble reconciling their drives with their morality. Must be agonizing for this man.

If he was programmed from day one in the fundie mode, he’d have as hard a time rejecting the anti-gay paradigm (lifestyle choice?) as he’s had repressing his sexuality.

Comment #143122

Posted by Don't be hateful on November 7, 2006 3:20 PM (e)

The statements by Flint, Toejam and Raging Bee, etc. are interesting, because it appears that you are all completely ignorant of what it means to be a religious believer and asribe all sorts of false motives and draw all sorts of false conclusions.

It’s not propaganda or peer pressure or “hardwiring”; they simply believe that homosexual activity is sinful, regardless of who does it or why. And since this isn’t a conclusion reached by objective reason, but by revelation, there really is no definative, objective or reasonable argument that says that they are wrong to consider it sinful. (You may think it is not a sin, but there is no objective measure, so you can no more right about the issue than they are. You may also think that there is no rational reason to even believe in “sin,” but they don’t believe that rational thinking is everything.)

And when someone is, in their view, afflicted with the temptation toward homosexuality, that is not sinful, in and of itself. It is only when that person gives in to those temptations that it is sinful.

If you want to understand them, you must first learn why it is they think the way they do. Otherwise, just be bigots and call them names and drop any pretense.

Comment #143123

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 7, 2006 3:27 PM (e)

It’s not propaganda or peer pressure or “hardwiring”; they simply believe that homosexual activity is sinful, regardless of who does it or why.

it’s not innate or learned, it simply “is”

If you want to understand them, you must first learn why it is they think the way they do.

…and yet, by your own admission, you have no clue as to why it is that they “think” the way they do. they just “do”, right?

hilarious.

you give us a perfect case example of denial acting as a defense mechanism, with a nice bit of concern trollishness thrown in for good measure.

thanks.

Comment #143125

Posted by Flint on November 7, 2006 3:42 PM (e)

Peter,

Maybe that’s what I’m saying; I’m not sure about all that stuff. I notice that creationist doctrines are impervious to education, information, or evidence. I notice that when creationists attempt to “defend” their positions, they are profoundly dishonest. The misquote and ignore the corrections, they change the subject or vanish. They misrepresent and are immune to any and all attempts to get them to represent honestly.

And when they are backed into a corner and grow tired of claiming persecution and vanish, we notice that eventually they return making word for word the original claims, as though the entire exercise had never happened. Just wander over to ABC and watch AFDave spend over 200 pages dodging the questions and ignoring the corrections.

Now, whether there’s a difference between my notion of hardwiring (i.e. that certain things learned at very early ages become indelible as the brain ages) and your notion of damage to identies and psyches, I really don’t know. What evidence I can glean from all these discussion groups is that sexual orientation and creationism are EXACTLY as permanent. They seem, by the age of puberty, equally biological in some sense.

Look at this guy claiming that these things result from “revelation”. Which just happened to be “revealed” during toilet training. And by now, they can no more change their delusions than they can wet the bed in their sleep deliberately. Beyond a certain age, these things simply can’t be unlearned.

Comment #143130

Posted by Coin on November 7, 2006 4:28 PM (e)

they simply believe that homosexual activity is sinful, regardless of who does it or why. And since this isn’t a conclusion reached by objective reason, but by revelation, there really is no definative, objective or reasonable argument that says that they are wrong to consider it sinful… they don’t believe that rational thinking is everything

Wait, I’m confused. You’re telling us that people who hate homosexuality are inherently irrational, act without reason, and base their decision solely on the belief that they talk to ghosts– and therefore we shouldn’t criticize their position?

Geez, the way you put it, you’re making the evangelicals sound even worse than Raging Bee or Flint did.

Comment #143134

Posted by Peter on November 7, 2006 4:36 PM (e)

fnxtr,
“Leper Messiah” may well be David Bowie but the sixth track from Metallica’s 1986 release, Master of Puppets is “Leper Messiah.” Metallica are not Bowie fans. An example of convergent evolution perhaps.

Comment #143152

Posted by GuyeFaux on November 7, 2006 5:46 PM (e)

.It’s not propaganda or peer pressure or “hardwiring”; they simply believe that homosexual activity is sinful, regardless of who does it or why

Wtf? Is this an attempt at sarcasm? I think this qualifies for fundamentalist contradiction of the year.

Comment #143158

Posted by the pro from dover on November 7, 2006 6:51 PM (e)

more interesting space debris from the Centennial State (that’s Colorado to you flatlanders). It sez right here in the Denver Post that “early organisms dined on haze”(whether it was purple isn’t mentioned) It seems that mixed CH4 and CO2 with some uv rads could have resulted in “a haze of energy rich organic chemicals that could have rained down on primeval organisms growing on the earth surface.” Gentlemen I give you manna from heaven. Just like it says in the Bible! You can check it out at khuman@denverpost.com. To Gary Hurd: I think the psychological defense used by Ted Haggard is called “reaction Formation” Regardless he’s nothing more than the Rock Hudson of the Elmer Gantry set. And to Khan,you don’t infect anyone with AIDS, you infect them with HIV. To don’t be Hateful: I’d like to alter one of your remaks:”It’s not propaganda, peer pressure or hardwiring, they simply believe that evolution is wrong regardless of the mountain of evidence supporting it.

Comment #143197

Posted by Fernando Magyar on November 7, 2006 8:39 PM (e)

I found this little gem of a quote at:

http://www.spcc-storrs.org/blog/archives/community_blog/general/current_events/ted_haggard/

“It’s a good thing when sinners continue to oppose sin, even if they are still struggling with sin in their own lives…Sometimes, hypocrisy is what allows sinful people to be decent while they try to do what’s right.”

You can read the whole column here: “Hypocrites are us” (Terry Mattingly)

Any thoughts? Yeah! Ha haha hahahaha haaaahaaahaaaa!

Comment #143325

Posted by Don't be hateful on November 8, 2006 9:38 AM (e)

it’s not innate or learned, it simply “is”

No, dumbass. I said it’s not “propaganda or peer pressure,” not that it isn’t learned. You should really learn how to read.

…and yet, by your own admission, you have no clue as to why it is that they “think” the way they do. they just “do”, right?

Wrong. It seems you can’t think or read. I made no such admission, because I have kept an open mind and learned, in part, why it is they think the way they do. (Theoretically, at least. I’ve never been a religious believer, so I don’t know first hand.)

The whole point of my post is to say that YOU should learn why it is that they think the way they do. That way you wouldn’t look like a complete ass to anyone who has even passing familiarity with the mindset.

you give us a perfect case example of denial acting as a defense mechanism, with a nice bit of concern trollishness thrown in for good measure.

“Denial as a defense mechanism.” I see your grip of psychology is as blinkered as your reading and thinking skills. Since I am an atheist, I have no need for such a defense mechanism.

But, I do have a respect for the truth. And your approach – reaching an ill informed conclusion that someone is a victim of propaganda or peer pressure or whatever else you stupidly stated – is simply wrong. You don’t even have the first clue about what it is you are commenting on. You are just exercising your bigotry.

Comment #143346

Posted by Christopher Letzelter on November 8, 2006 11:48 AM (e)

Altair IV wrote:
“Tell me, is there any major evangelical leader left in the U.S. who hasn’t been outed for a “transgression” of some sort?”

Yeah, Dobson. In any discussion of adultery/homeosexuality/pedophilia etc., he blames pornography as a major cause - even when the offender never mentions pornography. So, I’m expecting to hear about a discovery of Dobson’s huge porno stash any day now.
Chris

Comment #143348

Posted by Raging Bee on November 8, 2006 12:01 PM (e)

It’s not propaganda or peer pressure or “hardwiring”; they simply believe that homosexual activity is sinful, regardless of who does it or why.

So if that belief didn’t come from propaganda, peer pressure, OR “hardwiring,” then where DID it come from? Is this another “poof-goddidit” argument?

And yes, we know what they believe. And we simply believe it’s NOT a sin, and that there’s no good reason to believe it is. We do, however, consider hypocricy and false witness to be sins, or at least wrong.

…there really is no definative, objective or reasonable argument that says that they are wrong to consider it sinful.

Thre’s the objective fact that hatred of homosexuality, and teaching homosexuals to hate an integral part of themselves, does more harm than good – and more harm than homosexuality itself – to innocent people. This is not a mere matter of opinion – we’re seeing it with our own eyes every day. Bigotry is more harmful to people than homosexuality – not to mention more contrary to the explicit teachings of Jesus.

Comment #143352

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 8, 2006 12:30 PM (e)

Altair IV wrote:

Tell me, is there any major evangelical leader left in the U.S. who hasn’t been outed for a “transgression” of some sort?

Billy Graham seems to have kept himself relatively clean. His wikipedia article doesn’t have much controversy at all, other than some antisemitic remarks in the seventies, and even there he has one of the better apologies I’ve seen and would have to go leaps and bounds to reduce himself to the standard level of antisemitism found among some of his compatriots.

Other than that, it’s far easier to come up with a list of caught than clean, isn’t it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_evangelical_Christians

Comment #143370

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 8, 2006 2:08 PM (e)

The whole point of my post is to say that YOU should learn why it is that they think the way they do. That way you wouldn’t look like a complete ass to anyone who has even passing familiarity with the mindset.

perhaps you don’t even understand what you wrote?

when you tell someone else THEY should learn something about it, when you yourself haven’t the slightest clue, that’s concern trolling.

understand now?

oh, and BTW, since you apparently haven’t the slightest clue where fundies get these attitudes from, how do you come to the conclusion that it isn’t innate (uh, that’s what “hardwired” means), or from constant parental or peer instruction?

I can show lots of data supporting the contention that these homophobic attitudes are ingrained in the exact words fundies use to teach their kids (parents, preachers, and friends all use the same terminology). You could too, if you bothered to actually spend 5 minutes looking for it.

if you don’t think a stituation where a child is constantly exposed to homophobic ideology relates to propaganda and peer pressure, perhaps it’s yourself that should improve your reading comprehension skills?

as to innate, have you seen the studies suggesting a genetic component to extreme religious behavior? did you need links?

so, before you extoll us “close minded” folk to learn about something you haven’t the slightest clue about yourself, perhaps you should stop and think before you put your foot in your mouth over and over again?

Comment #143371

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 8, 2006 2:14 PM (e)

oh, btw, your handle “don’t be hateful” is entirely ironic given your posts so far.

a bit more self reflection would be warranted, methinks.

Comment #143417

Posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on November 8, 2006 8:38 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'url'

Comment #143418

Posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on November 8, 2006 8:41 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'url'

Comment #143419

Posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on November 8, 2006 8:43 PM (e)

Don’t Be Hateful wrote

“And since this isn’t a conclusion reached by objective reason, but by revelation, there really is no definative, objective or reasonable argument that says that they are wrong to consider it sinful…(You may also think that there is no rational reason to even believe in “sin,” but they don’t believe that rational thinking is everything.)”

I’d disagree on two points. One, most people would except that sin exists, whether or not they feel comfortable with that term. Sin is just doing what’s inappropriate- and everyone feels that there are certain things that are inappropriate, and most of us can agree on most of what we would consider inappropriate. (i.e. murder, cheating, stealing- all wrong.)

I’d also disagree that there’s no way to convince someone who considers homosexuality wrong because it’s what the Bible says. You can convince them if you argue from the Bible- i.e. that the text says something different than what they think, or if the text needs to be interpreted in a different manner. It’s just arguing from beyond the text won’t convince them.

Altair also wrote “Tell me, is there any major evangelical leader left in the U.S. who hasn’t been outed for a “transgression” of some sort?”

Besides those mentioned, also Jim Wallis (sojo.net) and Tony Campolo.

Comment #143481

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 9, 2006 7:45 AM (e)

Jedidiah Palosaari wrote:

…and most of us can agree on most of what we would consider inappropriate. (i.e. murder, cheating, stealing- all wrong.)

The problem with saying that is that A) all of those terms include “incorrect {action}” in their meaning and B) none of us likely completely agrees on what actions constitute murder, cheating or stealing.

For the first: You say murder is wrong. Fine, but if I kill someone attacking my wife, have I committed murder? Few would say I don’t have the right to defend my family.. Murder isn’t killing, it’s “incorrect killing”. Just like stealing is “incorrect taking” and cheating is a more generic “incorrect action”. If I pull the gun out of someone’s hand as they try to commit suicide, few would argue I’ve committed a crime. It’s not incorrect taking. Thus, each of your terms includes “incorrect” in their meaning and your argument is circular, “We agree that incorrect killing is incorrect”.

For the second: We don’t all agree on what constitutes incorrect actions. If I reduce taxes by using a loophole, am I cheating or cleverly using the system to it’s maximum potential? You’ll hear arguments both ways. Some would even argue that killing to defend my own life is murder. The debate about eminent domain in the US shows that we don’t agree what constitutes incorrect taking either.

Comment #143494

Posted by Roger on November 9, 2006 11:56 AM (e)

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong but the fact he had brought into the light some of the most darkest secrets in his life was very courageous. He knew that he would get persecuted and put down. He is repenting of his wrongs. You aim to point out the wrongs in his character. The fact is we are all sinners and some have deeper secrets than others. We all have lied, yet this man is courageous enough to be accountable for all the wrong he is done. How often do you see people stop pointing fingers, stop placing blame on others, and finally take responsibility for all the hurt and damage they have caused. Or confess secrets they felt would ruin their relationships. I am not here to preach but, evolutionists–I challenge you. You give all the arguments for evolution but how much have you researched the other side of the argument? Yes, you have evidence and science books, scientists investigating the origins of life. God has always been a radical thought even in the days of Jesus’ times. Only a few believed he was the Son of God and faced the reality of persecution and death. Same as today, only a few truly believe and would die for their convictions. But once again I challenge you, to swallow your pride, pick up a Bible, start in the New Testament with the Book of John, and see what it does to you. I am a Biological Sciences major and I have taken classes on evolution and many classes in biology biology so, I am aware of the evolutionist standpoint. I challenge you once again, if your ideas don’t change let me know. As for Mr. Haggard, he is human like the rest of us. We can give eachother titles and positions but at the end of the day that, when we are alone no title really matters. A day will come, when we will all be judged and take account for all the things we have done in our life (Rom14:10). Then you will realize, that being an evolutionist or a reverend won’t really matter. This may all seem very fuzzy right now but once again I challenge you to decide for yourself by investigating the other side of the argument.

Comment #143495

Posted by Roger on November 9, 2006 11:57 AM (e)

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong but the fact he had brought into the light some of the most darkest secrets in his life was very courageous. He knew that he would get persecuted and put down. He is repenting of his wrongs. You aim to point out the wrongs in his character. The fact is we are all sinners and some have deeper secrets than others. We all have lied, yet this man is courageous enough to be accountable for all the wrong he is done. How often do you see people stop pointing fingers, stop placing blame on others, and finally take responsibility for all the hurt and damage they have caused. Or confess secrets they felt would ruin their relationships. I am not here to preach but, evolutionists–I challenge you. You give all the arguments for evolution but how much have you researched the other side of the argument? Yes, you have evidence and science books, scientists investigating the origins of life. God has always been a radical thought even in the days of Jesus’ times. Only a few believed he was the Son of God and faced the reality of persecution and death. Same as today, only a few truly believe and would die for their convictions. But once again I challenge you, to swallow your pride, pick up a Bible, start in the New Testament with the Book of John, and see what it does to you. I am a Biological Sciences major and I have taken classes on evolution and many classes in biology biology so, I am aware of the evolutionist standpoint. I challenge you once again, if your ideas don’t change let me know. As for Mr. Haggard, he is human like the rest of us. We can give eachother titles and positions but at the end of the day that, when we are alone no title really matters. A day will come, when we will all be judged and take account for all the things we have done in our life (Rom14:10). Then you will realize, that being an evolutionist or a reverend won’t really matter. This may all seem very fuzzy right now but once again I challenge you to decide for yourself by investigating the other side of the argument.

Comment #143496

Posted by Roger on November 9, 2006 11:59 AM (e)

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong but the fact he had brought into the light some of the most darkest secrets in his life was very courageous. He knew that he would get persecuted and put down. He is repenting of his wrongs. You aim to point out the wrongs in his character. The fact is we are all sinners and some have deeper secrets than others. We all have lied, yet this man is courageous enough to be accountable for all the wrong he is done. How often do you see people stop pointing fingers, stop placing blame on others, and finally take responsibility for all the hurt and damage they have caused. Or confess secrets they felt would ruin their relationships. I am not here to preach but, evolutionists–I challenge you. You give all the arguments for evolution but how much have you researched the other side of the argument? Yes, you have evidence and science books, scientists investigating the origins of life. God has always been a radical thought even in the days of Jesus’ times. Only a few believed he was the Son of God and faced the reality of persecution and death. Same as today, only a few truly believe and would die for their convictions. But once again I challenge you, to swallow your pride, pick up a Bible, start in the New Testament with the Book of John, and see what it does to you. I am a Biological Sciences major and I have taken classes on evolution and many classes in biology biology so, I am aware of the evolutionist standpoint. I challenge you once again, if your ideas don’t change let me know. As for Mr. Haggard, he is human like the rest of us. We can give eachother titles and positions but at the end of the day that, when we are alone no title really matters. A day will come, when we will all be judged and take account for all the things we have done in our life (Rom14:10). Then you will realize, that being an evolutionist or a reverend won’t really matter. This may all seem very fuzzy right now but once again I challenge you to decide for yourself by investigating the other side of the argument.

Comment #143497

Posted by Roger on November 9, 2006 12:03 PM (e)

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong but the fact he had brought into the light some of the most darkest secrets in his life was very courageous. He knew that he would get persecuted and put down. He is repenting of his wrongs. You aim to point out the wrongs in his character. The fact is we are all sinners and some have deeper secrets than others. We all have lied, yet this man is courageous enough to be accountable for all the wrong he is done. How often do you see people stop pointing fingers, stop placing blame on others, and finally take responsibility for all the hurt and damage they have caused. Or confess secrets they felt would ruin their relationships. I am not here to preach but, evolutionists–I challenge you. You give all the arguments for evolution but how much have you researched the other side of the argument? Yes, you have evidence and science books, scientists investigating the origins of life. God has always been a radical thought even in the days of Jesus’ times. Only a few believed he was the Son of God and faced the reality of persecution and death. Same as today, only a few truly believe and would die for their convictions. But once again I challenge you, to swallow your pride, pick up a Bible, start in the New Testament with the Book of John, and see what it does to you. I am a Biological Sciences major and I have taken classes on evolution and many classes in biology biology so, I am aware of the evolutionist standpoint. I challenge you once again, if your ideas don’t change let me know. As for Mr. Haggard, he is human like the rest of us. We can give eachother titles and positions but at the end of the day that, when we are alone no title really matters. A day will come, when we will all be judged and take account for all the things we have done in our life (Rom14:10). Then you will realize, that being an evolutionist or a reverend won’t really matter. This may all seem very fuzzy right now but once again I challenge you to decide for yourself by investigating the other side of the argument.

Comment #143501

Posted by Raging Bee on November 9, 2006 12:40 PM (e)

The other side of WHAT argument? We’re quite familiar with the other side(s) of the evolution debate – it’s rubbish, and doesn’t stand up EITHER as science OR as a valid interpretation of the Bible.

And stop trying to imply that none of us evolutionists have ever read any part of the Bible. Many of us are Christians, and have been for years; and many Christian churches explicitly accept evolution as valid science, not at all contradictory to Christian doctrine. And they – and we – have been known to discuss the Bible with more coherence than you show in your post.

Comment #143505

Posted by Flint on November 9, 2006 1:23 PM (e)

Looks like Roger doesn’t quite have the hang of this software. Here’s how it works: If you post and it times out or produces an error message or returns but your post doesn’t show up, keep a copy of what you posted. Wait a while. Exit your browser. Return, make a dummy post, and preview it. If your previous post shows up, don’t repost it. If it does NOT show up, and you repost what you saved, it will show up twice. If you don’t repost, it will never show up.

See how easy that is?

Comment #143508

Posted by Coin on November 9, 2006 1:38 PM (e)

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong but the fact he had brought into the light some of the most darkest secrets in his life was very courageous.

Wait, what? He didn’t bring them into the light. A gay prostitute did.

Comment #143515

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 9, 2006 2:46 PM (e)

Coin wrote:

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong but the fact he had brought into the light some of the most darkest secrets in his life was very courageous.

Wait, what? He didn’t bring them into the light. A gay prostitute did.

And then after he was revealed, Haggard bravely lied by denying the whole thing, then bravely admitted only to buying the drugs once, but denied both using them (“I didn’t inhale” echoes in our heads) and using the prostitute. Then, only after it was revealed that he had bought drugs multiple times and his “once” was a complete lie, did he finally, bravely, admitted the truth.

Haggard needs to call Sir Robin and offer to buy his minstrels.

Sir Haggard lied today!
Sir Haggard lied today!
When the facts revealed their ugly head
Sir Haggard bravely turned and fled
Sir Haggard, Sir Haggard, brave Sir Haggard!

Comment #143516

Posted by GuyeFaux on November 9, 2006 2:54 PM (e)

Yes, sexual immorality and deceit are wrong…

No… He’s not a scumbag because he’s gay. He’s a scumbag because he’s a lying homophobic hypocrite.

We all have lied, yet this man is courageous enough to be accountable for all the wrong he is done.

No, not all the wrong he’s done; he’s courageous enough to admit all the things he was caught doing.

Comment #143523

Posted by Jedidiah Palosaari on November 9, 2006 3:56 PM (e)

Michael Suttkus wrote, “The problem with saying that is that A) all of those terms include “incorrect {action}” in their meaning and B) none of us likely completely agrees on what actions constitute murder, cheating or stealing.”

But that’s not my point. Many of us would disagree about exceptions, and find loopholes. But most of us on the planet would agree about general principals- hence we find there is very little difference in the general morality of most religions. Murder is wrong. What constitutes murder will vary on the edges in cultures and among individuals.

Comment #143525

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 9, 2006 4:05 PM (e)

Roger:

I am a Biological Sciences major and I have taken classes on evolution and many classes in biology biology so…

…I’m a true expert on ignoring evidence, defying logic, and appealing to the ineffable to avoid the inevitable.

So there.

Comment #143526

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 9, 2006 4:19 PM (e)

Seeing this lying homophobic creationist overpaid scumbag from the religion industry brought down by his penchant for some particularly crappy powder and a ‘bit of rough’ made me think ‘Perhaps there is a god after all??’

Only there isn’t of course.

I haven’t seen anyone answer the really important question? Is Ted a ‘giver’ or a ‘receiver’ ? or a ‘stone’ or a ‘sponge’ as Noel Coward used to say? Or does he swing both ways?? Now that he’s give to a sudden burst of honesty perhaps he could tell us?

- and is he going to be handing any of the cash he made from fraudulently passing himself off as an upstanding member of the community??

I’ve met Dawkins: he’s a very nice chap and unfailingly polite. That isn’t arrogance - its uncompromising honesty -

Comment #143527

Posted by Roger on November 9, 2006 4:20 PM (e)

Thanks for the helpful note about posting comments. Have I offended you and your beliefs? Individuals like Haggard do give Christians a bad name. But now you have to ask, is he really a Christian? A true Christian is someone who denies himself and carries his cross daily. For those who are only “familiar” with bible, check out Matthew 16:24. It is obvious, that Haggard has not done so and has finally revealed that he has been pretending to do so. When I say read your Bible, I am not talking about simply reading but studying it the way you would any other text. Reflect on each chapter, see how it relates to you. If you study the Bible you will realize that Haggard is not living the life of a Christian or true disciple, therefore cannot represent Christianity in its true form. What it all comes down to is this: FAITH. It takes faith to believe that there is a God because His existence goes beyond any HUMAN logical explanation or understanding. You do not believe because you have no faith. However, you do have a strong faith in the theory of Evolution. No matter how much evidence or how many fossils are uncovered, you will truly never really know if it is your theory is true unless you were there when the world started. It takes faith to believe in the things we do not see. For some, they only believe in what they can see and what they can comprehend. For others, they understand that they will never ever comprehend the mysteries of this world unless they put their faith and trust in God. So let me rephrase, for those who may take on the challenge, do not just read the Bible, study it. If you have any questions just let me know. I would love to be of help.

Comment #143528

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 9, 2006 4:27 PM (e)

Have I offended you and your beliefs?

uh, no, you’ve only been making a fool of yourself so far.

Individuals like Haggard do give Christians a bad name. But now you have to ask, is he really a Christian?

I know he ain’t no Scottsman!

but then, 30 million evangelical christians can’t be wrong, Roger, can they?

Comment #143529

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 9, 2006 4:54 PM (e)

Roger, you seem to have changed your mind about how “Christian” Haggard’s behavior has been in just the last few posts.

You keep telling us to study the other side of the “argument,” and then regale us with Biblical quotations.

This would suggest that you think belief in Christianity is on the other side of an argument with the evidence of evolution.

Most of us here, however, would suggest that the only “argument” of relevance is between Science (the overwhelming evidence for evolution) and PsuedoScience (the hokey hilarity of YEC and ID being foisted upon the ignorant by shills and charlatans who reek of the same sort of hypocrisy you have–somewhat inconsistently–deplored in Haggard).

Religion only finds itself on the wrong side of the argument when it makes the mistake of making “real-world” (as opposed to spiritual) claims that are contrary to the findings of Science.

Which side of this “argument” between Reality and Hypocrisy are you on, again?

Comment #143531

Posted by GuyeFaux on November 9, 2006 5:03 PM (e)

…you will truly never really know if it is your theory is true unless you were there when the world started. It takes faith to believe in the things we do not see.

Coming from someone who “wasn’t there” when they crucified Jesus, that’s particularly damning.

And (to plagarize someone’s great example), I you’ve never seen your kidneys either but I bet you’re pretty sure it’s there.

Also, you weren’t there when Rome fell but you’re pretty sure that there was a Roman empire.

Look, there are lots of great reasons to read the Bible. Getting a science lesson isn’t one of them.

Comment #143551

Posted by Roger on November 9, 2006 7:41 PM (e)

Sir Toejam, you think that I am fool because you do not understand me. You have yet to read the bible and you are so quick to ridicule me. Does evolution/science give you guidance to how you should treat people or how to the love them, or why you should not judge them. The Bible does. Read this passage before I answer your second question about the 30 million “Christians”.

The Narrow and Wide Gates
13”Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The religious world is filled with Hypocrisy. They put tradition before God and because of that few can find any kind of inspiration or guidance from their religion. If you study the Bible, you find out that being religious and having good deeds is not enough for you to get through the narrow gate. I am not a hypocrite because I study the Bible everyday and I follow its commands. I have given up all the deceit, sexual immorality, hatred and so forth that use to reign supreme in my life. I am no longer a slave to my own desires but I am now a slave to serving others.
T
o GuyeFaux, of course I was not present when Jesus died and I have faith that I do have kidneys. But the effects of his death are still being felt 2000 years later. Do you have science texts written thousands of years ago that give a scientific basis for our existence? Show me.

SteviePinhead–My faith and conviction tells me that Haggard is not a Christian. So, using him as evidence against creationism is useless. His character has nothing to with the fact that God created the world or not. He is however another reason to be weary about the religious world. I am not arguing in favor of the religious world. When I think about all who are being misled, I am deeply saddened. But to avoid all religious pitfalls and hypocrisy, I have made the Bible my doctrine and my rock. There is not a day that goes by that I don’t study it.

Before I go, is there anything in your life that you would die for? Would you die for the idea of Evolution so that world will know how strongly you felt about it?

Comment #143553

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 9, 2006 8:13 PM (e)

Sir Toejam, you think that I am fool because you do not understand me.

no…

I think you a fool because of the things you have said here, period.

if you don’t want to be seen as a fool, stop saying foolish things.

simple.

The religious world is filled with Hypocrisy.

plank/eye/you/first

Comment #143554

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 9, 2006 8:19 PM (e)

GuyeFaux, of course I was not present when Jesus died and I have faith that I do have kidneys. But the effects of his death are still being felt 2000 years later.

I hear Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” is stil a big influence too.

The death of the Buddha still has an effect, and to more folks than Jesus.

ever thought that maybe life should have more effect on you than the death of someone you didn’t even know a couple thousand years ago?

bottom line, you have nothing to go on other than somebody else telling you his death was important, for it to actually be important to you.

seems a rather empty way to live.

If you wanted an imaginary friend, why not invent something more interesting?

I hear unicorns and dragons are popular.

Comment #143555

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 9, 2006 8:23 PM (e)

Before I go, is there anything in your life that you would die for?

another martyr is born.

do you remember who denied jesus 3 times before morning in the story?

did you ever wonder why the story of the denial of jesus was included?

Jesus didn’t want martyrs in his name, but you seem more than willing to sacrifice yourself for “the cause”.

Methinks you might make a great suicide bomber.

good luck with that.

Comment #143557

Posted by Coin on November 9, 2006 10:38 PM (e)

Roger, congratulations on learning how to use linebreaks!

Comment #143561

Posted by BWE on November 10, 2006 12:04 AM (e)

Roger,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Comment #143572

Posted by Darth Robo on November 10, 2006 4:38 AM (e)

“Would you die for the idea of Evolution so that world will know how strongly you felt about it?”

Dying for evolution would be the same as dying for gravity - it ould be pretty silly. No-one has “faith” in evolution.

So since you have admitted that you were wrong about Haggard and what people here were saying about him, why are you still preaching to us from the Bible? You seem to be generalizing that all “evolutionists” are non-believers. Some ARE believers, even here at the Panda’s Thumb. Our aim is not to complain about religion, but anti-science. So why preach here?

“Evolutionist”. My other religions include “Gravitationalism”, “Spherical Earthism”, “E=MCsquaredism”, “Man DID land on the moonism”, “Brick walls might hurt if I bang my head against themism”…

Comment #143580

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 10, 2006 7:36 AM (e)

Darth Robo wrote:

“Evolutionist”. My other religions include “Gravitationalism”, “Spherical Earthism”, “E=MCsquaredism”, “Man DID land on the moonism”, “Brick walls might hurt if I bang my head against themism”…

Sadly, Brick-walls-might-hurt-if-I-bang-my-head-against-themist churches have broken up over a squabble of interpreting the holy writ. The internecine conflict began over whether “ouch” should be written plainly and if exaggerated “oooouuuucccchhh!” should be regarded as heresy.

Comment #143581

Posted by Darth Robo on November 10, 2006 8:22 AM (e)

Oh, I’m definately a heretic! ;)

Comment #143585

Posted by Flint on November 10, 2006 9:06 AM (e)

Sadly, Brick-walls-might-hurt-if-I-bang-my-head-against-themist churches have broken up over a squabble of interpreting the holy writ.

My reading is, the squabble is over whether it’s the brick walls that will hurt, or whether it’s your head. Not that there’s any possibility of ambiguity in the scripture of course - each side considers the other to be Absolutely Wrong.

Comment #143586

Posted by GuyeFaux on November 10, 2006 9:29 AM (e)

GuyeFaux, of course I was not present when Jesus died and I have faith that I do have kidneys.

I don’t want to quote mine you here, so surely you’re not saying that your faith in Jesus’s divinity is the same as your faith that your kidneys exist?

But the effects of his death are still being felt 2000 years later.

This is true. So what? How does it inform us about evolution?

Comment #143608

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 10, 2006 1:13 PM (e)

Roger wrote:

I have given up all the deceit, sexual immorality, hatred and so forth that use to reign supreme in my life. I am no longer a slave to my own desires but I am now a slave to serving others.

I believe Ted Haggard used to say very much the same sort of thing Roger, and 30 Million people were prepared to take his word for it.

Scientists tend to want to see a little evidence before taking stuff at face value.

Incidentally:

Numbers 22:28

http://www.thebricktestament.com//the_wilderness/balaams_talking_donkey/nm22_28.html

Balaam’s talking Donkey

As you read your bible very carefully Roger - perhaps you’d like to explain what that is all about. We are meant to treat it seriously are we?? Presumably we only have Balaam’s word for it that his Donkey started to talk (assuming the Donkey was saying nothing to back him up. You notice God seems a bit inconsistent here, he keeps changing his mind about whether he wants to let Balaam go off to do some cursing.

Roger ‘the bible’ is an interesting scrapbook collection of myths, stories, family trees, with a little homespun wisdom thrown in. Unfortunately it’s not a cracking good read, and most if it is just filler. People from the religion industry like Haggard have to really twist it to tell the folks what they want to hear, and conveniently leave out the inconvenient and boring stuff.

I suggest you go and read it - I mean from the beginning to the end - not just the bits people tell you to read.

For the rest of us a good short cu to the funy and ridiculous bits can be found here:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Comment #143621

Posted by Flint on November 10, 2006 2:24 PM (e)

This is true. So what?

It’s much more accurate to say that tales of his death are still influential.

Science, being based on observation, is hostage to the quality of those observations. Acutely aware of this, the first thing any scientist asks about a claim addresses the observations themselves - how were they taken, what equipment (if any) was used, could they be replicated? Could the same results be obtained by observing differently? Are the observations both reliable (the same each time they are taken) and valid (they are what we think they are)?

Scientific researchers, working at the margin of the unknown, are perpetually blind men scoping out elephants. The available “evidence” in support of the tales that create Jesus wouldn’t even come close to passing even minimal reliability or validity tests. On the contrary, they are dead ringers for fiction from multiple perspectives.

This isn’t to argue that fiction can’t be powerful or important. Only that assumptions have a lousy track record of filling in the gaps observation doesn’t supply. Especially since false assumptions taken for granted become real, physical memories so damn easily.

Comment #143622

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 10, 2006 2:33 PM (e)

One of these days, I’m going to have to try that “slave of my own desires” thing. It sounds like fun.

Until then, I guess I’ll stick to serving humanity by rebuking creationism and other lies and trying to keep the world safe for science.

Comment #143672

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 10, 2006 5:53 PM (e)

Hey Roger, since you’re here to preach at everyone (whether they like it or not, apparently), I have a simple question for you before you go ona ny further.

*ahem*

What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly makes your (or ANY person’s) religious opinions more (or less) authoritative than anyone else’s. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my pizza last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn’t seem to be any potential source of such knowledge that isn’t equally available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else’s. Are you more holy than anyone else? Do you walk more closely with God than anyone else? Does God love you best? Are you the best Biblical scholar in human history? What exactly makes your opinions better than anyone else’s? Other than your say-so?

Is it your opinion that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible? Sorry, but I simply don’t believe that you are infallible. Would you mind explaining to me why I SHOULD think you are? Other than your say-so?

It seems to me that your religious opinions are just that, your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Can you show me anything to indicate otherwise? Other than your say-so?

Comment #143673

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 10, 2006 5:56 PM (e)

Hey Roger, since you are obviously such a Biblical expert and all, I have another simple question for you:

*ahem*

Exodus 22:18 “Suffer not a witch to live”.

My questions:

(1) do you think supernatural witches exist?

(2) if so, do you think they should be executed?

Comment #143674

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 10, 2006 5:59 PM (e)

I have given up all the deceit, sexual immorality, hatred and so forth that use to reign supreme in my life. I am no longer a slave to my own desires but I am now a slave to serving others.

(sigh) No WONDER everyone thinks fundies are self-righteous, pride-filled, arrogant, holier-than-thou (literally) pricks.

Comment #143688

Posted by fnxtr on November 10, 2006 11:27 PM (e)

…and while we’re at it…
Where did Cain’s wife come from?

Comment #143690

Posted by Henry J on November 11, 2006 1:07 AM (e)

Maybe Cain was abel to find a spare rib someplace?

Comment #143695

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 11, 2006 6:04 AM (e)

heres one for you Roger:

Proverbs 18:2-3

2 A fool finds no pleasure in understanding
but delights in airing his own opinions.

3 When wickedness comes, so does contempt,
and with shame comes disgrace.

and one from me:

- stick that in your pipe and smoke it……

Comment #143725

Posted by Craig L on November 11, 2006 4:21 PM (e)

Roger…it is no use…they are blind and wish to remain so. I would ask that you, as a brother in Christ, would join me in leaving this forum and praying for these people - that God might open their eyes and that they would see the truth of the Gospel of Christ. The questions only bring more questions - to then bring more and to waste everybody’s time.

1 Corinthians 15:1-7 KJV 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

He’s alive! Repent and trust in Christ…

Matthew 16:24-26 KJV 24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

No more questions…

Comment #143732

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 11, 2006 4:53 PM (e)

No more questions…

Gee, for some odd reason, every fundie I’ve ever run into, says this eventually ……

(snicker) (giggle)

Comment #143733

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 11, 2006 4:56 PM (e)

praying for these people - that God might open their eyes

Meanwhile, some of us will be praying that God turns you into less of a self-righteous pride-filled prick who thinks (quite literally) that he’s holier than everyone else, and that you stop driving people away from religion by making it look silly, stupid, arrogant, uneducated, backwards, medieval, and pig-ignorant.

Comment #143741

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 11, 2006 5:44 PM (e)

Roger…it is no use…they are blind and wish to remain so.

thanks for adding to my huge database of creationists who employ projection.

so far, projection is a value associated with every creationist I’ve ever seen write a sentence. Not limited to creobots, of course, but certainly an identifying characterstic, like mammals having warm blood.

at this rate, the statistical significance would be overwhelming even with a much smaller dataset than the one I have currently.

Comment #143753

Posted by Da Man on November 11, 2006 8:12 PM (e)

Is anyone here going to heaven when they die??

Comment #143754

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 11, 2006 8:17 PM (e)

Is anyone here going to heaven when they die??

Well, if the fundies that I’ve met in my life are all going to be in Heaven, I’d very much prefer to be in Hell. The very THOUGHT of spending eternity with those prideful pricks is enough to turn my stomach.

Comment #143762

Posted by Da Man on November 11, 2006 9:57 PM (e)

You did not answer my question.

Comment #143766

Posted by Anton Mates on November 11, 2006 11:33 PM (e)

Da Man wrote:

Is anyone here going to heaven when they die??

You did not answer my question.

Perhaps you should ask someone else, someone with access to actual evidence about the afterlife. Unfortunately, no one on Earth is qualified in this regard, so you’ll need to travel the galaxy looking for one of those omniscient disembodied alien types. Good luck with the stardrive.

Comment #143768

Posted by k.e. on November 12, 2006 3:17 AM (e)

Da Man wrote:

Is anyone here going to heaven when they die??

You did not answer my question.

Perhaps you should ask someone else, someone with access to actual evidence about the afterlife. Unfortunately, no one on Earth is qualified in this regard, so you’ll need to travel the galaxy looking for one of those omniscient disembodied alien types. Good luck with the stardrive.

Yeah if they can get that stardrive running at 2008 times the speed of light they might catch up to Jesus Christ himself, at that speed they will have to keep a keen lookout though, they might miss him.

Ah….Jerusalem we have a problem….beep
What is it Prometheus XIII? beep
We seem to have warped the time space continuum near Jesus’ holy soul drive..beep
Holy @#$% Prometheus XIII slam the brakes on… beep
Brakes?… beep

Comment #143769

Posted by Anton Mates on November 12, 2006 4:23 AM (e)

Yeah if they can get that stardrive running at 2008 times the speed of light they might catch up to Jesus Christ himself, at that speed they will have to keep a keen lookout though, they might miss him.

Hey, it almost worked for Superman. He once flew so fast he left the material universe and was about to break into Heaven. The Spectre had to stop him, and then God himself gave him a pep talk.

Meanwhile, God doesn’t give us even a scrap of evidence for His very existence. Stupid divine pro-Kryptonian bigotry.

Comment #143776

Posted by fnxtr on November 12, 2006 6:29 AM (e)

Da Man:

I can’t speak for anyone else, but when I’m dead I expect I’ll stay that way. One life is enough, thanks. Anything else just strikes me as desperately wishful thinking. Silly, really.

Comment #143777

Posted by k.e. on November 12, 2006 6:52 AM (e)

Stupid divine pro-Kryptonian bigotry.

Bloody pro-Kryptonian affirmative action…..we’re being suppressed (snicker)

Comment #143779

Posted by Gav on November 12, 2006 7:29 AM (e)

Roger, Craig L; if you’re still there could you help me out with a couple of queries please?

i. Many times I’ve asked literalist friends and acquaintances for an explanation of why, if the Bible is true because it says it is, this same reasoning doesn’t apply to anything else, for example this posting (which is true). The only kind of answer I’ve had is BECAUSE IT’S THE BIBLE. Now having been brought up on the Bible I’m convinced that we’d all do well to follow the message of the Gospels. But this “it’s true because it says so” is circular reasoning, which is no reasoning at all. Perhaps you could explain this in a different way, one that doesn’t involve quotes from, er, the Bible.

ii. back on thread (sort of), Jesus is reported to have said some quite unambiguous things about Mammon and about hypocrites, but nothing specific about sodomy or drugs. So why is it that the Reverend Haggard and his flock are getting so upset about what appear, from the Gospels, to be entirely the wrong issues?

Comment #143805

Posted by Dean Morrison on November 12, 2006 12:30 PM (e)

Da Man wrote:

Is anyone here going to heaven when they die??

Nah mate - I’m going to do my best to get there while I’m alive - and do all the good stuff I can while I’m able.

When you’re dead: you’re dead.

I’ll have spent my life full of joy, creativity and good stuff, along with an obligatory amount of suffering.

You’ll have wasted yours hoping for something better.

We’ll both be dead.

There are no second chances - so instead of trying to convince yourself you have to worry about the next one - do the very best you can with the one you’ve got:

Matthew 25:15

http://www.discipleship.net/parable/talents.htm

Comment #143834

Posted by Arden Chatfield on November 12, 2006 4:17 PM (e)

Is anyone here going to heaven when they die??

Your question makes many unsupported presuppositions, the primary one being that heaven exists.

Many many people as smart or smarter than you don’t have that presupposition at all.

If you want to cop an attitude that everyone here is going to hell when they die, I would urge you to try and come up with some reason why you’re right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Comment #143846

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 12, 2006 6:57 PM (e)

Gav wrote:

i. Many times I’ve asked literalist friends and acquaintances for an explanation of why, if the Bible is true because it says it is, this same reasoning doesn’t apply to anything else, for example this posting (which is true). The only kind of answer I’ve had is BECAUSE IT’S THE BIBLE.

But it isn’t. Nowhere in the Bible does the Bible state that the Bible is true. The closest you get is the bit in second Timothy, which states that Scripture is inspired by God (but not written, dictated, or even proofread) and good for learning about theology, but fails to explain:

1. What scripture is and how we should identify it (it’s fairly clear that he wasn’t being self-referential to his own writings, so 2nd Timothy is out!)

2. If it’s good for anything else, like learning the history of the universe.

People have disagreed for centuries about which books ought to be considered “scripture” and which aren’t. The Catholics compiled a selection as “the” Bible, then put a bunch of others in a book called “The Apocrypha”. They weren’t under the delusion that their selections should be considered absolutely correct and declared considering the Bible divine a heresy called Bibliolatry. The Catholic Bible was not the first nor the last selection of books to be put into a book called “The” Bible. In fact, the Catholics have two distinctly different versions, neither of which matches the one used by most Protestants (which was selected by Martin Luthor).

So, believing in THE Bible as inerrant and scripture is not faith in God or faith in the Bible. It’s faith in Martin Luthor.

So, to sum up, we have the creationists… having utter faith in the third major selection of “scripture” as THE one correct, divinely inspired selection (God was sleeping through the first two and all the innumerable other minor selections before and sense) and on the assumption that even if it were somehow known to be “scripture”, it would be a good source of the history of the world, even when the Bible fails entirely to make this claim.

In short, creationists have nothing but “My preacher told me!” to support them.

but we knew that.

Comment #143847

Posted by Da Man on November 12, 2006 7:46 PM (e)

Bravo - good answers

Comment #143902

Posted by GuyeFaux on November 13, 2006 10:21 AM (e)

It’s faith in Martin Luthor.

Ok, uhm, just for the record, it’s Martin Luther.

I’m not aware that Martin was related to Lex.

Comment #143904

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 13, 2006 10:35 AM (e)

Ah, yes, my many misspent hours with the four-color vice leaks through again. :-)

Comment #143923

Posted by Anton Mates on November 13, 2006 3:49 PM (e)

GuyeFaux wrote:

It’s faith in Martin Luthor.

Ok, uhm, just for the record, it’s Martin Luther.

I’m not aware that Martin was related to Lex.

Given that Superman was created by a couple of Jewish kids, it would actually make sense…

Comment #143952

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 14, 2006 12:09 AM (e)

Comment # 143551

Roger wrote:

Comment #143551
Posted by Roger on November 9, 2006 7:41 PM (e)
…Before I go, is there anything in your life that you would die for? Would you die for the idea of Evolution so that world will know how strongly you felt about it?

Q) Is there anything in my life that I would die for?
A) Yes, To save my son’s life without question for one. Now I would risk my life more much more then that and the situation would dictate my decision. 6 years in the USMC was more then enough to show me how far I am willing to risk my life for others given an appropriate situation. Note that I’m agnostic and religion or the fear of “God” never has impacted on my decisions concerned with self sacrifice.

Q) Would I die for the idea of Evolution so that the world will know how strongly you felt about it?
A) No. My death would do nothing but show to the world I was a bit of a nut job for killing myself to prove Evolution because my living or death has no impact on the fact that evolution is true.
If you would die for Jesus just to show the world how much you believe in Jesus you need to rethink your understanding of the teachings of Jesus. I also recommend you seek professional help about your suicidal thoughts.

Comment #143953

Posted by Wayne E Francis on November 14, 2006 12:14 AM (e)

Comment # 143572

Darth Robo wrote:

Comment #143572
Posted by Darth Robo on November 10, 2006 4:38 AM (e)
“Would you die for the idea of Evolution so that world will know how strongly you felt about it?”
Dying for evolution would be the same as dying for gravity - it would be pretty silly. No-one has “faith” in evolution.

Ah but there is one thing…Jumping off a building to kill yourself will contribute to the evidence of gravity while it won’t contribute to the evidence of evolution. Evolution still has enough evidence…just that dieing won’t help it. :)

Comment #143957

Posted by Darth Robo on November 14, 2006 4:31 AM (e)

“just that dieing won’t help it.”

Hmmm, not too sure. If I did jump off a building, wouldn’t that be natural selection? :P

Comment #143982

Posted by Henry J on November 14, 2006 12:28 PM (e)

Re “If I did jump off a building, wouldn’t that be natural selection? :P”

I’d think it’d have to be a trend to be significant as natural selection; one individual wouldn’t have all that much affect on the future of the species. ;)

Henry

Comment #144018

Posted by Gav on November 14, 2006 6:03 PM (e)

Jumping off a high building to demonstrate or disprove some theory or other might just put you in the running for a Darwin Award. It would be most apt if the theory in question were the theory of evolution. This might appear to others as irrational behaviour, but that might depend on the circumstances, for example, how important getting an Award was to you, and your reasoned assessment of whether your action would qualify. As an example of someone who might not qualify for an Award: Ibn Battuta tells of seeing a man cut his own head off to demonstrate his loyalty to some far eastern despot or other. This is remarkable but arguably quite rational behaviour - the account suggests that he had reason to hope that his family would be richly rewarded.

Comment #144021

Posted by Coin on November 14, 2006 6:11 PM (e)

Ibn Battuta tells of seeing a man cut his own head off to demonstrate his loyalty to some far eastern despot or other.

That sounds… difficult.

I mean, like, just the pure mechanics of it.

Comment #144025

Posted by fnxtr on November 14, 2006 6:54 PM (e)

Reminds me of a tabloid headline I saw once: “Man Cuts Off His Head With Chainsaw And Lives!”. I loved it so much we used it for an instrumental song title.

Comment #144035

Posted by Evolution? on November 14, 2006 8:00 PM (e)

So do y’all evolutionists also believe that Frosty the Snowman really came to life? I am guessing, YES.

Comment #144037

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 14, 2006 8:20 PM (e)

Alright, who left the door open?

Comment #144039

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 14, 2006 8:23 PM (e)

Boy howdy, Evolution?–that there’s a real poser!

But first, tell me: do you believe any non-living thing or, ahem, no longer living thing–at any time in the history of the world, however long you happen to think that it–has ever “really come to life”?

Or, ahem, “really come back to life”?

Just curious, y’know…

My guess is that, if you’re honest with us–as I’m sure you will be–you will say, YES.

Comment #144040

Posted by Evolution? on November 14, 2006 9:12 PM (e)

If there is a lot of snow around and a magic hat, you just might be in luck.

Comment #144041

Posted by Evolution? on November 14, 2006 9:15 PM (e)

Frosty the Snowman!! Was a jolly happy “piece of matter that came to life”…okay, a little corny but I thought I would add a little evolution DOCTRINE to the song to humor you. Enjoy your responses.

Comment #144042

Posted by Evolution? on November 14, 2006 9:17 PM (e)

Frosty loves you!

Comment #144043

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 14, 2006 9:19 PM (e)

(yawn)

Comment #144044

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 14, 2006 9:28 PM (e)

Enjoy your plastic, er, frankenstein!

It’s oh so easy believing that icky three-day dead corpses can come back to life if they just receive that special *spark*……but oh so hard to believe in a magic hat?

Or in the special magic of a planet covering, tectonically-heated pre-biotic soup?

Where’s this not-exactly-clever chappy gonna take this from here?

Snowball earth?

Comment #144052

Posted by Evolution? on November 14, 2006 9:45 PM (e)

RUN - RUN - KEEP RUNNING!!!

Comment #144053

Posted by Coin on November 14, 2006 9:51 PM (e)

I’ve seen creationists try a lot of different tactics in my time, of various levels of sophistication and efficacy. But I have to say, a creationist trying to disprove evolution by shoving his fingers in his ears and singing “Frosty the Snowman” at the top of his lungs is a new one on me.

Comment #144063

Posted by fnxtr on November 14, 2006 11:03 PM (e)

Evolution?… do you actually have anything to say?

Or are you just a troll?

…(somewhere in the distance, a dog barked)…

That’s what I thought.

Bye, now.

Comment #144069

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 14, 2006 11:46 PM (e)

Oh hell, let the fundies have their fun. After all, their “teach the controversy” scam got the crap kicked out of it in Ohio; all their political supporters were just tossed out of office, en masse; their pal Hovind went to jail; and their other pal Haggard got kicked out on his holy little ass for doing drugs and banging a male hooker.

They’ve had a rough couple of weeks.

So let them sing “Frosty the Snowman” to themselves if it makes them feel better. (shrug)

Comment #144080

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 15, 2006 8:13 AM (e)

Hey, Evolution?, I have a problem.

See, I’ve been trying to believe in creationism for about two decades, but every time I do, the rotten evidence keeps getting in the way. So, if you could do me a small favor, please let me know how the fossils got sorted. I’ve been assured that the sorting results from a Really Big Flood, and that all the species outran the rising flood waters, but this somehow seems to fail to explain how mangroves (ocean shore living trees) made it to the top of the fossil record. Please help me out. Explain how the mangroves all got sorted to the top. Thank you.

After that, you can deal with the rest of the problems listed in the fossil sorting article at EvoWiki. That would be a HUGE help. It’s that evidence stuff that keeps making people believe in evolution, you’re just going to have to deal with it eventually.

Comment #144166

Posted by Evolution? on November 15, 2006 5:41 PM (e)

Your doctrine is skewed and biased against God…all over the world people are being deceived by those who have become reprobate in their thinking - worshiping the creation and not the Creator…Below is what seems to be happening in America - right before our eyes.

Ro 1:19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

We pray that you repent and put your faith in Christ for your salvation.

Comment #144169

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 15, 2006 6:08 PM (e)

Your doctrine is skewed and biased against God

But ID/creationism isn’t about religion. No sirree Bob. (snicker) (giggle)

But hey, junior, since you’re such a, uh, biblical expert and all, I have a question for you.

*ahem*

Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”.

My question is simple: Do you think supernatural witches exist?

“Yes” or “no” will do nicely.

Yes they do, or no they don’t.

Which is it?

Comment #144182

Posted by Evolution? on November 15, 2006 6:34 PM (e)

http://groups.msn.com/thegoodwitchesguidetopaganismandwicca

Just one example…I hear stories of missionaries running into them as well.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live - God commanded Israel as a nation to kill the witches among other offenders of God’s law (adulterers, homosexuals, etc.). They were to be an example to show the purity and holiness of God.

I am not sure if there are any nations that exist today that execute witches, but I would not be surprised.

Comment #144184

Posted by Evolution? on November 15, 2006 6:36 PM (e)

http://groups.msn.com/thegoodwitchesguidetopaganismandwicca

Just one example…I hear stories of missionaries running into them as well.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live - God commanded Israel as a nation to kill the witches among other offenders of God’s law (adulterers, homosexuals, etc.). They were to be an example to show the purity and holiness of God.

I am not sure if there are any nations that exist today that execute witches, but I would not be surprised.

Also, just so you know, the theory of origins, etc…has not been scientifically proven and has gaping holes in it and is open to interpretation. It is sad that these things are presented as fact in science books when there is a huge lack of evidence to support it. It takes great faith to cover all of the huge holes. Science - no…religion - yes.

Comment #144201

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 15, 2006 7:29 PM (e)

Evolution?… I can’t help but notice that I asked you a question about that annoying evidence stuff… and you don’t seem to have answered it. Is it that you cannot address the actual evidence? Do you feel that the evidence is lying to you? Reality is wrong and you are right?

I’m just asking.

Evolution?, I can point you to several people who are homosexuals and/or witches. Will you kill them? God told you to kill them. I am currently wearing a shirt made of two different fabrics in violation of God’s law. Will you kill me? Or are you disobeying God?

Comment #144204

Posted by Evolution? on November 15, 2006 7:35 PM (e)

Well…I cannot answer your question since I have not researched this pariticular topic. But, it certainly would not be a bad thing for you to see what things have been written by those on the side of Creation to see what they have to say. I think you have to look at both sides.

I cannot go and kill people…again, this was a law given to Israel as a nation and these things were to be carried out in a court type setting. There was no freedom for you to just go around killing people. So, I will not kill you =). God gave them these laws for a reason - to make them stand out from the pagan nations around them and to communicate His purity and holiness.

Comment #144209

Posted by fnxtr on November 15, 2006 8:01 PM (e)

So you see, Lenny, MS2, et al, the problem is simply that you haven’t heard the other side of the argument… ever… in the last 20 years…

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

Comment #144212

Posted by Evolution? on November 15, 2006 8:11 PM (e)

I don’t think you need to respond that way. I wouldn’t mind having an adult conversation. So tell me what the Creationists say about this and let’s move on. I do not have all the answers - do you?? How did everything come from nothing?? Do you have the answer to this? Don’t discredit me because I am not all-knowing.

Comment #144216

Posted by fnxtr on November 15, 2006 9:08 PM (e)

Sorry, evolution?

Religious arguments are pointless. You either believe or you don’t.

And there’s very little likelihood that any creation website will have any new arguments that haven’t been beaten to death here several time over.

But do some homework, at least.
Read talk.origins.

Look around this site and the links to pharyngula, aetiology, and others. Try to grasp the sheer volume of information that has been gathered by thousands of individuals over the last couple of centuries, and how it all fits together.

“We don’t know” is not an argument in favour of Creation. It’s an impetus to investigation.

There are those of us who are not content to just shrug and say “Well, I guess God did it.”

Comment #144218

Posted by fnxtr on November 15, 2006 9:12 PM (e)

And by the way, evolution?
The reason no-one took you seriously is that your entrance was typically troll-like.
“Evolution is atheistic!” (runs away).

Comment #144222

Posted by Evolution? on November 15, 2006 9:52 PM (e)

I asked a question - do you know everything? You’ve figured it all out, haven’t you. Everything fits together perfectly. Write a book already. The next time that you accuse someone of not knowing everything, make sure you prove to them how you have come to know everything.

What did all the scientists that abandoned evolutionary theory know that you don’t know?

Comment #144224

Posted by fnxtr on November 15, 2006 10:06 PM (e)

This is getting Pythonesque.
“I came here for a good argument.”
“No you didn’t you came here for an argument.”
etc. etc.

So that wasn’t a rhetorical question? You were really wondering if I know everything? You expect an answer to that? Okay: No.

The difference is: I’m looking for information to get answers, not simply regurgitating chapter and verse.

You see, if I wanted to, I could visit the Alberta Badlands and see the Burgess Shale for myself. Or visit Africa and join the search for early hominids.

These things are *real*. What do you have? Superstition (cue Stevie Wonder).

I didn’t accuse you of anything.

No-one expects you to know everything. But if you’re going to argue here, we expect an educated argument.

Comment #144225

Posted by fnxtr on November 15, 2006 10:10 PM (e)

.. and then Lenny and the boys will probably cream you anyway.

Comment #144237

Posted by Richard Simons on November 16, 2006 12:20 AM (e)

Evolution? said

I asked a question - do you know everything? You’ve figured it all out, haven’t you. Everything fits together perfectly. Write a book already. The next time that you accuse someone of not knowing everything, make sure you prove to them how you have come to know everything.

Presumably by ‘you’ you mean scientists in general. No, no-one claims to know everything. Funnily enough, that is why scientists are still doing research.

No-one accused you of not knowing everything. However, if you are going to launch an attack on 99.99% of the world’s biologists, geologists and other scientists you should have at least some knowledge of the topic. Your earlier comment (‘How did everything come from nothing??’) shows you do not even know what is meant by the Theory of Evolution.

What did all the scientists that abandoned evolutionary theory know that you don’t know?

Perhaps you would care to name just two of the hordes of scientists who have abandoned evolutionary theory and later published anything relevent in a peer-reviewed journal (I accept, there are probably one or two who went gaga in their dotage, just as there are in all fields).

Comment #144246

Posted by Darth Robo on November 16, 2006 3:39 AM (e)

Great, “Doc” Mike Martin comes back from his mission to spend ages saying nothing and now this guy. Since Haggard & Hovind, the nutters seem to be on the defensive. The quality of trolls is going down…

Comment #144256

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:10 AM (e)

Well…I cannot answer your question since I have not researched this pariticular topic.

No sh__. In 20-plus years of creationist-fighting, I’ve never met one yet who knew anything about ANY particular topic. Like you, all they have is their religious opinions, and an arrogant tendency to shoot their big mouths off about topics they don’t understand and don’t know anything about.

That’s probbaly why everyone thinks they are morons.

Comment #144257

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:14 AM (e)

Just one example…I hear stories of missionaries running into them as well.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live - God commanded Israel as a nation to kill the witches among other offenders of God’s law (adulterers, homosexuals, etc.). They were to be an example to show the purity and holiness of God.

I am not sure if there are any nations that exist today that execute witches, but I would not be surprised.

So is that a “yes, supernatural witches exist”, or is it a “no, supernatural witches don’t exist” ….?

(sigh) Just once, ONCE, I’d like to ask a fundie a straightforward question and get a straightforward answer, without having to sit through a dozen performances of the Fundie Two Step first.

How about demons, my fundie friend. Do demons possess people? Can you point to any current person or event who is, in your view controlled or produced by demons?

How about the flying saucers? Creationist authorities Norman Geisler, Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross all claim that flying saucers come from the devil, and are put there by demons to fool good Christians. DO you agree with them? Do flying saucers come from the Devil?

How about Bigfoot? Hovind and others say that the existence of Bigfoot disproves evolution. Do you agree?

I want to see just how nutty you really are.

Comment #144259

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:17 AM (e)

What did all the scientists that abandoned evolutionary theory

Name five.

Heck, name one living biologist – just ONE – who rejects evolutionary theory.

Comment #144260

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:24 AM (e)

By the way, my fundie friend, may I ask by what authority you claim to speak on behalf of God? What makes your particular religious opinions any more authoritative than mine, my next door neighbor’s, my car mechanic’s, my veterinarian’s, or the kid who delivers my pizzas?

You seem to think that not only is the Bible infallible, but YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also infallible. Sorry, my fundie friend, but I simply don’t believe that you are infallible. In fact, I don’t even believe that you are very smart.

Can you give me any reason why I *should* think your religious opinions are infallible? Are you God’s Annointed Spokesman™©? Do you walk closer to God than we mere mortals do? Are you holier than everyone else? Does God love you best?

(sigh) No WONDER everyone thinks fundies are arrogant self-righteous pride-filled holier-than-thou (literally) pricks.

Comment #144262

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:30 AM (e)

I wouldn’t mind having an adult conversation.

Says the guy whose very first post talked about “Frosty the Snowman”.

(sigh)

Junior, you are in wayyyyyy over your head here. You came barging in, shotting your mouth off like a smartass about topics that you don’t understand and don’t know anything about, and you are about to have your head handed to you.

Hopefully, you will learn a much-needed lesson in humility. Next time, maybe you won’t be such an arrogant pig-ignorant prick.

You sound like a 15 year old. Or at least you ACT like a 15 year old. So maybe there’s still time for you to learn that lesson.

Comment #144270

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 16, 2006 8:07 AM (e)

Evolution? wrote:

Well…I cannot answer your question since I have not researched this pariticular topic.

Well, what scientific topics have you researched? I mean, here you ware, rejecting the cornerstone of all modern biology, I have to assume you’ve looked at some serious amounts of evidence, read arguments from both sides, and found at least some evidence against evolution, right?

So, what was it. Tell us all about all the research you did.

Because I’m betting you did no research other than read a few creationist articles, most of which amount to “God said it, I believe it, that’s it.”

(Nevermind that God didn’t say it, the Bible doesn’t say he did, and all you’re working off is the heresy of some literalist idol worshipers…)

Evolution? wrote:

But, it certainly would not be a bad thing for you to see what things have been written by those on the side of Creation to see what they have to say. I think you have to look at both sides.

Have done, thanks. I’ve been debating creationists for over 20 years, almost a decade of which online. I’ve read creationist books and websites. I bet I’ve read more creationist material than you have! There was a time when I hardly made a post without checking half a dozen facts with AIG, CSR, ICR and the lot. I don’t bother so much these days because I could produce a better creationist argument than any of them now. Too bad I’m sufficiently aware of the facts not to bother.

But I notice you don’t live up to your own expectations. See, when I asked the question, I offered you a link to an article covering the creationist arguments on the issue. If YOU had thought “I need to check out both sides!” you would have followed the link and seen that I already KNOW both sides of the argument… and further that your side’s arguments have received an utter shredding.

So, can we conclude that you are personally uninterested in the “read both sides” approach? Kind of hypocritical, don’t you think? What was it Jesus said about hypocrites…

Here’s the link again, just in case you change your mind:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fossil_Sorting

I spent a lot of time writing that and I have yet to hear a single creationist response despite all the times I’ve asked for one. Now, why do you suppose that is…

Evolution? wrote:

I cannot go and kill people…again, this was a law given to Israel as a nation and these things were to be carried out in a court type setting.

Ah, but you feel that our government should execute me for wearing a two-fabric garment. Or only Israel is required to do so?

I find this odd. Is morality an absolute or not? If God orders Israel to kill people who wear two-fabric shirts (two days in a row, I am a radical!) or women who won’t marry their rapists, shouldn’t all godly nations do so? Or is the only reason any act is morally wrong is because God says so, and thus there’s no reason for a non-Israelite to avoid a two-fabric shirt… or committing murder.

Evolution? wrote:

There was no freedom for you to just go around killing people. So, I will not kill you =).

Oh, good. Whew.

Evolution? wrote:

God gave them these laws for a reason - to make them stand out from the pagan nations around them and to communicate His purity and holiness.

And it really communicates purity and holiness when you kill someone for wearing a shirt made of two fabrics.

If God tells me that creationists are heretics and do nothing but serve Satan by heaping ridicule on Christianity, so I should kill them… should I do so?

Comment #144305

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 16, 2006 1:40 PM (e)

Another one of those dummies eh?

Comment #144317

Posted by Gav on November 16, 2006 2:05 PM (e)

Reverend Doctor - I think you’re being unfair, accusing evolution? of not answering your questions. While not explicit, it’s pretty clear from evolution?’s posts that:

- do witches exist? Yes
- should they be killed? - Yes, by due process of law

Very 17th century.

What are the right answers, anyway? I’d suggest:

- do witches exist? Yes of course they do. I met a real witch once when I was doing some field work in Co. Donegal. She lived on her own in a hovel about ½ mile away from our tents. We called her Mrs Cullen, after the powders. It wasn’t her real name but we were afraid to use that. She made soda bread which we used to buy from her. The soda bread was very gritty. We think she used to put grit into the flour to discourage weevils. Later we all went down with diarrhoea. She always seemed pleased to see us and used to cackle horribly. All these things prove she was a witch. A couple of months ago I was hired to play some music at a pagan wedding. The lady officiating claimed to be a witch, but I’m not so sure. She wasn’t in Mrs Cullen’s league, that’s a fact.

- Should they be killed? - Each case on its merits. In Mrs Cullen’s case, the answer’s clearly no (assuming the old biddy is still alive …. she’d be getting on for 150 years old now). Killing someone for putting a diarrhoea spell on you would be a disproportionate response. As regards the other lady - for 2 of the most tedious hours of my life I would take away hers? Let me think about that. Hm, isn’t capital punishment inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings on forgiving people? Maybe we’ll let her off this time.

Comment #144445

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 7:05 PM (e)

Reverend Doctor - I think you’re being unfair, accusing evolution? of not answering your questions. While not explicit …

(interrupting) I’d prefer that it be explicit, actually. If it’s right there in writing, it makes it a wee bit more difficult for them to worm around it later.

After 25 years of creationist-fighting, I’ve come to expect dishonesty and evasiveness from them as a matter of routine.

Comment #144520

Posted by Evolution? on November 16, 2006 9:00 PM (e)

When was the last time you saw a judge forgive a serial killer and let him go. Forgiveness is a personal matter - not a matter of government.

Anyway…you are right - I really need to go out and study up on this myself. I have done some reading but not a whole lot. I have no ill will toward you and your derogatory comments - you know, calling me dummy and other things like that.

I will see y’all later. Maybe you can make more derogatory comments about me now if that will make you feel better.

Good night.

Comment #144522

Posted by Evolution? on November 16, 2006 9:02 PM (e)

Lord - lay not this sin to their charge…
Forgive them Father - for they know not what they do…

Comment #144528

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 16, 2006 9:15 PM (e)

I really need to go out and study up on this myself

Here’s some advice for you, junior — next time, study up on a subject ***BEFORE*** you go barging in somewhere and shooting your uneducated mouth off about it.

You’ll look a lot less like an arrogant pig-ignorant idiot.

Comment #144538

Posted by Evolution? on November 16, 2006 9:32 PM (e)

Thanks…I will remember that.

Comment #144545

Posted by fnxtr on November 16, 2006 9:43 PM (e)

Forgive them Father - for they know not what they do…

Oh, great, now Evolution is comparing himself to Jesus.

Better not let Mikey see that, E?. That’s his domain.

Comment #144547

Posted by fnxtr on November 16, 2006 9:47 PM (e)

viz. comment #144455 in “IRS Claims Kent Hovind’s” etc.

Comment #144611

Posted by Evolution? on November 17, 2006 5:19 AM (e)

Now…see…you lose all credibitlity when you say things like that. You make assumptions of my motives and attempt to make up your own explanation of what I am thinking/saying…Christ is my example and I follow Him and we are commanded to forgive just as Christ forgave. I am hardly comparing myself to Christ - I am a far cry from that.

Comment #144612

Posted by Darth Robo on November 17, 2006 6:16 AM (e)

“forgive them Father - for they know not what they do…”

You actually think Jesus reads Panda’s Thumb?

Comment #144627

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 7:44 AM (e)

You actually think Jesus reads Panda’s Thumb?

of course!

he’s constantly monitoring all the blogs to find out who’s naughty and who’s nice, to add them to that list of his.

or maybe that was some other fictional or dead character?

I get em all mixed up sometimes.

seen one invisible pixie, seen em all.

Comment #144628

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 7:49 AM (e)

a while back Gary said:

Not really. It is called in old school psychotherapy “resistance” or “avoidance,” transactional therapy language used different words for the same thing.

is it my imagination, or are the creobots singlehandedly validating a lot of old school psychotherapy ideas?

projection, ego conflicts, denial, avoidance, displacement….

i find myself referring to old school terminology more and more as it seems to fit the fundie mold so well.

Comment #144629

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 17, 2006 7:51 AM (e)

All these things prove she was a witch

yeah but, did she have a big nose?

did she float?

Comment #144640

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 17, 2006 8:17 AM (e)

Evolution? wrote:

When was the last time you saw a judge forgive a serial killer and let him go. Forgiveness is a personal matter - not a matter of government.

Are judges supposed to be examples of good Christians? Jesus said “Judge not lest ye be judged” not, “Don’t judge unless you’re a civil servant who is actually paid to do so, then it’s okay.”

You seem to be reading a ton of things into the Bible that aren’t there. Then again, that is creationist modus operandi. They have to read into it a pretense of divine inerrancy which it explicitly does not make.

Evolution? wrote:

Anyway…you are right - I really need to go out and study up on this myself. I have done some reading but not a whole lot. I have no ill will toward you and your derogatory comments - you know, calling me dummy and other things like that.

Word to the wise, E?, Point out who you are responding to. Even if you don’t want to make use of the full quote tags to make it look nice, at least specify who and what you’re responding to. I thought the above was in response to me, then you start claiming “I” called you a dummy, which I haven’t, so you’re either confusing multiple people or responding to someone else. Be clear.

I did call you hypocrite, but I stand by that Mr. You-Should-Read-Both-Sides-Before-Arguing-But-I-Haven’t.

Evolution? wrote:

Lord - lay not this sin to their charge…

What sin, E? Pointing out you’re wrong? Pointing out your hypocrisy? Insulting you?

I’m not seeing sins here, unless you feel disagreeing with you is a crime. I hope you’re not going to suggest sin of pride because…

Evolution? wrote:

Forgive them Father - for they know not what they do…

…is purest arrogance on your part, Martyr wanna-be.

Believe me, I know exactly what I do.

Comment #144743

Posted by Evolution? on November 17, 2006 11:18 AM (e)

Just as you ridicule me for my lack of knowledge on the creation/evolution debate (which I have gladly accepted as true - and am going to study more), you have a very huge lack of knowledge with regard to the Bible as well. You pull scripture out of context and read it as it is (you would make a great politician). So, you are wrong on your scripture quoting and interpretation. But, anyway, I have enjoyed speaking with you all. Have a great Thanksgiving and Christmas Season.

Comment #144762

Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on November 17, 2006 12:16 PM (e)

E?: Pointing out facts is not ridicule. You *do* have a lack of knowledge. Am I supposed to not point this out? Am I supposed to not use my knowledge so that I’m on par with your lack there-of?

As for the Bible, please point to where it claims to be divinely inspired, thanks.

And for goodness sakes learn to indicate who you are responding to, E?.

Comment #144779

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 1:32 PM (e)

I think there’s a lot hiding behind this debate than you realize Evolution?. Give me an e-mail sometime, my e-mail is mmartinyale@yahoo.com. By the way, allow me to introduce myself, Dr. Michael Martin, graduate of Yale, PHD in Molecular and Cell Biology, ThM from Talbot Seminary. I have some terrific information that may shock you in regards to this debate. I am a recovered Evolutionist myself, who became a YECS after studying all of the evidence, as well as studying Linguistics and such. Good to meet you.

Dr. Michael Martin

Comment #144781

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 1:36 PM (e)

All I can say is I’ll be praying for Mr. Ted Haggard cause it looks like he needs it right about now. Its really a shame to see this kind of activity out of Evangelists in our society today.

Comment #144783

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 1:38 PM (e)

The Bible claims to be divinely inspired through the use of the principle of sufficient reasoning, and also the use of 2 Timothy 3:16, which states: 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

Now, in proper format, I don’t think it takes a rocket Scientist here to figure out that if its a God-breathed book, then its divinely inspired. As such, this is all we need in determining whether or not the Bible/Scripture is divinely inspired or not.

Comment #144784

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 1:40 PM (e)

And for that matter, God’s logic, is our logic. It just takes a few people a bit longer to figure that out than most.

God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, but in order for the laws of logic to have a proper cause and effect, God is the necessary Creator.

Comment #144785

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 1:41 PM (e)

And guess where that leads us to all us Science buffs here? A finely tuned universe that is 100% coherent and sensible!

Comment #144786

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 17, 2006 1:43 PM (e)

The Laws of Logic are first a law of being/Metaphysics, and then are a law of our Psychology and our being. This does us wonders when we are trying to figure out a proper Cosmology.

Comment #144808

Posted by Evolution? on November 17, 2006 3:16 PM (e)

Thank you, Dr. Martin.

Comment #144810

Posted by MarkP on November 17, 2006 3:44 PM (e)

“Evolution?”, let me attempt to help you understand the people here and their response to you. They are, for the most part, highly educated people who have spent a great deal of time studying and researching these issues. Some of them are actually the scientists who did the research. Some have written books. Many have PhDs.

So when you come in front of a group of people like this and suggest that they should study both sides of the issue before holding an opinion that disagrees with yours, can you see how that might be insulting to them? It would be like you being a math teacher and your 8 year old coming home, making an arithmetic error and, upon hearing your correction, telling you that you should study the issue before correcting her.

People who put a lot of effort into learning about something tend to get pissed off when it is suggested that they are wrong merely because someone who hasn’t disagrees with them. It is also very insulting to have questions posed to you as challenges that are very basic stuff. If you want adult conversation, stop asking the kinds of questions you might ask children.

Approach these people as if they have something to teach you about biology, and you might find them very helpful and instructive. Approach them as if you somehow magically know more than they do, despite them having earned advanced degrees and published scientific work that you have not, and you will likely find them very dismissive of you, and rightfully so.

Comment #144820

Posted by Evolution? on November 17, 2006 4:12 PM (e)

Thank you for your guidance. Forgive me for not understanding this from the beginning. The problem is I do not trust them nor do I trust their sources. People can take things and call them truth, when in fact, it is twisted and skewed “truth”. How can you trust anyone unless you figure it out for yourself? So, when I hear about studies and this that and the other thing, I cannot necessarily trust them. Just how many times have they been wrong about things (speaking of the scientific community). Anyway, thank you and have a great Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Epehsians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

I guess this is what I am up against!

Comment #144877

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 17, 2006 5:35 PM (e)

Just as you ridicule me for my lack of knowledge on the creation/evolution debate

Hey junior, aren’t you supposed to be at the library, learning some fourth grade science?

Or did you just come here to preach, like Reverend Martin?

Comment #144894

Posted by MarkP on November 17, 2006 6:15 PM (e)

Evolution?: The problem is I do not trust them nor do I trust their sources. People can take things and call them truth, when in fact, it is twisted and skewed “truth”. How can you trust anyone unless you figure it out for yourself?

No one has enough time to figure everything out themselves. That is why a society as large as ours with as much knowledge as it has, sets up these institutions of learning to do the work for us. Degrees mean something. Study means something. Publishing papers means something. Does that make it Holy Writ? Of course not. And that person can be as much a dullard of you and I when he strays outside his field. But within his field, I’m sorry, you are wasting your time pretending you know more than he does, especally when many of them independently came to the same different conclusion.

Look “Evolution?”, I’m a pretty smart guy, and I’m pretty free with my opinion, and I’ve studied quite a few subjects formally and/or extremely intensely. And I can tell you that not once, with a scientifically peer-reviewed subject, have I ever completed my studies and not had to dramatically alter many of my prior opinions. Never once have I decided “wow, those laymen who were so critical of this field were so right.” No, what I always find is that those critical laymen weren’t even close to right.

Evolution?: Just how many times have they been wrong about things (speaking of the scientific community).

In the case of our modern scientific machine, a lot less than any other epistemology you care to name. One bad side effect of a religious influence on one’s thinking can be the quest for perfection that is not possible. Sometimes the best we can do is the best we can do. Science is the best we can do. It not only corrects everyone else’s errors, it corrects it’s own.

Comment #145030

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 18, 2006 1:47 AM (e)

when in fact, it is twisted and skewed “truth”.

the only twisted and skewed “truth” you will find here, is that posted or reprinted from creationist websites.

really.

Comment #145059

Posted by Richard Simons on November 18, 2006 8:22 AM (e)

Evolution? When you say you do not trust scientists or their sources, do you think they are all liars or are they all incompetent? Either way, it is a major insult from someone who clearly knows no more about evolution than could be written on a fly’s arse with a poker (sorry to be so blunt, but while I have a lot of patience for people who have difficulty understanding things, arrogant ignoramuses like you really irritate me).

You quote

Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

I agree, and a lot of it comes from the people who think the bible is a literally correct scientific text.

Comment #145090

Posted by Sir_Toejam on November 18, 2006 2:55 PM (e)

against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

I guess this is what I am up against!

exactly. You did notice who the topic of this thread was about after all!

Haggard
Bakker
Swaggart

the list goes on and on.

when was the last time you heard of a famous scientist being arrested on sex or drug charges?

or evading taxes like Hovind?

look to your own house for snakes.

Comment #145096

Posted by Evolution? on November 18, 2006 3:36 PM (e)

Again, I apologize for my barging in and for the way I spoke to you all in some cases. Sometimes, I get a little excited and a little sarcastic. Hope you’ll forgive me.

Thanks, and I will continue to pray for you all.

Comment #145103

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 18, 2006 4:38 PM (e)

Sometimes, I get a little excited and a little sarcastic. Hope you’ll forgive me.

Fortunately for you, ignorance and arrogance are correctible conditions.

UN-fortunately for you, correcting them requires a bit of effort on your part.

Comment #145114

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 18, 2006 7:56 PM (e)

look to your own house for snakes.

HEY !!!! Don’t you be puttin’ down snakes in my presence.

;)

Comment #145317

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 19, 2006 7:06 PM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'kwickxml'

Comment #145318

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 19, 2006 7:08 PM (e)

Fortunately for you, ignorance and arrogance are correctible conditions.

UN-fortunately for you, correcting them requires a bit of effort on your part.

Oh the irony :)……

Hey Lenny

“BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA”

Comment #145319

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 19, 2006 7:11 PM (e)

In the case of our modern scientific machine, a lot less than any other epistemology you care to name. One bad side effect of a religious influence on one’s thinking can be the quest for perfection that is not possible. Sometimes the best we can do is the best we can do. Science is the best we can do. It not only corrects everyone else’s errors, it corrects it’s own.

Sounds a little like, “Twould be in vain to say we know something we have not antecedently felt!”

Hume ALERT!

If Science is the truth, prove this statement through Science. Don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll eventually get this one right. (self defeating)…or maybe you wish to call it a connundrum, which, um means self defeating too!

Comment #145321

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 19, 2006 7:20 PM (e)

In the case of our modern scientific machine, a lot less than any other epistemology you care to name. One bad side effect of a religious influence on one’s thinking can be the quest for perfection that is not possible. Sometimes the best we can do is the best we can do. Science is the best we can do. It not only corrects everyone else’s errors, it corrects it’s own.

Lets critique shall we?

Well, he’s got the first part right, Empiricism surely does not know anything.

The quest for perfection that is not possible? It follows we have already attained it then! You’ve defeated your purpose, self defeating and false. Remember, should does not mean can. Just because we should act a certain way does not mean we always can do it.

Sometimes the best we can do is the best we can do. Science is the best we can do.

Prove that statement with Science if its “the best you can do.” If you can’t prove the statement, then its not the best you can do, because the statement must exist if anything is to be done at all here. So….gee golly, there must be something out there a little bit better than Science. Could it be…Philosophy?

It not only corrects everyone else’s errors, it corrects it’s own. - Wow guy, sounds like you’ve got a religion going here. Isn’t a religion, a set of beliefs! It follows you’re following a set of beliefs to “correct your own errors here.” Scientism however, as we know it, is still self defeating and false. Try Christianity and the Nature of Science by JP Moreland for more information on that one. Or check out: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20379231.html

Try avoiding your fake inquiry and sham reasoning, you know your little tautologous “Science is the only thing that proves anything at all.”

Comment #145322

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 19, 2006 7:31 PM (e)

There’s something very ironic about “Dr.” Michael Martin–his latest self-conferred degree is in “NeuroScience” (a good thing, since he’s in distinct need of a couple of neurons to rub together)–posting on this particular thread.

Three guesses, Michael, you deceptive, lying little Creationist.

Comment #145336

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 19, 2006 8:00 PM (e)

Gay’s don’t exist! Gays are an illusion created by mankind. The Gay gene is false.

Comment #145338

Posted by minimalist on November 19, 2006 8:01 PM (e)

Oh Mikey, why won’t you just admit you’re bitter because your Bio 101 prof is flunking you over there at William and Mary?

Who knew those darn atheistic teachers wouldn’t accept “Goddidit” as answers to all your exam questions! It’s a conspiracy.

Looking forward to your inevitable IP-banning.

Comment #145345

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 19, 2006 8:13 PM (e)

Religion is mostly harmless. But in cases like this it leads to real anguish.

This is a fallacy in reasoning. One man does not affect the truth behind religion. The position of religion is not affected by what one person does or does not do. In other words, some people make mistakes, but does it means that they SHOULD make mistakes? No, but, the only way we are justified in being forgiven is through knowing Jesus Christ. The only way to come to know Jesus Christ is through Logos. John 1:1 In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was the word, and the word was God.

Without the Bible, nothing makes sense.

Comment #145355

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 19, 2006 8:29 PM (e)

Peter-

I think actually Dawkins was coming across mean a number of other times in the clip- just in general tone and demeanor.

Flank-

I was once a Literal Creationist. I saw the Light in undergrad studying biology, as I was progressively convinced of the evidence. What I’m saying is I can feel where these guys are coming from. I agree that people won’t be convinced away from Literal Creationism through science- I mean I was, but most won’t be. That’s my point. Yeah, I’m angry with the way the Fundamentalists respond to science, how they are lying and cheating their way to convince people and denying science. I don’t like how I was treated. Yes, we need to start going on the offensive, and not pull our punches, in our arguments. But it’s not about convincing the Fundamentalists, just as it’s not about convincing the Hard Right or the Hard Left in this upcoming election. It’s about convincing the unconvinced, the undecided. And unless they have a scientific background, and precious few of them do, they’re going to be convinced by personality, by someone being nice, rather than the logic of their arguments. I’ve seen debates between an evolutionist and a Discovery Institute guy. The evolutionist had all of the evidence on his side. But he was obnoxious, mocking, and sarcastic the entire time. And the audience went with the ID guy. I was almost convinced- just because the guy for our side was so mean-spirited. We can’t underestimate the value of our approach, as well as the ideas themselves. Ethos is as important in convincing as logos.

Quite frankly, an argument from emotion, if anyone is smart is what needs to be avoided in the first place. BUT, this does not mean we separate reason from faith. A reasonable faith is needed in order to make sense out of anything with any kind of truth value.

Au contraire my friend. I reviewed the evidence. The reason I went away from Evolution was because Evolution had no evidence or logic in its corner. It was always a matter over at NIH, that we, “suppress the other side’s evidence. Pay no attention to them, because they don’t know what they’re talking about.” Essentially, this was the mentality maintained. I began to buy into this for a while, until I started actually thoroughly studying the evidence for Genetics. Genetics and Evolution started to no longer be compatible. I began to think to myself, if Evolution is true, I have got to find something here to make Genetics compatible with Evolution. I literally started running out of things to agree with it. I tell you, I was one desperate sun of a gun. I was thinking, whats going on here? This Science no longer makes since. At this point, nothing at all made sense to me. Almost assuredly, the biggest drawback was the fact I saw no new genetic information in the mutations that we observe. And I figured, if this were so, Evolution could not occur. My next problem was my presuppositions. I had preconceived ill formed judgments about the other side, the YECS. I had always been taught that the YECS side did not agree with Natural Selection, Variation or Speciation. It was around this time that I ran into Dr. Jonathan Safarti. Dr. Safarti was the gentleman who actually got me interested into YECS. I found an impressive supply of information (positive evidence) supplied that actually agreed with a Young Earth. This was blowing my mind. Eventually, I began to search deeper into this, and deeper. I found some really interesting facts, that the YECS had already come up with a model for the origins of the earth, and had an explanation for the one thing I could not make sense of out of Science, which was the lack of beneficial mutations in Science. Ultimately this was the conclusion I came to. I also studied Intelligent Design and Progressive Creation Science as well as Theistic Evolution. In the end, YECS made the most sense. So, I object, the reason I believe YECS to be the truth is because it is the truth, and for no other reason. It has nothing to do with which way I sway on religious grounds or Philosophical grounds. Religion and Philosophy should be thought of to be of a necessary dichotomy between the two, as well as a necessary dichotomy between Science and the two. Science is based around inductive reasoning. Philosophy is based around deductive reasoning. However, in the end, all of this seemingly ties right into the Bible, and therefore, I also object that we use the Bible to prove the Bible. It ties into the Bible because the Bible is the truth. We can reason our way to this conclusion, and in like turn, we are able to prove the existence of God as well. Theres a lot more information out there than you might expect my friend. Religious implications have nothing to do with it. Believe me, I was a PHD working at the forefront of a Peer Review organization before I came to the conclusion that YECS was the only correct Science that we have out there. If you would like, I can supply you with some fantastic information and evidence to demonstrate my point. You’d also be surprised to know that there are truly more Evolutionists who become YECS, than YECS who become Evolutionists in the scientific community.

God bless,

Dr. Michael Martin

Comment #145357

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 19, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

Roger to further confirm the accuracy of your claim, I think we should go with this claim instead.

If Evolution is correct, then our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes. If it is true that our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes, we have no reason to trust the thoughts because they are not really thoughts in the first place. But then, if we have no reason to trust our thoughts, we have no reason to think that our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes in the first place. This is a problem, wouldn’t you say?

Comment #145358

Posted by Dr. Michael Martin on November 19, 2006 8:34 PM (e)

Roger to further confirm the accuracy of your claim, I think we should go with this claim instead.

If Evolution is correct, then our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes. If it is true that our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes, we have no reason to trust the thoughts because they are not really thoughts in the first place. But then, if we have no reason to trust our thoughts, we have no reason to think that our thoughts are nothing but brain reflexes in the first place. This is a problem, wouldn’t you say?

Comment #145361

Posted by Arden Chatfield on November 19, 2006 8:43 PM (e)

Without the Bible, nothing makes sense.

But you seem to believe the Bible completely, and you make no sense at all.

By the way, how many people were on your ‘committee’ now, Mike? A thousand?

Comment #145363

Posted by stevaroni on November 19, 2006 8:58 PM (e)

E? Writes…

The problem is I do not trust them nor do I trust their sources. People can take things and call them truth, when in fact, it is twisted and skewed “truth”.

But E?, that’s the whole point of the thing. We’re not asking you to trust us. We don’t want you to believe us. We want you, and every student on the planet to stand up to us and cry “Show me the Money!”.

Because ya know what? We have the money. The facts are on our side. There is nothing to hide. Does the ToE have faults? Sure. Ask and we’ll tell you. Are there known gaps? Yup. Ya wanna know what they are, I’ll give you the links.

It’s all public domain, and it’s all there, freely available at your local natural history museum, warts and all.

The beauty of science isn’t what is, but what it isn’t.

It isn’t faith, it isn’t magic, it isn’t fairy tales.

It’s a list of known, demonstrable facts, and a theory that seems to connect them. A theory that has never, ever been shown to have a serious flaw. Despite a century and a half of the most savage criticism ever leveled at a scientific theory.

So you don’t believe me? Great!

You insist that I show you the evidence and let you decide for yourself? Wonderful!

A budding little skeptic! Sniff.. I’m so freakin’ happy, sniff, sniff, I’m on the verge of tears!

Because you know what – We have the bodies.

We have the Lucy, and she died 3 million years before Moses looked at the face of Pharoh. We have Erectus, and he still had the teeth of a gorilla. And we have truckload of Habilus and Neandertalis, and all those other ancestors who took a lap in your gene pool. We even have your gene pool. And we’ll show it all to you for the price of a bus-ride downtown to that big building with the dinosaurs out front.

Now, believe it or not, I don’t want to belittle your faith, your Bible, or your God, but when I was a young lad I was kicked out of Sunday school for asking questions about Noah’s Flood. In the years since, I’ve found that usually, when someone won’t answer a simple, direct question it means they’re hiding something.

So here’s an easy experiment – This Sunday, go to your church, and ask an embarrassing question about faith, maybe something like “Noah’s flood was supposed to take place in 2600BC, but the Egyptians had a thriving, pyramid building, empire by then, and they make no mention of being wiped out? What gives?”

Then go to any big-city natural history museum, wander into the human ancestors’ section, put your hands on the actual evidence and ask a similarly embarrassing question there, like “You still don’t have a good model for hominid migration out of Africa”

I suspect that one place will say “Good Question!” and try to give you an honest, complete answer, and the other will weasel out of it and tell you that you’re a sinner and are going to burn.

Then ask yourself. Who has something to hide?

This is science, lad, and “show me the money” is the rallying cry. But it works both ways. ID has, like creationism before it, never been able to put anything on the table. You have to ask yourself, if they have the Truth, how likely is it that, in 3000 years nobody has been able to chip off the tinyist little corner and brought it out into the light of day?

I have more than a passing acquaintance with that Bible you keep quoting, and in my copy, the first command God ever gives man is

…have dominion over …. all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Dominion implies mastery, and mastery implies understanding. Get to it.

Comment #145425

Posted by Evolution? on November 20, 2006 11:42 AM (e)

Again - who do you trust - You talk about evidence and this and that and the other but so many answers seem to be the result of, not only a lot of hard work, but assumption upon assumption. History itself can be twisted because it happened so long ago. The Bible calls Satan a liar and a deceiver - He twisted the Word of God around when speaking to Eve and I am seeing everyday the twisting around of truth and utter deception from day to day to the point that I cannot trust anything that I hear from anyone. Even dating methods are in question because there are so many variables and so many assumptions. How can you stand on such shaky ground? See below…

Critics use the pyramids to claim the Bible can’t be right. They say the pyramids were built long before Noah’s Flood, so the Flood must have only been a local affair, not global like the Bible says. Otherwise, the pyramids would be buried under lots of sediment.

The problem is with the way modern scholars have constructed their chronology of Egypt. Manetho, an Egyptian priest, left a list of kings and dynasties with their length of reigns, and although inscriptions on tombs and temples give chronological information, the issue is how to interpret this information. With so little to work from, archaeologists have had to make copious assumptions. And modern scholars have developed a long chronology consistent with the idea that humans have evolved over millions of years.

All this has turned these wonders of the ancient world into something of an enigma. If the first human societies evolved from primitive hunter-gatherers, how could ancient artisans have built such amazing structures? If they began without technology or social organization, why do these incredible feats of engineering burst upon the ancient world? Some have even wondered if the technology was supplied by aliens.

But the pyramids of Egypt are no enigma when we use biblical history as our starting point. According to the Bible, the first settlers of Egypt migrated from the Euphrates River, the site of the Tower of Babel, where the languages were confused after the Flood. The modern chronology of Egypt is far too long because dynasties have been placed sequentially, whereas they were, to a greater or lesser extent, contemporary. In other words, the reigns were concurrent with each other. Also, some dynasties may not have existed at all.

It seems the first settlers of Egypt were descended from Mizraim, the son of Ham (Genesis 10:6, 13). That’s why, at the first dynasty, there bursts on the scene a people of culture and skill who already possessed a form of writing.

For the first two dynasties, the earliest settlers did not build pyramids. Instead, kings were buried in chambers underneath mud-brick edifices, called mastabas. However, in the third dynasty, King Zoser had a vizier (chief minister) called Imhotep, who used rough blocks of stone, instead of bricks, to build the king’s mastaba. Then he added six stages making the famous Step Pyramid of Saqqara, on the west bank of the River Nile, 20 km (12 miles) south of modern Cairo. This is believed to be the first pyramid ever built in Egypt.

Comment #145426

Posted by Evolution? on November 20, 2006 11:44 AM (e)

“He said” - “She said”

Comment #145436

Posted by Richard Simons on November 20, 2006 12:48 PM (e)

Evolution?

Remember? “Though shalt not steal?”

Why did you steal a large part of your previous post from David Down at Answers in Genesis? If you tried such a thing in a science course at any reputable university you would get zero for the assignment, if not kicked out of the course. On a second offence it is possible to be kicked out of the university in disgrace.

It seems that you are indulging in projection when you accuse scientists of dishonesty and poor scholarship. You yourself need to adopt a higher standard of integrity and to think for yourself.

Comment #145441

Posted by Steviepinhead on November 20, 2006 1:38 PM (e)

Hey, Evolution?

Carefully re-read this thread, particularly the spectacular meltdown of that little lying YEC, “Dr.” Michael Martin, who lied to all us–including you, dude!–about his claimed biology credentials in an effort to persuade us–and you!–that he had some idea of what he was talking about when he atacked the Theory of Evolution and upheld Young Earth Creationism.

Ask yourself why he felt it necessary to lie–to pretend to scientific credentials he never had and never will–to cover up his lack of knowledge and evidence.

Take a lesson from the ease with which his lies were exposed.

There’s simply good evidence for some propositionss: multiple, independent lines of evidence that all meet at the same point, even though they depend on multiple different objectively-verifiable physical principles, which can be replicated by multiple, competing independent investigators (and, many times, by interested lay people).

And then there are propositions for which there is no good evidence. The only way to attempt to uphold these propositions–ultimately, beyond attempting to discredit one isolated line of evidence here and one finding there, attempts which get all crossed up, because they require numerous inconsistent, self-contradictory claims about the underlying physical processes–is to lie.

When you come right down to it, do you believe that (your concept of God or Jesus) would want you to lie–or be lied to, as “Doc” Martin has attempted to lie to you here–in order to avoid confronting the evidence and the facts?

Or do you believe that He would prefer you to act honestly, and to interact honestly with others, even if doing so requires you to corageouly face reality and to deal with facts and evidence that appear to run counter to some particular, limited, imperfect interpretation of His word?

Think really hard about the example of Michael’s behavior on this thread before you answer, please.

If you do, maybe you will have learned something new, deep, and vital about your own faith and beliefs.

Comment #145449

Posted by Dave Thomas on November 20, 2006 2:29 PM (e)

Unintentional Irony?

Seems to me that the folks trying to ride this thread to their preferred destination - Read Your Bible - have had some problems of their own.

“Dr.” Michael Martin has misrepresented his credentials, and gotten himself banned from the Thumb. And his sycophant sidekick, Evolution?, has been caught plagiarizing.

Point is, if you lads were hoping to take our minds off of creationist scandals (anybody remember Ted Haggard?), you’re doing so is in itself a parody worthy of Monty Python.

Dave

P.S. Get your final comments in, this thread will be History by later today…

Comment #145450

Posted by stevaroni on November 20, 2006 2:42 PM (e)

“He said” - “She said”

No, E.

It’s more like He says “Look at the pretty lights”, She says “Come back here behind the curtain, I’ll show you how all the machinery works”.

I don’t know how old you are, but you seem young. As you go through life, there will be many, many times where one person will tell you one thing, and someone else will tell you something different, and you have to decide. You will find out that all arguments are not created equal.

Watch closely how people answer the hard questions. Salesman A says “Of course we have that – it says so right here in our glossy brochure!” Salesman B suggests - no, insists - that you come down to the factory and see just exactly what goes inside the box. There’s a difference.

Science says “good question”, then goes and tries to find the answer, to the best of human knowledge. That’s its 500 year track record. Religion says that asking it in the first place is a sin and you should stop now before you get into trouble. So who’s gonna find those answers first, E?

The Bible calls Satan a liar and a deceiver

The Bible also says that the sun goes around the earth (Judges 5:31), unicorns exist (Deut 33:17) and, my favorite, bird blood on your right ear is a convincing cure for leprosy (Lev 14.2-52).

The Bible is a book about morality, E. It is full of parables and anecdotes and stories intended to instruct people in the everyday spiritual life of bronze-age nomads.

But it’s not a science textbook. It’s not supposed to be a science textbook. It’s demonstrable grasp of science extends rather neatly to the edges of what was known about the natural world in 1000BC, but no further.

To the Bible, the Earth is a flat disk (Psalms 33.14) which does not move (82.5) is orbited by the sun (19.4) and populated by unicorns, satyrs, and dragons (Isaiah 34.14, 37.7).

Surely, whatever you think of us sinful evolutionists, you cannot believe that God filled your head with 4 pounds of brains – arguably the single most precious thing in the entire known universe – just so you could stick in the sand and pretend that you can’t analyze the mechanics of the world around you.

I am seeing everyday the twisting around of truth and utter deception from day to day to the point that I cannot trust anything that I hear from anyone.

Great! (and I really mean that)

That is the very core of science!

You’re not supposed to trust anyone. Every single thing has to be proven, has to stand on its own. You can’t duplicate the experiment – then it doesn’t exist.

So E, I’m really OK with it if you don’t want to believe me. But at least be honest with me and hold the other side up to the same standard and ask them to show you the money too. The real stuff, not some biblical passages and mathematical innuendo.

Because that’s all ID really has. Some obscure math that can’t be explained but ID insists it can (Dembski), some protein structures that have been explained, but ID says they can’t (Behe) and some passages from the bible (2 Timothy 3.16 and Romans 1.20) which say, in effect,this is the truth because we say so. Now be a good little boy and stop asking these questions.

Science has a boxcar full of bones, a genome full of history, a planet full of stratigraphic evidence, and oh, yes, even a written history of the Egyptians that leaves no room for a flood.

But honest and hold both of them up under the same light. You’ll see the difference.

Science will still be here when you get back. It’s been a century and a half, we’re not going anywhere anytime soon.

Comment #145453

Posted by stevaroni on November 20, 2006 2:54 PM (e)

“He said” - “She said”

No, E.

It’s more like He says “look at the pretty lights”, She says “Come back here behind the curtain, I’ll show you how all the machinery works”.

I don’t know how old you are, but you seem young. As you go through life, there will be many, many times where one person will tell you one thing, and someone else will tell you something different, and you have to decide. You will find out that all arguments are not created equal.

Watch closely how people answer the hard questions. Salesman A says “Of course we have that – it says so right here in our glossy brochure!” Salesman B suggests - no, insists - that you come down to the factory and see just exactly what goes inside the box. There’s a difference.

Science says “good question”, then goes and tries to find the answer, to the best of human knowledge. That’s its 500 year track record. Religion says that asking it in the first place is a sin and you should stop now before you get into trouble. So who’s gonna find those answers first, E?

The Bible calls Satan a liar and a deceiver

The Bible also says that the sun goes around the earth (Judges 5:31), unicorns exist (Deut 33:17) and, my favorite, bird blood on your right ear is a convincing cure for leprosy (Lev 14.2-52).

The Bible is a book about morality, E. It is full of parables ad anecdotes and stories intended to instruct people in the everyday spiritual life of bronze-age nomads.

But it’s not a science textbook. It’s not supposed to be a science textbook. It’s demonstrable grasp of science extends rather neatly to the edges of what was known about the natural world in 1000BC, but no further. To the Bible, the Earth is a flat disk (Psalms 33.14) which does not move (82.5) is orbited by the sun (19.4) and populated by unicorns, satyrs, and dragons (Isaiah 34.14, 37.7).

Surely, whatever you think of us sinful evolutionists, you cannot believe that God filled your head with 4 pounds of brains – arguably the single most precious thing in the entire known universe – just so you could stick in the sand and pretend that you can’t analyze the mechanics of the world around you.

I am seeing everyday the twisting around of truth and utter deception from day to day to the point that I cannot trust anything that I hear from anyone.

Great! (and I really mean that. If everyone thought that way maybe we’d elect politicians that were actually worth a crap. But I digress.

Doubt is the very core of science!

You’re not supposed to trust anyone. Every single thing has to be proven, has to stand on its own. You can’t duplicate the experiment – then it doesn’t exist.

So E, I’m really OK with it if you don’t want to believe me. But at least be honest with me and hold the other side up to the same standard and ask them to show you the money. The real stuff, not some biblical passages and mathematical innuendo.

Because that’s all ID really has. Some obscure math that can’t be explained but ID insists it can (Dembski), some protein structures that have been explained, but ID says they can’t (Behe) and some passages from the bible (2 Timothy 3.16 and Romans 1.20) which say, in effect,this is the truth because we say so. Now be a good little boy and stop asking these questions.

Science has a boxcar full of bones, a genome full of history, a planet full of stratigraphic evidence, and oh, yes, even a written history of the Egyptians that leaves no room for a flood.

But honest and hold both of them up under the same light. You’ll see the difference.

Science will still be here when you get back. It’s been a century and a half, we’re not going anywhere anytime soon.

Comment #145457

Posted by Glen Davidson on November 20, 2006 3:23 PM (e)

Isn’t “Dr. Michael Martin” the same person who called himself an author, Greene or something like that, as well as a host of other names?

I mean, he always seemed familiar, kind of a hyper creationist who knows AIG-type things only, and who churned out huge numbers of clicheed comments whenever he went onto a thread. These same tactics and styles came from both Martin and that other name. As the “author”, he claimed that he had “talked with ophthalmologists” who told him the eye was too complex to have evolved (something like that), which he thought was an excellent argument against evolution.

It looks to me like he learned something, like sticking with one name, and claiming to be both doctor of theology and doctor of genetics. Not that he seemed to know much about either one.

Anyway, yes, the irony of fraudulent practices used to defend the fraudulence of certain creationists is only lost on certain other creationists.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm