Navigation
Recent Comments
- Les Lane on July 21, 2004 10:45 AM
- Wayne Francis on July 21, 2004 10:35 AM
- Bob Maurus on July 21, 2004 07:27 AM
- Marcus Good on July 21, 2004 05:57 AM
- roger on July 21, 2004 05:13 AM
- Jim Harrison on July 21, 2004 02:06 AM
- steve on July 21, 2004 01:56 AM
- steve on July 21, 2004 01:28 AM
- Jim Harrison on July 20, 2004 11:57 PM
- Fiona on July 20, 2004 11:25 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Yang Yang on June 22, 2004 12:47 PM
With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.
The previous wall got a little cluttered, so here is a new one.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/292
Comment #4077
Posted by Les Lane on June 22, 2004 02:06 PM (e) (s)
For art connoisseurs - this one should look nice on your bathroom wall
Comment #4083
Posted by steve on June 22, 2004 04:40 PM (e) (s)
Exclusive Noah’s Ark Painting and Thought Provoking Books!
The specific thought provoked is, Man, that is some dumb shit.
Comment #4085
Posted by gwangi on June 22, 2004 04:59 PM (e) (s)
Gotta love the dinosaur over in the pond on the left. Or is it Nessie?
Comment #4092
Posted by steve on June 22, 2004 06:15 PM (e) (s)
Holy shit that Is a dinosaur. There are some stupid sons of bitches in the world.
Comment #4093
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on June 22, 2004 06:21 PM (e) (s)
What is even dumber is that they have a marine dolphin in the pond too. There is also a T-Rex and a Raptor behind the tree.
Comment #4094
Posted by steve on June 22, 2004 06:24 PM (e) (s)
I’m reminded of the wise scholar Eric Cartman, who said, “Will someone put this retard out of his misery?”
Comment #4103
Posted by Tina on June 22, 2004 10:03 PM (e) (s)
I like the feeble attempt to include all the different “species” of humans as well, including Republicans (the white guy wearing the Oxford shirt, clutching volume 1 of the Left Behind series) and hippies.
I assume the woman on the path towards the back is carrying a pot on her shoulder which contains two representatives of each species of flea.
Comment #4106
Posted by steve on June 22, 2004 10:24 PM (e) (s)
Wow. Didn’t even notice there’s a dude wearing an oxford carrying a bible. wonder how that fits with ‘authentic’ and ‘most accurate’.
Comment #4108
Posted by steve on June 23, 2004 08:18 AM (e) (s)
So obviously the dumbass who painted this ‘accurate’ depiction shouldn’t have a guy with an oxford shirt and a bible ‘4500’ years ago, any more than he should have a t-rex there. But what I’d Really like to know is, what the hell is Hitler Cartman doing there?
Comment #4109
Posted by ~DS~ on June 23, 2004 08:19 AM (e) (s)
Goddamn, that is <b>funny</b>. Maybe James Dean and Elvis are in there somewhere.
They only have one Panda that I can find. Maybe it’s a crack on this Blog…
Comment #4110
Posted by Dave S on June 23, 2004 08:21 AM (e) (s)
Holy shit that Is a dinosaur. There are some stupid sons of bitches in the world.
A dinosaur?
There are several. I’ve spotted so far -
T. Rex (behind the tree)
Velociraptor sp. (Theropod?) (other side of same tree)
Big sauropoda (in pond)
Ankylosaurus or Glyptodont? (behind woman in green dress with jug)
Pteranodons (flying out of the trees to upper right)
Dinos with spiny frill on back (3 by the rapids, and another beside the ostriches)
Big mastadon (behind rhinos)
What is that nibbling the bushes behind the zebra?
Other hilarious bits noted -
- That’s the fattest orangutang I’ve ever seen.
- don’t think that rooster can take along all 4 hens and that duck will have to leave at least 1 chick back.
- The guy with the Bible? Why not put a Timex on his arm while were at it. Looks like the woman talking to him is dressed in trailer park chic.
- The wolf laying down with the lamb? Talk about allegorical smacking on the head!
- I like the apparently iron claw hammer in Noah’s belt.
- Note the ostrich with it’s head in the sand. Priceless.
- And the turkeys shall fly like the eagles!
Comment #4113
Posted by gwangi on June 23, 2004 08:55 AM (e) (s)
Oh, man, how did I miss the zoom-in feature?
The things behind the zebras are baluchitherium(s). An Oligocene relative of the rhino, and possibly the largest ever land mammal.
Interestingly enough, typing “baluchitherium” into google’s image search leads to this picture of a skull (note the source!): http://www.creationism.org/books/price/PredicmtEvol/Predicmt10.htm
Comment #4115
Posted by gwangi on June 23, 2004 09:00 AM (e) (s)
Oh, wait, even better. Here’s the legend: http://www.biblelandstudios.com/legend.htm
Comment #4122
Posted by steve on June 23, 2004 10:55 AM (e) (s)
Just like the “Jack Shea” comment, this painting is suspicious. Suppose this is a joke? This can’t be anyone’s earnest effort. Bragging about the painting’s accuracy is a clue.
Comment #4127
Posted by steve on June 23, 2004 11:13 AM (e) (s)
This reminds me, I used to pay for school by tutoring HS and college kids math and science (because like we’ve seen on this page, not all HS teachers are worth a shit). And one kid I tutored math for went to Friendship Christian School in North Raleigh. He really needed help with biology, too, but his dad wouldn’t allow tutoring for that. His mom was much more reasonable, and tried to get it to happen, asking me if I could just tutor him in the uncontrovertial parts. She got a surplus textbook for me to look over.
Holy shit.
First, it was being used for HS juniors, but was about a 6th-grade-level book. Not a page went by in this ‘biology’ textbook that didn’t have some religious claims. But mostly it was just absurd. “Jesus designed over 1 million nehrons into each kidney!” etc.
I have heard of, and seen, creationist astronomy textbooks, and others, but not had the chance to review them.
Comment #4132
Posted by Les Lane on June 23, 2004 11:46 AM (e) (s)
Some background on Bibleland Studios - naming of the studio
Comment #4133
Posted by Dave S on June 23, 2004 11:55 AM (e) (s)
Just like the “Jack Shea” comment, this painting is suspicious. Suppose this is a joke? This can’t be anyone’s earnest effort. Bragging about the painting’s accuracy is a clue.
That sounds highly plausible Steve. Perhaps it’s some kind of parody a la the Landover Baptists. I hope it’s a joke anyway.
The artist, Elfred Lee, has also painted other things. Here for instance is his rendition of Loni Anderson.
Comment #4134
Posted by Frank Schmidt on June 23, 2004 12:09 PM (e) (s)
So look at the wolf with the lamb in its paws. Which one made it into the Ark? Or did things go on on the boat that violate the Biological Species Concept? And all those other sheep look awfully placid at the thought of becoming fish food.
Comment #4141
Posted by steve on June 23, 2004 05:33 PM (e) (s)
Dave, holy crap. Like creationist argument, it’s so bad it’s good. Get a load of that Reagan one too.
Comment #4145
Posted by Terry R on June 23, 2004 07:55 PM (e) (s)
It just struck me that we haven’t heard from Charlie Wagner lately. Good. I hope that trend continues. One less anti-science ding-dong. Now if only the other 2 would cease to pester.
I’m Terry Rawls, and I approved this message.
Comment #4159
Posted by Virge on June 24, 2004 03:08 AM (e) (s)
Here are a few definitions to decorate the bathroom wall.
“The Wedge Strategy”: Gaining leverage by applying the thin end of credibility to the thick end of the population.
Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter”: A device made of smoke and mirrors that only transmits circularly polarized illumination.
Dembski’s “No Free Lunch”: How making a meal of science comes at the expense of one’s own palatability.
Behe’s “Irreducible Complexity”: The state of a thesis comprising several interacting propositions, wherein the demolition of any one of the propositions causes its proponent to assert that no damage has been done.
Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box”: A type of mouse trap contrived to keep unwitting victims permanently in the dark.
Nelson’s “Ontogenetic Depth”:
1. The minimum depth of distraction that must cover an unsupported concept before it can be marketed as science.
2. A measure of the distance, in terms of generalizations and evasions, between an ill-defined metric and a fully developed buzz-phrase able to spawn new misconceptions.
3. The foot-in-mouth insertion depth at which one realizes that marching bands are not a good analogy for ontogeny.
Comment #4160
Posted by Savagemutt on June 24, 2004 07:13 AM (e) (s)
Hmm…
I think we overloaded their server guffawing at the painting. I got a connection timeout.
BTW, hello to fellow North Carolinian Steve. Go Pack!
Comment #4166
Posted by Les Lane on June 24, 2004 10:48 AM (e) (s)
Playwrights reflect on “Inherit the Wind”
Comment #4172
Posted by Russell on June 24, 2004 12:21 PM (e) (s)
This seems an appropriate place to point out that Jonathan Wells (himself, something of an Icon of Creationism) is always going on about the credulity of “Darwinists”. But here’s an example of the kind of thing Wells apparently finds perfectly sensible. Pointing this out, of course, makes me an anti-religious ad-hominizer. But does there not come a point where pre-commitment to irrational premisses [sic] becomes relevant to criticism of others’ reason?
Comment #4183
Posted by gwangi on June 24, 2004 03:27 PM (e) (s)
But does there not come a point where pre-commitment to irrational premisses [sic] becomes relevant to criticism of others’ reason?
The creationists who are always accusing us of denying the clear evidence against evolution because we went into our experiments looking for it would probably agree.
Comment #4191
Posted by steve on June 24, 2004 05:14 PM (e) (s)
Truer words were never spoken, than these by Chris Hitchens:
I’m an atheist. I’m not neutral about religion, I’m hostile to it. I think it is a positively bad idea, not just a false one. And I mean not just organized religion, but religious belief itself.
and here are some good interviews with Hitch which deal to some extent with this.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&co…
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hitchens.html…
There are better ones, but I’m pressed for time.
Comment #4192
Posted by Fiona Kelleghan on June 24, 2004 05:28 PM (e) (s)
Mutations within humans? Can’t be!
Musclebound Boy Inspires Doctors
June 24, 2004
(AP) Somewhere in Germany is an extremely strong toddler: born in Berlin with bulging arm and leg muscles. Not yet 5, he can hold seven-pound weights with arms extended, something many adults cannot do. The boy - whose name is being withheld to protect his privacy - is reported to have muscles twice the size of other kids his age and half their body fat.
Medical researches say DNA tests show the reason: he has a genetic mutation that boosts muscle growth.
The discovery, reported in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine, represents the first documented human case of such a mutation.
[Further text and pictures are available all over; this is from CBS News.]
Fiona
Comment #4197
Posted by Joni on June 24, 2004 06:01 PM (e) (s)
In that Noah painting, it looks like the American Eagle is about to drop a load on Noah.
Comment #4198
Posted by Creationist Timmy on June 24, 2004 06:10 PM (e) (s)
Fiona, Fiona, Fiona, you poor dumb blonde. You believe whatever the Evilutionist media tells you. You should know that thousands of journalists belong to the same conspiracy as hundreds of thousands of biologists—a conspiracy to convince people Evilution is science, instead of satanic religion, which it really is.
I know on faith, and in addition have it on good authority, that such a mutation could never occur. Several genius creation scientists on this very board have proven that. Creation scientists are similar to regular scientists, except they have profound insights without ever having gone to school. This is due to how smart they are. It is a well known fact to Real scientists, i.e. Christians, that no mutation could cause a change to morphology or ‘body plan’. The story and scientists assert that it does, therefore they are liars.
Please, in the future, try not to be so naive as to believe thousands of scientists over whoever the anonymous people were who wrote the bible.
Comment #4201
Posted by Virge on June 24, 2004 06:25 PM (e) (s)
You’re getting a little too good at that role, Timmy. ;)
Comment #4206
Posted by Fiona Kelleghan on June 24, 2004 07:24 PM (e) (s)
Fiona believes in the scientific method.
Fiona has two master’s degrees.
Fiona has published articles in peer-reviewed journals.
Fiona is an atheist.
Fiona believes skepticism is the correct intellectual position from which to approach improbable notions.
BUT
Fiona IS blonde, and therefore dumb.
Thank you, Timmy, for chasing me back to my proper place.
Comment #4210
Posted by Creationist Timmy on June 24, 2004 11:08 PM (e) (s)
In universities they brainwash people into believing the religion of Darwinism. So having those fancy degrees actually makes you less fit to discuss Creation. The fact that 99% of science PhDs believe in evolution proves that. Education interferes with the blind faith necessary to understand The Truth.
Comment #4211
Posted by Ian Menzies on June 24, 2004 11:25 PM (e) (s)
steve, I love you, but your parody is too frighteningly plausible to be a good gimmick.
Comment #4214
Posted by Marcus Good on June 25, 2004 01:27 AM (e) (s)
Velociraptor sp. (Theropod?) (other side of same tree)
I make that out to be a Dilophosaurus - it looks to be pose for pose taken from David Norman’s “Illustrated Guide to Dinosaurs”.
Ankylosaurus or Glyptodont? (behind woman in green dress with jug)
Doedicurus the glyptodontid.
Pteranodons (flying out of the trees to upper right)
Nah, just generic pterodactyloids.
Dinos with spiny frill on back (3 by the rapids, and another beside the ostriches)
Tut tut, any five year old would correct you on those not being dinosaurs - they’re synapsids! The ones on the left are Dimetrodon, the one on the right Edaphosaurus.
What is that nibbling the bushes behind the zebra?
Indricotheres, the giant rhinos.
- That’s the fattest orangutang I’ve ever seen.
Yeah, I give it a month before it succumbs to its own weight and implodes. Also, it needs a monkey sitting in front of it, cackling away..
- don’t think that rooster can take along all 4 hens and that duck will have to leave at least 1 chick back.
Yeah, there’s lots of these animals in groups too big to go on board, and some with too few. One raccoon? One panda?
Also, who is that tall guy near the Tyrannosaurus? Goliath? Is the dragonfly attacking that beetle/roach? Is that blurred city in the background meant to connotate that this is in the future or something?
All in all, I think the people are saying, “Wait, this guy says we’re all gonna die, while he lives?”. Noah’s saying, “Bring it, biii-atches.”
Comment #4215
Posted by Marcus Good on June 25, 2004 01:47 AM (e) (s)
..wait.. I’m looking at the legend for the painting now.
They’ve got what are clearly pterosaurs labeled as Archaeopteryx.Dimetrodon labeled as Diplocaulus. The Allosaurus is, from the snout and what seems to be a two-fingered hand, really a Tyrannosaurus.
And since when was the bald eagle a symbol of divinity? Do they mean eagles in general, or are they really being *that* specific?
What’s with all the “arguing” polar bears as well? Are they *that* contentious?
On the plus side, they’ve got Diplovertebron, an eogyrinid I’d never heard of.
Comment #4226
Posted by Les Lane on June 25, 2004 09:35 AM (e) (s)
Credentialed ignoramuses of Pennsylvania - do we have an epidemic?
Comment #4231
Posted by Les Lane on June 25, 2004 12:09 PM (e) (s)
Ammunition against moth bothering Darwin baiters - From the latest Science
Comment #4240
Posted by Frank Schmidt on June 25, 2004 03:08 PM (e) (s)
Re Les’ post on PA: I sense a disturbance in the Farce. Are the IDC’ers being shoved away from the food trough by the YEC’ers? At least they are calling their supposed “alternative” by its true name - simple creationism. But like Kettlewell’s moths, they are going to be eaten alive w/o their protective coloration. This is some of the most hopeful news I’ve seen in a while.
Comment #4246
Posted by Fiona Kelleghan on June 25, 2004 05:08 PM (e) (s)
<< steve, I love you, but your parody is too frighteningly plausible to be a good gimmick.>>
The first Saturday Night Live cast called it “anti-comedy” — satirizing stupidity by embodying it. Not the best term, but often a very effective tool.
Fiona
Comment #4253
Posted by Creationist Timmy on June 25, 2004 07:31 PM (e) (s)
I resent these insinuations.
You Evilutionists have to attack me Ab Homonymn, I see, because you are incapable of refuting my points. Just like you refuse to include us in your precious Evilutionist conferences and symposiums. But since I am above those childish techniques, I hereby invite you all to the ID Conference. It will be held in Highlands, NC, at Community Bible Chu…uh Community Science Center. There will be lots of scientific discussion which proves Evolition is not science and instead offers real facts and evidence and True science from multiple people with impressive science-related degrees. So please drop your closed-mindedness and attend, and you might learn something.
Comment #4254
Posted by Bob Maurus on June 25, 2004 08:40 PM (e) (s)
Timmy,
When is the conference? My polite discourse with Casey is in abeyance while he prepares for it. There are a number of things I’d like to ask him, but they’re on hold for the moment.
Comment #4257
Posted by Fiona Kelleghan on June 25, 2004 09:57 PM (e) (s)
Dear Creationist Timmy,
Your persuasive comments make me want to attend the Community Science Center ASAP!!! Just as your lack of knowledge of grammar confirms my belief that you really know what you are talking about. Only the syntactically-disinclined could be so smart as you are!!!!!
Can you tell me which brand of Christian science I should start to follow? Because it seems to me like they all say different things. As a dumb blonde, I’m very confused!
I know you want to save my soul and to prevent me from spreading my heretical ideas, so I will follow wherever you say.
Your new follower — no, wait, we are not supposed to use the same word repeatedly in the same sentence. Only our President is allowed to do that. So let me sign off as,
Your new adorationist,
Fiona
http://members.fortunecity.com/fionak/…
(very outdated, btw — I confess that I have published many more articles in those heretical refereed journals… but now I see the error in my ways …)
Comment #4261
Posted by Creationist Timmy on June 26, 2004 10:02 AM (e) (s)
Timmy,
When is the conference?
Here’s the main page for the conference:
http://www.idconference.org/html/information.html…
Experts in all fields of science will be there having a free and open dialogue, unrestricted by unwritten rules like “always pretend evolution is true” etc.
It’s going to be extremely scientific. Dr. Chuck Colson is going to be there. I think his degree is in Quantum Astrophysics or something.
You could also ask Casey Luskin about it. According to Bob, Casey is busy finishing off his science work for it. So he’s probably busy taking data in the lab, detailing his experiments, analysing his data, so maybe you should ask someone else. Anyway, just go to that page to get started.
Comment #4309
Posted by Great White Wonder on June 28, 2004 12:41 AM (e) (s)
T. Russ sed:
If you are capable of learning anything, I can explain for you why Einstein and the conceptual developments that went into his scientific thinking might just fit the design paradigm.
Zzzzzzz
Comment #4334
Posted by Steve on June 28, 2004 07:52 PM (e) (s)
Navy Davy, and others on this site, my friend Jeff in SC, and people I’ve seen on tv, make me wonder why lawyers seem uniquely drawn to discredited creationist ideas.
Are they drawn to other fringe science claims? Or just this one? Why? Because they’re way more religious than scientists? Or are other people equally drawn?
Comment #4336
Posted by Marty Perellis on June 28, 2004 09:07 PM (e) (s)
Steve
As a lawyer and a scientist who knows a lot of people in both fields, I have a coupla thoughts on the matter.
I think there are a lot of lawyers who are interested in the Constitutional issues relating to religious expression in the “public square,” a vague concept which includes public school if I understand the fundies correctly. If the lawyer is an evangelical fundie like Casey (you know the type: anti-abortion, Biblically-mandated death penalty for murderers, etc.) then an interest in the subject is likely to be heightened.
Then throw in the fact that most lawyers (like most professionals who aren’t engineers or scientists) don’t know dick about genetics or molecular biology but are happy to pretend that they do (especially if you pay them). They see this great Constitutional controversy with all sorts of “facts” and “competing theories” and BINGO there’s another Casey Luskin “born.”
What really amazes me about guys like Luskin and Wells is that, given their educational backgrounds, I can’t believe that they are as dumb as they appear to be (note: there are plenty of dumb lawyers and dumb scientists out there, so my amazement isn’t limited to creationist apologists with advanced degrees).
Arrogance and/or a desire for notoriety are the only explanations left for the willingness of folks like Luskin to champion bogus “theories” like ID.
Many of us who read and/or post comments to the Panda’s Thumb with any regularity could, if our conscience’s allowed us, “flip” to the ID side. That is, if I wanted, I could become every bit the ID proponent that Wells or Luskin or one of other shmuck’s is and even BETTER because (1) my research record as a scientist is better (more first author publications) and I received my Ph.D. in molecular biology from an equally prestigious school; (2) I have more legal experience than Luskin and I went to a better law school; and (most importantly) (3) I’m a genuine atheist with an umblemished record (unless you want to include forced church attendance from age 0-10).
Being the center of attention can be great fun. I could write a short book all about the burgeoning internet “ID Scene”. I’d entitle it “The Battle for Minds: Intelligent Design and the Twilight of Darwinism”. I’d mention the Pandas Thumb and quote all the nasty stuff people write. Wells and Dembski could write reviews for me. My book would get cited every time that some evilutionist claims that “the ID folks are a bunch of religious hucksters.” Luskin would cite it fawningly, I’m sure, especially if I mentioned his name and organization in a favorable light. I might even do some interviews with some of the profs I know and then extract the quotes which prove my point and omit the stuff which doesn’t.
Would this be difficult to do? In terms of time, no. It’d probably take a few hours a week for a year or so. But in terms of my conscience? I’d have to discard some of the values I hold most dear: honesty and fairness and personal integrity. And if I’m going to do that, I might as well make some money while doing so. You know, like those “religious” people do on TV.
Comment #4338
Posted by Steve on June 28, 2004 09:52 PM (e) (s)
I’d mention the Pandas Thumb and quote all the nasty stuff people write.
Just get my name right. It’s Steve, not Steven, as some people anomalously assume. ;-)
There’s certainly the fraud/money/recognition explanation. I don’t know what the explanation is for the ones who have any integrity, though, and I assume there are a few of those. Along those lines, I was wondering if maybe there was something peculiar to the different relationships between rhetoric, truth, assumption, proof, and such things in the legal mindset, which makes it malfunction on scientific topics.
Comment #4399
Posted by steve on June 30, 2004 03:33 PM (e) (s)
Good PLOS article on biology and teleology
http://www.plosbiology.org/archive/1545-7885/2/6/pdf/10.1371…
Comment #4522
Posted by Fiona Kelleghan on July 4, 2004 03:04 PM (e) (s)
“Are Animals Smarter Than We Think?” (might provoke thoughts about lawyers’ intelligence, too)
Here’s a passage from a review of Tim Friend’s _Animal Talk_ and Clive Wynne’s _Do Animals Think?_ in the August 2004 Discover magazine:
Two new books that grapple with the nature of intelligence in the nonhuman world offer vastly different conclusions. In _Do Animals Think?_ University of Florida psychologist Clive Wynne argues that the mental feats of nonhuman animals are all in our heads — not theirs. He claims that language is ours alone and that animals’ seemingly complex responses to problems are achieved by automatic mechanisms, not by thought. But how did humans acquire the ability to use language and practice culture? Not through some “mutational miracle,” writes journalist Tim Friend. In _Animal Talk_, he argues that culture, language, and mathematical skills emerged thanks to a process common to all living creatures: evolution. We think because thinking is adaptive. Therefore we should expect to see similar cognitive abilities in both human and nonhuman animals.
Comment #4526
Posted by Steve on July 4, 2004 05:32 PM (e) (s)
Do you think Wynne is right? I don’t. I’m reminded of Feynman telling Mlodinow, “Psychology is all bullshit.” The Mlodinow book is excellent, btw.
Comment #4527
Posted by steve on July 4, 2004 05:36 PM (e) (s)
Also, I recommend to everyone to use the Firefox browser. I switched last year and I couldn’t be happier. It’s way better than IE.
Comment #4528
Posted by Fiona Kelleghan on July 4, 2004 08:53 PM (e) (s)
Without having read either book yet, and trusting the reviewer to represent them accurately, I’d go with Friend over Wynne. My Merriam-Webster’s defines intelligence as “the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations,” which many/most animals can do (though further definitions refer to more abstract forms of reasoning), so I’m biased against Wynne from the get-go.
Though the evolution of intelligence is still mostly a mystery, I prefer the evolution theory to the soul theory.
(And I’d be grateful for recommendations to books about evolution of intelligence.)
Thanks, Steve, I’ll check out the Mlodinow.
Fiona
Comment #4532
Posted by Russell on July 5, 2004 08:38 AM (e) (s)
Fiona: Though the evolution of intelligence is still mostly a mystery, I prefer the evolution theory to the soul theory. (And I’d be grateful for recommendations to books about evolution of intelligence.)
[humor] Also, any books on evolution of the soul. [/humor]
Comment #4568
Posted by Steve on July 5, 2004 10:47 PM (e) (s)
Comment #4557
Posted by Admonitus on July 5, 2004 06:44 PM
There is definitely a scientific, rational basis for intelligent design.
A bunch of people on this board are biologists. They say there isn’t.
irreducible complexity has been formulated in mathematical terms by numerous scientists.
Erroneous mathematical terms, which they sometimes give up on in print.
Furthermore, evolution (and intelligent design) are usually just overlays in the curriculum,
As a famous creationist once said, “We have to ask—why isn’t it that our childs ain’t learn nothin?”
Finally, by the reading I’ve done in the biology arena, I’m convinced that evolution itself is quite untenable.
I’m glad you came along! I almost believed the 72 Nobel Prize winners who think it is just fine!
I hate to say it,
I hate to hear it,
but the censorship in the scientific community is palpable and the notion of academic freedom with regards to this subject and related ones in geology seems to have been replaced with one of thinly veiled demagoguery.
You’ve seen some scientific papers which deserve to be in the literature but are censored? By several dozen journals in several countries? Pretty vast conspiracy. Sounds nefarious. I’ve seen over 150 biology journals. They’re all involved in the conspiracy? Can you understand that’s a little unlikely?
It’s time for equal representation, so that students can indeed see what’s true and what’s not.
I really doubt you creationists have practiced that principle, by devoting equal time to taking your kids to mosques, synagogues, reading rooms, etc, as you do in taking them to christian church. Aren’t you afraid your kids won’t be able to see what’s true and what’s not, if not for equal representation?
Comment #4572
Posted by Admonitus on July 6, 2004 02:21 AM (e) (s)
Hi Steve,
So, this is the bathroom wall…
I must admit, I see some pretty weird stuff in the bathrooms at the high school where I teach.
I guess it’s also a place to let your hair down or veer into different subjects. Well, I think you’re a perfectly well-meaning person, and I don’t doubt that you’ve read a lot of biology. But, doing that under the presupposition that evolution is true might lead you more in that direction, don’t you agree? I really think that equal time is appropriate for Darwinian evolution and the notion of intelligent design in biology classes. History classes, I think, should also be teaching briefly, at the front of the curriculum, how we know what we do of prehistory, and what presuppositions lead us to believe things like the Earth being thousands of millions of years old as opposed to simply thousands. Also, it’s quite interesting to note the convergence of ancient mythology towards a cataclysmic flood, but this is getting a bit out of my field as it goes into geology. All I’m pressing for is a fair representation of the credible sides when discussing speculative issues like the complex interrelationships of biochemical systems and events in the deep past, in the public education system.
As for the idea of me taking my kids to many other churches, you’re welcome to do that but I’m going to pass. Again, this is the bathroom wall and I’m not announcing these particular views to my class. The bankruptcy of religions such as Islam are obvious to anyone who reads beyond CNN and the NY Times. I do, on the other hand, have two friends who are Messianic Jews; I have no quarrel with them. Religious worship is something that is personal, and focused on a thing which a person chooses whether or not to believe in. There is no one forcing you to worship a particular way, and so no “equal time” is necessary. However, in taxpayer-funded public schools, we are accountable to present an honest, fair account of all the credible sides so that students are not indoctrinated in one way or another. The two most credible theories for the origin of life are a deity such as is described in the Bible, and a Darwinian model. The former is bolstered by numerous scientific experiments, despite the lack of funding; the latter draws strength by being a nearly irrefutable hypothesis, shining in select cases, and appealing to natural selection to make up the gaps.
Comment #4581
Posted by Bob Maurus on July 6, 2004 08:46 AM (e) (s)
Admonitus: “. . Also, it’s quite interesting to note the convergence of ancient mythology towards a cataclysmic flood . . “
Forget about local events. What’s even more relevant is the total lack of evidence for a Global Flood as claimed in Genesis.
Admonitus: “. . what presuppositions lead us to believe things like the Earth being thousands of millions of years old as opposed to simply thousands.”
Try Geology?
Admonitus: “. . The two most credible theories for the origin of life are a deity such as is described in the Bible, and a Darwinian model. The former is bolstered by numerous scientific experiments . .”
Huh?
The “notion” of Intelligent Design has no place in Biology or any other Science class. If and when ID proponents can come up with a real, and testable, Theory of ID, that might change. Although, as noted and linked in a new post on another thread here, Behe’s claim of IC for the blood-clotting cascade has been shown to be wrong; and his claims for the bacterial flagellum are being dismantled. A hypothesis with no supporting evidence and no testable mechanism is a bankrupt hypothesis with nowhere to go, save the trash heap - and is certainly not a “credible theory” deserving equal time in classrooms.
Comment #4587
Posted by Steve on July 6, 2004 11:53 AM (e) (s)
I don’t doubt that you’ve read a lot of biology. But, doing that under the presupposition that evolution is true might lead you more in that direction, don’t you agree?
Do you have the least bit of evidence that I started off with that?
Comment #4588
Posted by Admonitus on July 6, 2004 12:10 PM (e) (s)
The presupposition of a constant decay rate for the radioisotopes used in dating is not testable for ages beyond about sixty years, nor will it ever be. Further assumptions about the initial abundance of daughter elements are also problematic. In contrast, all of the simple methods of telling the age of the Earth, such as the amount of Helium in the atmosphere, the amount of sodium in the ocean and mud on the ocean floor, and the presence and decay rate of comets in the solar system put an upper limit on the age of the Universe that’s measurable in the thousands of years. That’s a lot of easily testable observations for evolution to explain before it supercedes the notion of a recent creation, IMHO.
Furthermore, the Noachian flood / post-flood ice age model is much more consistent with what we know of natural history than evolutionary and geologic accounts, even when those models have a theoretically limitless number of possible catastrophes, twists and turns to rely on. As many scientists have pointed out, the evidence converges very nicely on a single catastrophe on Earth, roughly 4,000 years ago, and the resolution of that event, that generated the majority of the geologic strata and fossil evidence of early life on Earth that we see today.
Comment #4589
Posted by Les Lane on July 6, 2004 12:35 PM (e) (s)
Admonitus is a product of education that teaches science by propositional logic. He provides examples of insights to be gained by such an education.
Comment #4594
Posted by Russell on July 6, 2004 01:05 PM (e) (s)
a constant decay rate for the radioisotopes used in dating is not testable for ages beyond about sixty years
Yikes! This guy is teaching chemistry?
With respect to all this other Young Earth nonsense,
rather than try to waste my time documenting, for the nth time, how silly this stuff is, I will wait until AdMan provides a single credible reference. (So far, we haven’t seen even an INcredible reference.)
Once again, this stuff is so far beyond fringe, I can’t help wondering if AdMan is just having us on.
Comment #4595
Posted by Joe P Guy on July 6, 2004 01:16 PM (e) (s)
Admonitus:
The two most credible theories for the origin of life are a deity such as is described in the Bible, and a Darwinian model.
Exactly what makes the biblical story any more credible than the Chinese creation story of P’an Ku and his giant cosmic egg? Or the “world egg” of Hindu origins? Or the Babylonian Marduk creating the world out of Tiamat’s corpse? Or Odin, Vili and Ve killing Ymir and creating the world out of his corpse? Or the separation of Maori gods Rangi and Papa by their divine children? Or, similarly, the separation of Nut and Geb of Egyptian mythology? Or the Yoruba Orisha, Obatala, drunkenly creating crippled people? Or any of a hundred other creation myths and origin stories?
What is it that makes Judeo-Christianity so special, exactly? Why should we believe this particular myth over countless others? More importantly, if you believe in this one, what is it that makes you not believe in any of the others? Heck, we’ll make it real particular and wonder why you pick one Abrahamic religion over the other two. (Or, even more nitpickingly, why one sect of Christianity appeals to you more than the numerous others.)
What makes science different from all of these — including Judeo-Christianity — is that we draw conclusions from observations and experiments, and these conclusions are actually useful in predicting subsequent events. Science is in our nature — even animals process a rudimentary understanding of science. My dog knows that when I throw a ball in a certain direction, she should go looking in that direction to find the ball. She also knows that, if she does not see the ball leave my hand when I swing my arm, I have probably tricked her and hidden it behind my back. She bases these predictions on previous, consistent observations. What other animals don’t seem to have a talent for is fiction — which we humans have in abundance. Just take a look at all the creative stories we came up with to explain existence before our powers and tools of observation became more advanced and precise; and also look at all of the creative ways in which humans have tried to interpret observations and facts to support those stories.
Comment #4598
Posted by Jim Anderson on July 6, 2004 02:07 PM (e) (s)
As many scientists have pointed out, the evidence converges very nicely on a single catastrophe on Earth, roughly 4,000 years ago, and the resolution of that event, that generated the majority of the geologic strata and fossil evidence of early life on Earth that we see today.
A global flood 4,000 years ago? Yikes! Gonna have to revise all known archeology… Even Bishop Ussher’s famous calculation can’t be trusted…. And what does this do for my complex calculation determining the precise moment of the return of Jesus?
Comment #4600
Posted by Bob Maurus on July 6, 2004 02:43 PM (e) (s)
Admonitus,
Name a few of the many, and provide some links to their work on the subject. A global Noachian inundation 4,000 years ago? Water 5 miles deep after 40 days and nights? Hot Damn! That must be where those seashell fossils in the Alps came from, I guess, huh?
The universe is only thousands of years old, and not 10 or 20 billion? Wow, someone must have really gotten confused about the zeros, I guess. D’you think all those scientists who go with the billions are just dumber than fenceposts, or is there - conspiracy alert! - some kind of worldwide cabal of scientists dedicated to suppressing the truth?
Comment #4601
Posted by Bob Maurus on July 6, 2004 02:49 PM (e) (s)
Next, can we talk about how long it took Noah to build his ark, and how many animals he took aboard, and how he kept all that food from spoiling, and if the womenfolk got stuck with all the mucking and shoveling? Lots of interesting things to explore here.
Comment #4602
Posted by steve on July 6, 2004 02:49 PM (e) (s)
“In contrast, all of the simple methods of telling the age of the Earth, such as the amount of Helium in the atmosphere, the amount of sodium in the ocean and mud on the ocean floor, and the presence and decay rate of comets in the solar system put an upper limit on the age of the Universe that’s measurable in the thousands of years. That’s a lot of easily testable observations for evolution to explain before it supercedes the notion of a recent creation, IMHO”
You’re seriously confused if you think explaining that data is the job of evolution.
Comment #4603
Posted by Admonitus on July 6, 2004 03:32 PM (e) (s)
Well, OK. I’m sorry to have mis-spoken. The theory of evolution encompasses the origin and diversity of life on this planet, not the geologic and astronomical details I mentioned. That’s the second time I got my wires crossed about those two—the first time was when I was preparing a short lecture for my class, and at least I caught it then. What’s going on is that it’s so apparent to me that the people pushing claims about the other subjects are adamant believers in evolution, that I sometimes get into a sort of shorthand where I refer to this sort of establishment as “evolution” where, and again, Steve, I’ll give you that you are correct, evolution does not specifically address such claims. But, there needs to be a much more serious amount of research put into such areas if evolution is to be a viable theory simply for the issue of the time it had to occur. The salinity of the oceans, by Dr. Russ Humphrey’s most conservative calculations with the generous assumption of no initial ionic concentration, gives an upper bound for the age of the oceans at 62 million years. Comet evaporation would suggest an upper bound in the tens of thousands of years. See Creation Ex Nihilo 21(1):16–17 for more details. Neither is nearly long enough for the string of accidents that evolutionists have constructed to support their model, let alone more realistic estimates of how much time, matter, and free energy would be required to form life from a thin, pre-biotic broth (or how you get to a pre-biotic broth in the first place—another thing that seems to be as yet unexplained).
Comment #4606
Posted by Les Lane on July 6, 2004 03:56 PM (e) (s)
Admonitus:
Let me recommend science literature as a useful (and generally reliable) source of information.
Comment #4608
Posted by Russell on July 6, 2004 03:59 PM (e) (s)
Mr. Admonitus:
See Creation Ex Nihilo 21(1):16–17 for more details
You are having us on, aren’t you? Do you really not recognize the subtle differences between this “journal” and legitimate scientific literature? Are you familiar with the concept of “peer-review”? You actually teach high-school science?
Well, if you are sincere, your failure to distinguish “ID” from good old fashioned biblical creationism would be a refreshing break from the spinmeisters at the Discovery Institute, who protest that their “theory” is purely scientific.
But really… you’re having us on, right?
Comment #4612
Posted by Admonitus on July 6, 2004 04:52 PM (e) (s)
I’m curious as to why you’d reject Creation Ex Nihilo as scientific literature. It seems that on the one hand, legitimate studies that happen to support a creation account are rejected from the “mainstream” science journals (we’ll talk later about the definition of “mainstream”) and on the other those journals that do publish them are regarded by the mainstream journals as bunk. Given the presuppositional bias, I suppose, things fallinto place very nicely. Studies published in Creation Ex Nihilo are done in the scientific method, advancing hypotheses and testing them against observations. There is the occasional review or opinion article, but every journal has that. My view is that the distinction between “religious” and “secular” journals is one that’s really been forced by the strict secularists themselves—by refusing to publish the works of legitimate scientists who have brought forth evidence that happens to fall in line with Biblical accounts, they have forced those not in their camp to either publish in a small collection of journals, or present their work in more widely read journals in such little, inocuous pieces that it loses coherency. Still, there have been studies published in “secular” journals that directly call into question the Darwinian mode of evolution. Were there to be an even playing field, there would be no distinction between “secular” and “religious” science journals, and I think good science would then come forth quite readily. Unfortunately, we live in a world of biases. Ken Ham’s scientific credentials aren’t top notch, but after meeting the man I can see why he’s in charge of a science-ceneterd outfit like AIG—very outgoing, disarming, and well spoken. He’s the sort of person that’s needed in such a role, when scientists who are bold enough to do AIG’s sort of research are rare due to the intense professional pressure, and with the sharp rhetoric that’s directed at those people I can see why they need him as a spokesman. As he’s pointed out, it’s not a question of who holds a bias, but who holds the correct bias.
As for Russell’s desire to see me break down into one of your little molds, I’m sorry to disappoint you (or, perhaps if you like a hard, honest debate, I’ll do my best not to disappoint you). I don’t distinguish “ID” or “creation-science” from anything—I just look for sensible explanations to things we observe at the present time.
Comment #4618
Posted by Great White Wonder on July 6, 2004 06:30 PM (e) (s)
Hey, Admonitus, I noticed that you wrote something about science journals
refusing to publish the works of legitimate scientists who have brought forth evidence that happens to fall in line with Biblical accounts
I think you are full of garbage. Can you cite one verifiable example of a paper fit for publication which was refused because it “happened to fall in line with Biblical accounts”?
We have a pool in the office with a substantial sum riding on your inability to do so. The two admitted creationists in the office stand to win $192 (!) if you step up to the plate and hit a home run here. If you fail, of course, we will only increase the intensity of our daily persecution of the creationists (e.g., stuff like the Dress-Me-Jesus refrigerator magnets we bought from Urban Outfitters).
Comment #4619
Posted by Steve on July 6, 2004 06:47 PM (e) (s)
A toxicologist who said, like it does in the bible, that if you believe in jesus you can drink poison and not be harmed, will also be rejected by the scientific journals? Why? I’ll tell you why. Because there is an international conspiracy involving every scientific journal to censor results which happen to fall in line with biblical accounts. Every doctor, chemist, and toxicologist has been peer pressured into opposing the truth. Those cowardly bastards.
Comment #4620
Posted by Steve on July 6, 2004 07:12 PM (e) (s)
Typical day in high school:
Billy: “Mr. A?”
MA: “Yes, Billy?”
Billy: “Is evolution correct?”
MA: “Why, heavens no, Billy. Comets, dating, the oceans, fossils, helium, Irreducible complexity, and blood clotting prove it isn’t.”
Billy: “Clotting? But what about the hematologists? They say there’s an intrinsic and extrinsic mechanism, making the system redundant, so you can take multiple factors out and still have enough blood clotting to live?”
MA: “They’re all lying. They’ve all been peer pressured.”
Billy: “Radiometric dating? What about the nuclear physicists?”
MA: “They’re all lying. They’ve all been peer pressured.”
Billy: “Helium? What about the geochemists?”
MA: “They’re all lying. They’ve all been peer pressured.”
Billy: “IC? What about the biologists?”
MA: “All lying. All been peer pressured.”
Billy: “What about the geneticists?”
MA: “Lying. Peer pressured.”
Billy: “The oceans? The fossils? What about the geologists?”
MA: “Lying. Peer pressured.”
Billy: “Comets? What about the astrophysicists?”
MA: “Lying. Peer pressured.”
Billy: “What about those 72 Nobel Laureates in Edwards vs Aguillard?”
MA: “Lying. Pressured.”
Billy: “What about the doctors who’ve taken those photos of vestigial tails?”
MA: “Lying. Pressured.”
Billy: “You’re a huge dumbass.”
Comment #4621
Posted by Steve on July 6, 2004 07:22 PM (e) (s)
Everyone: If you don’t know who Chris Mooney is, you should. Here’s a great book he just mentioned, http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0520083938-8…
Comment #4623
Posted by Russell on July 6, 2004 08:03 PM (e) (s)
Mr A: I’m curious as to why you’d reject Creation Ex Nihilo as scientific literature
Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps it was the banner across the top of the page:
UPHOLDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE FROM THE VERY FIRST VERSE
It caused me to think that it’s not so much a forum for “legitimate scientists who have brought forth evidence that happens to fall in line with Biblical accounts ” as it is a bunch of religious wing-nuts trying to shoe-horn all of human knowledge into a literal interpretation of an ancient document.
Here are some other clues. Generally science journals have articles written by experts in their various fields. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems as if “CxN” publishes anything that purports to poke holes in “evolution” (very broadly defined, since CxN has to prove not only all of biology, but also all of geology wrong) . So here we have an article by on ocean salinity written by Jonathan Sarfati (!), whose training, research track record and credibility in the field he’s writing about is exactly zero. Science journals for grownups have articles which invariably, and extensively, cross-reference the latest developments in the field. That way the reader has some way of judging how well the author is connected with the larger world of reality, or is some crank operating in a fantasy cocoon. And peer-review… did I mention peer review?
As for “hard, honest debate”, I’m still waiting for those references to those numerous reputable scientists’ mathematical formulation of irreducible complexity. I’m not interested in “debating” someone who makes it up as he goes along, and doesn’t bother to back up his rhetoric with that all-important connection to the larger world of reality.
Comment #4624
Posted by Jim Anderson on July 6, 2004 08:07 PM (e) (s)
Admonitus,
Unfortunately, the article you cited (from Creation Ex Nihilo) isn’t such a great example of “science.”
…In their paper, Humphreys and Austin set a maximum age for the earth of 62 million years by developing a model for sodium accumulation in the oceans. They claim that their model incorporates current geological thinking. Clearly it does not and among the things it neglects to properly deal with perhaps sodium recycling is the worst. They then offer the creationist model which they claim better fits the data. However in a 12 page paper, 11.75 pages are a critique of conventionality. The creationist model is presented in a 16 line outline near the end….
…Consider the article by D.A. Livingstone, “The sodium cycle and the age of the ocean”. It was perhaps one of the later attempts to date the ocean using the sodium cycle and was published in Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, volume 27, 1963. Livingstone derived two possible ages; one using liberal estimates of recycling, giving an age of 2554 million years and another using more conservative estimates producing an age of 1313 million years….
There’s much more, and it’s pretty damning to the YEC position. Read the whole critique here: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/flaws_in_dating.htm…
Comment #4625
Posted by Les Lane on July 6, 2004 10:34 PM (e) (s)
Discussion of antievolution in science literature and what consitutes legitimate science.
Comment #4628
Posted by Admonitus on July 7, 2004 03:32 AM (e) (s)
The sodium cycle, from what I’ve been reading, seems to be pretty well accounted for in the calculations that Humphreys did. Leaching from sodium-bearing rocks, runoff, precipitation and evaporation are all discussed. If there needs to be an explicit accounting for the biological aspects of these processes, let there be such, but I still don’t see how you’re going to pull twelve-hundred million years (or twice that) out of biological activity, particularly when you want to start with a planet that had no life on it to begin with. The “Old Earth” believers that the page you referenced discusses are opening themselves to too much criticism by trying to insert things into the Bible that just aren’t there. It’s not scientific, nor is it Biblically sound, to do so.
Comment #4634
Posted by Russell on July 7, 2004 07:43 AM (e) (s)
How are those references to mathematical formulations of irreducible complexity coming along?
Comment #4648
Posted by Jim Anderson on July 7, 2004 10:45 AM (e) (s)
Note that the primary criticism of the YEC position, Admonitus, is that it’s totally ad hoc. No good reason is given for any of the claims presented as a “theory” at the end of the Humphreys paper.
Simple question for any YEC’er in the audience. If the flood occurred 4,000 years ago (as Admonitus claimed above), who built the Great Pyramid—approximately 500 years *before* the date of a supposed global deluge? And who built the pyramids right after the flood—Noah and his crew? In fact, what of Egyptian history, which can be traced back *through* the supposed flood date, with no record of any such catastrophe? We’d have to overturn all of modern archeology in order to support such fantastical conclusions.
Comment #4650
Posted by Les Lane on July 7, 2004 12:54 PM (e) (s)
Why one should be skeptical of Russell Humphreys
Comment #4655
Posted by Russell on July 7, 2004 03:10 PM (e) (s)
Another reason why one should be skeptical of Russell Humphreys.
Comment #4662
Posted by Admonitus on July 7, 2004 05:21 PM (e) (s)
Russ Humphrey’s explanations about God “stretching out the Heavens” are an excellent way to merge the latest scientific findings with what we know of from Biblical accounts. Put it another way: the more our understanding of science grows, the more it comes right back to the things we already knew. Now, obviousl we can’t empirically determine Jesus Christ created the universe, but the evidence we do have strongly supports the accounts given in the Bible. We would do well to listen to the rest of those accounts, given that they haven’t erred so far.
Comment #4664
Posted by Great White Wonder on July 7, 2004 05:39 PM (e) (s)
Hey, Admonitus, I noticed that you wrote something about science journals
refusing to publish the works of legitimate scientists who have brought forth evidence that happens to fall in line with Biblical accounts
As I stated above, I think you are a fabricator of facts. Can you cite one verifiable example of a paper fit for publication which was refused because it “happened to fall in line with Biblical accounts”?
If you are not manufacturing fake facts, can you explain to us why you are unable to provide a cite like the one I have asked you to provide?
Thanks.
Comment #4666
Posted by Bob Maurus on July 7, 2004 05:59 PM (e) (s)
Whoa, Admonitus! Take this a little slower, I’m still trying to get used to the universe being only 6,000 years old, and now you’re telling me Jesus Christ created it 2000 years ago. Damn, man! Have some pity on an old guy.
You are putting us on - aren’t you?
Comment #4672
Posted by Admonitus on July 7, 2004 07:13 PM (e) (s)
The misunderstanding that Jesus and God are totally separate is prevalent in today’s society. Perhaps the following will help:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4222.asp…
Additionally, now that I’ve had time, I’ve tracked down some of Michael Behe’s correspondence with science journals detailing his endeavors to publish in them.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=vi…
Particularly enlightening is the admission towards the front of the correspondence that the scientific community is averse to unorthodox ideas. I thought the senior advisor’s attacks on Behe’s perceived, “larger” motives were particularly telling, and may representa new push by evolutionists and others in their camp to stamp out even a hint of dissent from their ideas. It’s an intellectual monopoly, any way you slice it.
Comment #4673
Posted by Jim Harrison on July 7, 2004 07:13 PM (e) (s)
Admonitus speaks about “what we know of from Biblical accounts.” The trouble is, we know absolutely nothing from biblical accounts. Old religious books are only evidence of the beliefs or fabrications of their compilers. It is pointless to cite scripture as evidence to non believers, especially since many of the non believers became nonbelievers because of the innumerable contradictions and incoherencies of the Bible. Admonitus should read less Moses and more Spinoza. After that, maybe he’ll be ready for Darwin.
Comment #4675
Posted by Russell on July 7, 2004 07:27 PM (e) (s)
Mr. A: [i]Additionally, now that I’ve had time…[/]
Oh good. Any moment now all those references to mathematical formulations of irreducible complexity should show up!
Comment #4678
Posted by Admonitus on July 7, 2004 07:40 PM (e) (s)
And, what are the “numerous inconsistencies” in the Bible?
Comment #4679
Posted by Great White Wonder on July 7, 2004 07:42 PM (e) (s)
Admonitus, falling flat on his/her face, writes
Particularly enlightening is the admission towards the front of the correspondence that …
blah, blah, blah. I did marvel at the presence of that text on the website of the Discovery Institute. It’s a rather damning account of the deluded nature of the typical ID advocate.
But Admonitus, none of that correspondance supports your allegation that a science journal has ever refused to publish the works of a legitimate scientist who has brought forth evidence that happens to fall in line with Biblical accounts. In fact, the Bible is not mentioned by any of the editors of the journal. On the other hand, a very compelling argument is presented that, in fact, the proposed “letter to the editor” is simply not credible as science. The letter might as well be about UFOs or perpetual motion machines.
Let’s put it this way: ID is a bogus inarticulate pile of crap.
So, Admonitus, have you taken your best shot? Are you going to retract your false statement? Apologize? Or continue with the lying? I thought there was a commandment about lying in your holy book but maybe you’re one of those bible thumpers that doesn’t pay attention to such trivial details.
Comment #4680
Posted by Russell on July 7, 2004 07:47 PM (e) (s)
Here are numerous inconsistencies in the bible, now where are those numerous mathematical formulations of irreducible complexity?
Comment #4681
Posted by steve on July 7, 2004 07:56 PM (e) (s)
I still want to know where this idiot gets off insulting thousands of scientists he doesn’t know as cowards who’ve been pressured into lying. I can’t count how many creationists have said on this blog, “all the thousands of scientists who say my uninformed opinions are wrong are just lying.”
Comment #4682
Posted by Great WhiteWonder on July 7, 2004 07:56 PM (e) (s)
Btw — did our spy at the North Carolina Worldview Brainwashing Clinic finish transcribing the talks yet?
I am dying to know what vile anti-science garbage our would-be attorney Casey Luskin fed to those unfortunate children.
Comment #4683
Posted by steve on July 7, 2004 08:00 PM (e) (s)
You are putting us on - aren’t you?
(From Bob, and at times, from me)
That’s the whole joke behind Creationist Timmy—he says the stupidest things in the world, and you can’t tell if he’s an Admonitus or not. There’s no distinction.
Comment #4684
Posted by Admonitus on July 7, 2004 08:03 PM (e) (s)
Let’s look at the second one of those “contradictions” in greater detail. Genesis 1 describes the creation of the garden of Eden, into which man was then placed. Genesis 2 describes the creation of that garden, into which man was placed. There is nothing to suggest that trees were conceived and created strictly after man was created—such is the product of the desire to see something, not what’s really there.
And, again, the third of those contradictions makes something out of the interjection “now” which is obviously not there. You could have as easily said “well” (I suppose that’s what’s been put in the New-Age “Good as New” translation).
There is no discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2. If there are any truly poignant contradictions in the rest of that list, please bring them forward.
Comment #4685
Posted by Admonitus on July 7, 2004 08:11 PM (e) (s)
“Btw — did our spy at the North Carolina Worldview Brainwashing Clinic finish transcribing the talks yet?”
I hope there’s no wonder as to why scientists (and citizens in general) who dissent from evolution are suspicious of those who trumpet this worldview.
Comment #4687
Posted by Creationist Timmy on July 7, 2004 08:42 PM (e) (s)
Genesis 1 describes the creation of the garden of Eden, into which man was then placed. Genesis 2 describes the creation of that garden, into which man was placed.
Comment #4069
Posted by Les Lane on June 22, 2004 12:56 PM (e) (s)
Typical misunderstanding of “theory”, but with a touch of irony