Comment #18451

Posted by Frank J on February 28, 2005 06:53 AM (e) (s)

Jim Foley wrote:

The media exaggerated the significance of these frauds, with phrases like “History of modern man unravels” and “key discoveries” occurring in headlines.

Time to repeat: With “friends” like these, who needs creationists? Lately I am getting more irritated with the sensationalist media than I am with anti-evolutionists. When writing about science, they get so much wrong, and it always happens to play into common public misconceptions. My “favorite” headline of 1-2 years ago went something like “Study: Neandertals Not Genetically Related to Humans.” Of course the study concluded nothing of the sort.

Comment #18454

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 28, 2005 07:35 AM (e) (s)

Thanks Jim, I would have to include myself among the lay public who knew nothing about this aside from the headlines.  Should have known…

Comment #18455

Posted by afarensis on February 28, 2005 07:47 AM (e) (s)

I was somewhat suspicious of the Stringer quote since he is a major proponet of the “Out of Africa” theory - it didn’t make sense that he would have to revise a view he didn’t agree with in the first place (i.e. gene flow between anatomically modern humans and neanderthals). Considering how minor the finds actually were (I could only find two brief mentions of one of them)the amount of press this has received is suprising. Unfortunately, most people in the mainstream media seem to know very little about anthropology.

Comment #18456

Posted by smijer on February 28, 2005 09:10 AM (e) (s)

Off topic.. I was e-mailed a copy of :
Science’s new heresy trial
A Smithsonian-backed editor is defrocked by the priesthood of science for publishing an article on Intelligent Design by Gene Edward Veith, World, Feb. 19, 2005

The article was S. Meyer’s famous ID paper that got in the back door and made so much noise a while back. I’ve found plenty of great critiques of the Meyer paper, but I haven’t found any responses to Veith’s little job. Anybody know where I might find one? Site searches here, at Pharyngula, and at Mooney’s blog have all drawn a blank on Veith’s name. People I work with are interested in hearing what professional scientists have to say about both the Meyer paper and Veith’s diatribe about it. It is six pages, so I won’t reproduce it, but I found a copy of it at the DI:
here

Comment #18476

Posted by Paul King on February 28, 2005 10:52 AM (e) (s)

Jason Rosenhouse had some comments on Veith’s article here:

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/worlds-world.html…

Comment #18477

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 28, 2005 10:56 AM (e) (s)

Here you go smijer.

Comment #18481

Posted by smijer on February 28, 2005 11:19 AM (e) (s)

Thanks… my co-workers have gotten an earful this a.m. I e-mailed them the Meyer Roundup that Wesley Elsberry posted, and the full text of the Gishlick, Matzke, Elsberry critique. Now they have the full text of Jason’s response to Veith. They should have plenty to keep them occupied for a while. If anyone runs across or knows of any other responses to Veith, I don’t mind piling it on them.. .thanks for your help.

Comment #18488

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 12:00 PM (e) (s)

The frauds are doubtless a blow for the researchers unlucky enough to have sent samples to Protsch for dating, but do nothing to weaken the evidence for human evolution

I have to agree.  One more little fraud is just one more drop in the bucket of fraud that was already there.

Maybe evolutionists can get the ACLU to sue somebody over it.  Ya think?  After all, the federal courts are mutation/selection’s main line of defense.  Without the court ordered defense of the indoctrination of children in Darwinian dogmatism to the exclusion of all else, mutation/selection as an all-powerful mechanism capable of transforming clay into clams would have been laughed out of existence a long time ago.

Church of Darwin clerics are in a desperate hysteria to censor criticism of the Darwinian Scriptures.  The desperation is understandable.  I’d be desperate too if my most cherished faith were hanging by the thread of judicial fiat in an increasingly conservative nation.

Comment #18493

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 28, 2005 12:17 PM (e) (s)

You don’t even try not to look ridiculous anymore, do you Dave?

Comment #18494

Posted by Randall on February 28, 2005 12:20 PM (e) (s)

Isn’t it interesting how when scientists are found to have committed fraud, they’re shuned by the scientific community, but when creationists/IDers are found to have committed fraud, they’re lauded (or at the very least, their fraud is ignored)?

Quote Mine Project
Creationist Whoppers
Honesty in “Darwin on Trial”

Comment #18495

Posted by Alan Gourant on February 28, 2005 12:26 PM (e) (s)

If anybody is in a desperate hysteria, it obviously is Dave Scott and his creo buddies - his shrill comment (18488) is a good example.  Regarding fraud, perhaps he should look at what they are teaching in his church, whatever it is. LOL.

Comment #18502

Posted by FredMcX on February 28, 2005 12:48 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote;

:I’d be desperate too if my most cherished faith were hanging by the thread of judicial fiat in an increasingly conservative nation.

As Pilate asked, “what is truth?” Truth cannot be legislated against and no matter what the courts may decide it won’t change the truth of the matter.

As for the conservative nation - you can bet your bottom dollar that the administration will walk away from their fundie backers as fast as you can say “Jeff Gannon.” Do you really imagine the big pharmos will dump evolution research? As Marburger stated, evolution is the basis of much of the work that NIH funds. In a nutshell, it’s a cash cow for the pharamceutical companies and the politicians who look out for their interests.

Dave, it’s you who should be desperate - gays in the Whitehouse press core, evolutionists advising the President. What next? You see, Jesus had no part of the world and when the fundies try to get in with the powers the be they get screwed. Remember - God’s Kingdom is no part of the world. That’s why his followers shouldn’t be either.

Fundies are just there to be stroked for their vote at election time. Stroke and Vote Xians!

It’s not surprising that it is you who sounds so desperate.

Comment #18507

Posted by Gary Hurd on February 28, 2005 01:08 PM (e) (s)

Thanks, Jim, for making the effort to clear up some of the media, and creationist confussion regarding Reiner Protsch. 

It is too bad it took so long for something to be done about Protsch, but there are intellectual failures with tenure, just look at M. Behe.

Comment #18511

Posted by Buridan on February 28, 2005 01:23 PM (e) (s)

It would be nice to keep the trolls from dominating this thread. Please don’t feed the trolls.

Comment #18516

Posted by Richard on February 28, 2005 01:34 PM (e) (s)

Unfortunately, there seems to be a trend within mainstream media to “sensationalize” stories having to do with science. Even Newsweek’s recent ID story seemed to be written in a way that might leave casual readers thinking there really IS some sort of scientific “controversy” over the place of ID in science (or school curricula).

Comment #18523

Posted by Ron Zeno on February 28, 2005 02:04 PM (e) (s)

As has been pointed out before, Chris Mooney has a great article on why the media has such difficulty reporting on science: Blinded By Science.  The bottom line: it’s easier, and often makes for a better story, when journalists assume all parties involved have the same standards of evidence, ethics, logic, assessment, etc even when they most certainly do not.

Comment #18526

Posted by steve on February 28, 2005 02:32 PM (e) (s)

Comment #18511

Posted by Buridan on February 28, 2005 01:23 PM

It would be nice to keep the trolls from dominating this thread. Please don’t feed the trolls.

Due to troll feeding, I daresay there are more trolls commenting more comments on PT today, than at any point in the past.

Comment #18527

Posted by Dave on February 28, 2005 02:37 PM (e) (s)

It has been well said that few things will give you a worse view of the press than reading an article about a subject in which you are expert.

Comment #18529

Posted by steve on February 28, 2005 02:50 PM (e) (s)

In fact, the place has become markedly less appealing lately due to the Ignorant Deluge.

PT has many purposes. It’s a place where the contributors write fantastic posts about biology, evolution, and the creationist cretins. Love that. It’s a place where science oriented people who are not delusional talk about evolution, which is a fascinating and awesome collection of phenomena. Love that. It’s also a place where bright people argue endlessly with creationists, who are committed to fantasy, and will endlessly object to the truth, even when on some level they know better (such as making probability arguments you’d laugh at a freshman for making in a non-religious context). This is a depressing waste of time. On balance, i like PT quite a bit. Keep up the excellent posts, contributor-people.

Comment #18532

Posted by steve on February 28, 2005 02:58 PM (e) (s)

Comment #18527

Posted by Dave on February 28, 2005 02:37 PM

It has been well said that few things will give you a worse view of the press than reading an article about a subject in which you are expert.

There’s some truth to this. I never read science things from the AP, or the other syndicators. However, I have found that the NYT has the best science coverage. I read that regularly. In general, newspapers are not places to go for valuable information, and neither are the news channels, and newsmagazines like Time and Newsweek. Because the criteria for what makes a good story are not the same as what makes valuable information. That’s why there are so many stories about flaming trainwrecks, etc. If you don’t believe me, start watching news while asking questions like, is this relevant to me, is this important, is it edifying, etc. It’s not very infomative stuff. For good information, I recommed magazines which specialise in a topic, or have really broad and smart coverage, like The Economist.

Comment #18534

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 28, 2005 03:11 PM (e) (s)

steve wrote:

However, I have found that the NYT has the best science coverage.

They have Carl Zimmer writing for them, you know they’re doing something right.

Comment #18537

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 28, 2005 03:30 PM (e) (s)

Dave said: 

One more little fraud is just one more drop in the bucket of fraud that was already there.

One “more?”  Let’s see, there was the practical-joke-gone-awry at Piltdown, which never really carried a lot of weight in science, and then there’s this minor flap about one guy in Germany who, it appears, never dated anything of any great importance.

That’s two.

That means that for every fraud in evolution, there are only two or three thousand frauds in creationism.  Science has a solid method to smoke out and correct the frauds.  Creationism doesn’t. 

If your bucket includes the creationism stuff, yeah, it’s just one drop in the bucket.  if your bucket is for science fraud only, the bucket is dry.

Comment #18553

Posted by Buridan on February 28, 2005 06:14 PM (e) (s)

The media (local and national) recently covered an NIH project that I’m a part off and in almost every case they either misquoted or misattributed some aspect of the project. In several cases they misidentified the PI and the University where the study is taking place. Even the NY Times made a mistake. It was quite remarkable how consistent they were in getting the facts wrong – no controversies, no juggling of differing points of view, all they had to do was simply report.

Comment #18555

Posted by QrazyQat on February 28, 2005 06:40 PM (e) (s)

Ron Zeno wrote:

why the media has such difficulty reporting on science

As I usually do when I see this subject mentioned, I’ll point out that the media’s difficulties with reporting science aren’t helped by the way that scientists themselves, along with university PR departments, often publicize their work.  Too often (you see this regularly) they do things like suggest their work overturns much of the field, will cause a massive reevaluation of the field, etc.  This isn’t necessarily the only way they cause problems, but it’s probably the most common.

Another example of people causing their own later problems was the coining and promoting of the term “Eve” by Allan Wilson — a catchy term he knew would get publicity.  He was right, of course, but later — once it backfired on him and he found his work being used as “evidence” by creationists — he claimed to be completely perplexed and considerably annoyed at how on earth the term had come to be used in describing his research.

Comment #18573

Posted by Keanus on February 28, 2005 09:07 PM (e) (s)

One has to remember that the print nor broadcast (including cable) media rarely employ science reporters. Those who cover science stories are almost always just beat reporters whose only background is journalism or a related field. There may be other general news organizations who do, but to my knowledge only the NY Times puts reporters on the science beat who report only science; I was spoiled in that I grew up with Walter Sullivan at the Times. They’re expected to inform themselves of the discipline and keep on top of it. That’s why one can usually count on coverage by the Times being reasonably accurate, free of loaded words and language, and devoid of sky high promises of magic elixirs. Of course, there are always the free lancers like Christ Mooney and Karl  Zimmer plus the news staff at Science and similar journals who do a fabulous job, but sadly we won’t ever see them in the popular press, whose stock in trade is gossip (political and Hollywood), fires, violence and weird people. Science for the most part is beyond the comprehension of the average reporter and completely over the head of John and Jane Public.

Comment #18582

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 10:28 PM (e) (s)

Fred

You must be smoking crack.  It makes absolutely no practical difference in the world whether mutation/selection, the hand of God, or something else was the primary cause for evolution.

I swear, besides making mutation/selection all powerful now the peanut gallery makes the mere faith in it the very thread which holds civilization together.

You really have no idea how ridiculous that is, do you?

Comment #18584

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 10:35 PM (e) (s)

Gourant

I’m an agnostic which is the only position an enlightened, objective, honest genius can possibly take.

So sorry.  No church for me.  Not a Christinian one and not a Darwinian one.  You should try it.  Free your mind. Take the red pill.

Comment #18585

Posted by DaveScot on February 28, 2005 10:55 PM (e) (s)

FredMcX

It’s not surprising that it is you who sounds so desperate.

ROFLMAO!  Hardly.  This is entertainment for me.  I’m laughing my a$$ off at both the atheists and the bible thumpers.  Don’t confuse a good rant that I enjoy writing for affect with any vested interest in it.  The outcome of this brouhaha will make no difference whatsoever in the real world.  It’s two camps of anal retentive egocentric dipwads both convinced they are the holders of the absolute truth battling over a friggin’ sticker that students couldn’t possibly care less about. 

The only thing I really care about is the political aspect.  It ticks me off when the establishment clause of the constitution is tortured the way that homozygous imbecile Judge Clarence Cooper did and it ticks me off when activist judges like that inbred Clinton-appointed lifetime moron Judge Clarence Cooper defy the legitimate legislative actions of duly elected representatives of the people.  I didn’t serve four years of my young adulthood in the United States Marine Corps defending the constitution to see liberal retards like Judge Clarence Cooper make a mockery of it while whiney little academic pissants who speak from the safety provided by men like me cheer him on.

Comment #18587

Posted by Colin on February 28, 2005 11:04 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote:

You must be smoking crack.  It makes absolutely no practical difference in the world whether mutation/selection, the hand of God, or something else was the primary cause for evolution.

Of course it makes a difference.  One approach is honest and productive, leading to further investigation and future developments.  The other pays Kent Hovind’s speaking fees, and liberates the Behes and Dembskis of the world from the strenuous demands of real science.

Waving your hands in the air and demanding that scienctists stop thinking critically because you don’t like their answers imposes a real cost on the rest of us.  I think that is only ridiculous to an outside observer; for those of us who would like the next generation to be better educated than the Hovinds of the world and more honest than the Dembskis, it is genuinely disturbing.

Comment #18588

Posted by DonkeyKong on February 28, 2005 11:06 PM (e) (s)

Hmm evolution fraud is rare?

So those HS teachers saying its a fact that has been proven aren’t working for you?

Those PHDs saying it CANNOT be disproven aren’t working for you?  Note the difference between CANNOT and HAS NOT.

Evolution has a fraud for every fraud in creationism, you just lie about it.

Karl Sagan and life on venus strike a bell?

Either evolution is full and I mean FULL of people who fundementally don’t understand the difference between science and philosophy or they are fradulent in how they represent evolution.

So pretty much every evolutionists that gets excited about the creationist/evolutionist argument is fradulent.  All real scientists know when the evidence is truely there it will be uncontestable or wrong and there is no need to get excited.

Comment #18589

Posted by Colin on February 28, 2005 11:10 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote:

It ticks me off when the establishment clause of the constitution is tortured the way that homozygous imbecile Judge Clarence Cooper did and it ticks me off when activist judges like that inbred Clinton-appointed lifetime moron Judge Clarence Cooper defy the legitimate legislative actions of duly elected representatives of the people.

“Activist judge” is a common plaintive wail from anyone who sees a decision that they don’t like, but it is only sometimes accurate.  The term does have a meaning other than “I don’t like that.”  Judge Cooper did not make new law or take any large steps in applying existing precedent; he applied an existing test established in clear precedent to the facts before him.  You might think that his decision was wrong, but that does not make it activist.  I would imagine that a man who wants to replace science with rhetoric would be more precise with his terms; you only reinforce the impression that you are an ideologue parroting the party line.

Comment #18590

Posted by Randall on February 28, 2005 11:18 PM (e) (s)

*yawn*

Could you cite any evidence that high school teachers say evolution (as in the theory of common descent by mutation and natural selection) is a fact? Like, a quote from a textbook? That would be nice.

And as anyone with scientific understanding can tell you, the only reason evolution is meaningful is that it CAN (in principle) be disproven. If it actually could not in principle be disproven, it would be no better than intelligent design. Care to show any evidence that someone with a PhD claims this? And if you cite Behe and Dembski, I’ll certainly agree that they don’t work for evolution.

It’s actually quite funny that you claim that “evolutionists” claim that evolution cannot be disproven, since that’s one of the ID community’s loudest claims. Unless you can’t differentiate between ID supporters and evolution supporters…

Comment #18594

Posted by Carleton Wu on February 28, 2005 11:33 PM (e) (s)

I’m an agnostic which is the only position an enlightened, objective, honest genius can possibly take.

What, did you find one and ask him? And was this before or after you decided that popping pills was you last, best chance at enlightenment?

Comment #18614

Posted by Karen on March 1, 2005 12:55 AM (e) (s)

Dave wrote:

It has been well said that few things will give you a worse view of the press than reading an article about a subject in which you are expert.

A couple of decades ago the company I was working for had a robbery.  It was midafternoon, when the cafeteria crew counted up the day’s proceeds.  An ex-employee who had worked in the cafeteria, along with a couple of thuggy friends, broke in waving guns and demanded the cash, shot a couple of people for the offense of just being in the room, and killed one of them.  Very scary, but very straightforward.  Cops caught the bastards the next day.

My regional, award-winning newspaper got just about every detail of the incident wrong. 

If they can’t get the simple details of a robbery correct, how can I trust what they write about science?!!!

Comment #18630

Posted by Grey Wolf on March 1, 2005 03:01 AM (e) (s)

DaveScot:

I’m an agnostic

An agnostic that believes in some mystical energy stopping creatures from evolving outside their “kinds”, in your own words. You even try to trump any argument with the utter stupidity of “they’re still bacteria”. I assume, by that, that you accept speciation, and furthermore evolution between genus, family, order, class, phylum (or division), don’t you? Or are you so stupid that bacteria is a kingdom (a definite possibility, so I won’t discard it)?

Essentially, your trump card is like having been shown the exact evolution from their common ancestor between sharks and whales and you trying to say that “that’s not evolution, because they’re both still animals”.

Not waiting anymore for you to answer my questions, DaveScot, since you’ve shown to not have any idea about evolution or even computer science.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #18632

Posted by DaveScot on March 1, 2005 03:10 AM (e) (s)

Colin

The way the universe works today does not change one iota if inanimate chemicals turned into dinosaurs by divine will the day before yesterday or by chance and natural selection over the course of billions of years.

Mutation/selection is not proven to account for all diversity.  Therefore, it may be found to be wrong.  If you don’t admit that much there’s no sense in further discourse with you.  So if it turns out to be wrong, does that mean that medicines will stop working?  Nope.  Not a single practical thing to do with science will change by allowing for the mere possibility that intelligent design had a hand in evolution.

You’re assigning far too much importance to a concept that has nothing but historical significance.  Micromutation is very important and happens today.  Macroevolution via micromutation is ancient history at best and is irrelevant to anything happening today.

Keep in mind that *I*, like Behe, am not in disagreement with common descent.  The idea that all extant species are related is the valuable idea.  How distantly related species got that way is of no practical value - random muatation or directed change - the difference has theistic consequences and nothing else.

Comment #18634

Posted by DaveScot on March 1, 2005 03:18 AM (e) (s)

master of the straw man, Grey Wolf, wrote:

An agnostic that believes in some mystical energy stopping creatures from evolving outside their “kinds”, in your own words.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!  Wrong.

I believe in the possibility of God, or intelligent aliens, not the fact of God or intelligent aliens.

If you don’t know the difference between possibility and fact then you need more help than I can give you here.

Agnosticism means not knowing for sure.  Atheists know there is not a God.  Theists know there is a God.  I know they’re both full of sh*t because nobody knows for sure.

Got it?

Comment #18636

Posted by ts on March 1, 2005 05:56 AM (e) (s)

Agnosticism means not knowing for sure.  Atheists know there is not a God.  Theists know there is a God.

Wrong.  From www.dictionary.com:

Agnosticism: The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Comment #18637

Posted by plunge on March 1, 2005 06:03 AM (e) (s)

“Agnosticism means not knowing for sure.  Atheists know there is not a God.  Theists know there is a God.  I know they’re both full of sh*t because nobody knows for sure.

Got it?”

Actually, no, because that’s, as usual, wrong.

The key word for atheists and theists is BELIEVE, not “know.”  Whether or not one is an agnostic, one is still either an atheist or a theist: they either believe in a god or they don’t (you’d have to be pretty messed up in the head to not know whether or not you believe there is a god, same as whether or not you have an apple in your left hand right now).  There are plenty of agnostic atheists, agnostic theists (indeed, all agnostics are either one or the other).

Comment #18643

Posted by Buridan on March 1, 2005 07:03 AM (e) (s)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch…

When these things happen in science, the scientific community goes back to reevaluate, reassess and revise, which by the way was one of the first responses by the scientific community to this story. While certainly an embarrassment, these types of scandals are rarely devastating because reevaluations and revisions are the bread and butter of science.

Hmmm, I wonder how the church handles scandals? They certainly have a lot of experience with it.

Comment #18644

Posted by GT(N)T on March 1, 2005 07:05 AM (e) (s)

“Mutation/selection is not proven to account for all diversity.”

DaveScott, you’ve made this and similar statements several times.  I’m sure you’re aware that 1) few evolutionary biologists believe natural selection is the only operative force in evolution, most also accept that stochastic processes account for some of the observed evolutionary change, and 2) science rarely ‘proves’ universal statements.  Science works by supporting, or failing to support, hypothetical statements.

A true statement would be, ‘evolutionary change brought about by natural selection acting on genetic mutation is commonly observed.’

Comment #18645

Posted by GT(N)T on March 1, 2005 07:10 AM (e) (s)

“Mutation/selection is not proven to account for all diversity.”

DaveScott, you’ve made this and similar statements several times.  I’m sure you’re aware that 1) few evolutionary biologists believe natural selection is the only operative force in evolution, most also accept that stochastic processes account for some of the observed evolutionary change, and 2) science rarely ‘proves’ universal statements.  Science works by supporting, or failing to support, hypothetical statements.

A true statement would be, ‘evolutionary change brought about by natural selection acting on genetic mutation is commonly observed.’

Comment #18648

Posted by GT(N)T on March 1, 2005 07:17 AM (e) (s)

“Mutation/selection is not proven to account for all diversity.”

DaveScott, you’ve made this and similar statements several times.  I’m sure you’re aware that 1) few evolutionary biologists believe natural selection is the only operative force in evolution, most also accept that stochastic processes account for some of the observed evolutionary change, and 2) science rarely ‘proves’ universal statements.  Science works by supporting, or failing to support, hypothetical statements.

A true statement would be, ‘evolutionary change brought about by natural selection acting on genetic mutation is commonly observed.’

Comment #18649

Posted by GT(N)T on March 1, 2005 07:23 AM (e) (s)

That was certainly worth saying 3 times.  Sorry.

Comment #18659

Posted by DonkeyKong on March 1, 2005 09:22 AM (e) (s)

Randal

1)  Your basic argument is this.  If you want to be taken seriosly pointing out the holes in evolution then you need to do MORE footwork and show examples.  Each of those examples being only a single example will be easily discredit by the fact that they are single examples and it is only after a large number is presented that you will respond.  When you put the burden of proof on the other guy its usually a sign that you have nothing constructive to support you and rely on destructive arguments.

2)  For an example of a demolishing of a text book see the stupid text book argument thread on this website.

3)  The Carl Sagan types claim that because there is 10^21 stars that there MUST be live on other planets.  This sounds very convincing until you read a book like “RARE EARTH” that breaks down all the aspects that make up life as we know it and is able to say that although there may be simple life on other planets the odds are there is no complex life on any other planet in our galaxy.  So while you can hand wave about how there MUST be life on other planets because there are 10^21 stars that is obviously BS if the odds of evolving complex life are 10^(-30+) which is a number I made up cause I can’t be bothered pulling down my copy of RARE EARTH and getting their estimate.  Oh and I didn’t get his name but there was a clip of a PHd. saying the 10^21 on Jon Forgothislast name’s comedy central news program when they covered Peter Jennings and the UFO report he will be doing.

4)  This quote is too good not to inlclude.
“”Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
-Carl Sagan
“ 
Carl drank the kool-aid.

Comment #18661

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 1, 2005 09:43 AM (e) (s)

DaveScot said: 

It ticks me off when the establishment clause of the constitution is tortured the way that homozygous imbecile Judge Clarence Cooper did and it ticks me off when activist judges like that inbred Clinton-appointed lifetime moron Judge Clarence Cooper defy the legitimate legislative actions of duly elected representatives of the people.

The people of the United States agreed that governments should not advance religion, and our freely-elected representatives wrote that into the Constitution; 14 sets of freely-elected, representative conventions ratified the Constitution, with 9 of those sets requesting a bill of rights to make the religious rights more clear.  A freely-elected Congress proposed what is now the First Amendment, and it was ratified by 14 freely-elected legislatures.  50 states had freely-elected constitutional conventions which wrote the same thing into their state constitutions.

It bugs me when people make moronic statements such as the claim that a judge supporting the collective, generations-repeated wisdom of the establishment clause, is a “moron.”  I don’t know if maker of that statement is moronic because of being inbred or being brain damaged through some other way, or just ignorant of the history and the processes involved, but I’ll gamble she or he won’t be a federal judge any day soon.

School boards, as arms of state government, may not have religious views.  That right is reserved to citizens.

By the way — do you have any idea whether Judge Cooper served in the military, or in which branch?  It would be unseemly for one ex-Marine to go after another …

I didn’t serve four years of my young adulthood in the United States Marine Corps defending the constitution to see liberal retards like Judge Clarence Cooper make a mockery of it while whiney little academic pissants who speak from the safety provided by men like me cheer him on.

Many people who fight to defend the Constitution don’t understand what it says.  That doesn’t make it wrong.  As one sage noted, it is impossible to be both young-and-brave, and old-and-wise.

Comment #18662

Posted by ts on March 1, 2005 09:50 AM (e) (s)

Whether or not one is an agnostic, one is still either an atheist or a theist: they either believe in a god or they don’t (you’d have to be pretty messed up in the head to not know whether or not you believe there is a god, same as whether or not you have an apple in your left hand right now).  There are plenty of agnostic atheists, agnostic theists (indeed, all agnostics are either one or the other).

That’s only true if atheism is the passive “lacks a belief in God” rather than the active “believes there isn’t a God”, in which case it is possible to be neither a theist nor an atheist, just as I neither believe that there was once life on Mars nor do I believe that there wasn’t once life on Mars — I simply don’t know.

Comment #18664

Posted by Monty Zoom on March 1, 2005 09:56 AM (e) (s)

Since I am currently reading “Rare Earth” I have to say that some of the stuff is somewhat compelling, and somewhat not compelling.  They make lots of assumptions that simply do not have to be.  IE, why can’t life form on a water world?

Further, this “scientific” book is only ONE theory and just because you find it compelling doesn’t make it true. 
They make LOTS of assumptions that do not necessarily be true.  What are the odds of a planet like earth being out there?  I would guess they would be vastly greater than a planet with complex life…

Comment #18677

Posted by Steve. Not the creationist IDiot one. on March 1, 2005 11:14 AM (e) (s)

I didn’t serve four years of my young adulthood in the United States Marine Corps defending the constitution to see liberal retards like Judge Clarence Cooper make a mockery of it while whiney little academic pissants who speak from the safety provided by men like me cheer him on.

Stratocracy, the consequence of that ‘logic’, is for dipshits.

But I suspect the writer is a troll pulling our legs, because of the obvious resemblance to A Few Good Men.

Comment #18682

Posted by plunge on March 1, 2005 11:43 AM (e) (s)

“That’s only true if atheism is the passive “lacks a belief in God” rather than the active “believes there isn’t a God”, in which case it is possible to be neither a theist nor an atheist, just as I neither believe that there was once life on Mars nor do I believe that there wasn’t once life on Mars — I simply don’t know.”

Sure, but don’t you think that that’s mostly just kind of deceptive?  If you say “I don’t believe in a god” then for most people, that’s enough for them to call you an atheist.  But that’s only the weak, passive definition, not the strong one.  It would make more sense for atheism to be the logical negation of theism (~BG) rather than a positive counter claim (B~G), not to mention that it fits much better with the broadest use of the term (which is always the safer bet when defining groups of people), as well as the Latin derivation (“a” = “without” theism = “a god belief”). 

But of course, you can define words however you want in the end.  The real issue remains: if you are not a believer, then, even if you are an agnostic, you are still a non-believer.  Like it or not, you cannot escape either believing in a god or not believing in one.  Knowledge is a different issue.

Comment #18686

Posted by Monty Zoom on March 1, 2005 12:35 PM (e) (s)

</i>I didn’t serve four years of my young adulthood in the United States Marine Corps defending the constitution to see liberal retards like Judge Clarence Cooper make a mockery of it while whiney little academic pissants who speak from the safety provided by men like me cheer him on.<i>

And I didn’t spend four years of my young adulthood in college to listen to some ignorant jarhead troll rant on about the liberalness of some judge who’s job it is to overturn laws created by over zealous law makers who ignore inconvenient sections of the U.S. Constitution.

I guess neither one of us get what we want…

Comment #18690

Posted by ts on March 1, 2005 01:07 PM (e) (s)

plunge wrote:

Sure, but don’t you think that that’s mostly just kind of deceptive?

I have no idea what you mean by “deceptive”, or who is being deceptive.

If you say “I don’t believe in a god” then for most people, that’s enough for them to call you an atheist.  But that’s only the weak, passive definition, not the strong one.

No, the statement is ambiguous; see

http://www.bookcase.com/library/faq/archive/atheism/introduc…

Atheism is characterized by a deliberate absence of belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists go further, and believe that particular gods do not exist. The former is often referred to as the “weak atheist” position, and the latter as “strong atheism”.
 
It is important to note the difference between these two positions.  “Weak atheism” is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of  God. “Strong atheism” is a positive belief that God does not exist.  Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are  “strong atheists”. There is a qualitative difference in the “strong” and “weak” positions; it’s not just a matter of degree.

It would make more sense for atheism to be the logical negation of theism (~BG) rather than a positive counter claim (B~G), not to mention that it fits much better with the broadest use of the term (which is always the safer bet when defining groups of people), as well as the Latin derivation (“a” = “without” theism = “a god belief”).

Natural language isn’t logic.  “I don’t believe in Santa Claus” is generally taken to be strong disbelief, not weak absence of belief.  Likewise, “I don’t believe there has ever been life on Mars” is taken as strong disbelief.  If someone asks you if you believe there has ever been life on Mars, “no” would indicate strong disbelief; to register weak lack of belief, you would have to say “I don’t know”.

But of course, you can define words however you want in the end.

Well, no, that’s a radical overstatement that misses the point.

The real issue remains: if you are not a believer, then, even if you are an agnostic, you are still a non-believer.  Like it or not, you cannot escape either believing in a god or not believing in one.

Only if “not believing in one” is the weak sense of lack of belief, but that’s rarely how it is interpreted.  Also, many people (mis)take “agnostic” to mean weak atheism.

Knowledge is a different issue.

In the sense that DaveScot attempted to impose, yes, but in practice many believers and (strong) disbelievers make knowledge claims.

Comment #18691

Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 1, 2005 01:18 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote:

I didn’t serve four years of my young adulthood in the United States Marine Corps defending the constitution  to see liberal retards like Judge Clarence Cooper make a mockery of it…

Yeah, well, lotsa folks can play that game, bubba.  And not all of them would view things the same way you do.  Perhaps that’s the enduring value of the Constitution all us Manly Men thought we were off there defending.

Comment #18695

Posted by Jim Harrison on March 1, 2005 01:34 PM (e) (s)

A fair number of people have a problem with the usual definitions of atheism and agnosticism because of the implication that it has been settled just what or who it is whose existence is denied or doubted. The problem isn’t so much that there is no definition of what God is, but that there are all too many definitions. God is variously described as an entity or as being qua being, as first cause, perfect being, being whose essence implies existance, spirit (whatever that is), cosmic consciousness, gaseous vertebrate, alien superanimal, old guy with a beard—a vast and heterogenous stew of concepts and images. Everybody knows the bit about the wise men and the elephant, but how do the wise men know they are feeling up the same animal?

Until somebody specifies what it is that I’m supposed to believe in, deny, or doubt, I have no idea how I’m supposed to answer. Maybe that doesn’t matter. In the U.S. belief in God seems to be more an assertion of loyalty to society than a statement of fact. Truth is irrelevant to such loyalty oaths just as sacrificing to the emperor was about being a good Roman, not an endorsement of the actual divinity of some guy in a toga.

Comment #18704

Posted by luminous beauty on March 1, 2005 02:41 PM (e) (s)

“But of course, you can define words however you want in the end.  The real issue remains: if you are not a believer, then, even if you are an agnostic, you are still a non-believer.  Like it or not, you cannot escape either believing in a god or not believing in one.  Knowledge is a different issue.”

As a Buddhist I’d like to say I’m perfectly capable of considering both/either a theistic or atheistic POV.  They are mere categories of grammatically defined knowledge, and therefore projections of the linguistically constrained human mind, not in any way accurate or complete comprehensions of the totality of reality.  Spiritual wisdom lies beyond rhetoric in the still contemplation of one’s own heart and ontological circumstance, just as the reality of scientific knowlege lies in the data of observable phenomena and their rigorous mathematical analyses, and not in the synthetic interpretation of predicate philosophy (not to say the effort is totally useless).  I find innumeracy a greater obstacle to scientific understanding than illogic.  Theists are just as logical or not as atheists, given the premises of their non-falsifiable beliefs, and given the predominance of exclusively dualistic logic in the Western Tradition.  Anti-evolutionist belief, however, strikes me as pathological.  Just what do these jokers think they have to defend?

Comment #18705

Posted by plunge on March 1, 2005 02:42 PM (e) (s)

“I have no idea what you mean by “deceptive”, or who is being deceptive.”

Because it basically dodges the question by rephrasing it to answer a different question.  When someone asks you if you believe in something, that’s a yes or no question, unavoidably.  If someone asks you if you believe in life on Mars “No I don’t: it’s certainl possible, but it has yet to be proven to my satisfaction, so I remain agnostic about it.” is a reasonable answer.  “I neither believe it nor don’t believe it” is incoherent (logic of the excluded middle, no less in natural language) and “I neither believe it nor believe that there is no life” is reasonable, yet confusingly dodges the question by answering a different question (do you believe that there is no life on Mars?) in the second part.

“No, the statement is ambiguous; see”

That’s doesn’t seem ambiguous at all: it agrees with me.  Strong atheists are a SUBSET of atheists in general, but they aren’t themselves the entire set.  But then, there is a dispute over what the correct definition of atheism is, so one can define it any way they want, and my case remains the same.

“Natural language isn’t logic.  “I don’t believe in Santa Claus” is generally taken to be strong disbelief, not weak absence of belief.  Likewise, “I don’t believe there has ever been life on Mars” is taken as strong disbelief.  If someone asks you if you believe there has ever been life on Mars, “no” would indicate strong disbelief; to register weak lack of belief, you would have to say “I don’t know”.”

If you really would like words to mean what the don’t mean, perhaps you’d enjoy making your own language?  I’d prefer that we all keep speaking English.  The plain meaning of “I don’t believe in X” is is just that, not something else that was not said. 

“Only if “not believing in one” is the weak sense of lack of belief, but that’s rarely how it is interpreted.  Also, many people (mis)take “agnostic” to mean weak atheism.”

It doesn’t matter how it is interpreted: if you’re an agnostic, you still either believe in a god, or you don’t, end of story.  There are plenty of theist agnostics.  Many agnostics ARE weak atheists.

Comment #18707

Posted by plunge on March 1, 2005 02:46 PM (e) (s)

“As a Buddhist I’d like to say I’m perfectly capable of considering both/either a theistic or atheistic POV.”

That’s nice, and everyone should be able to consider every side of an issue (though I would argue that, at least as I define atheism, there IS no “atheist” POV.  Atheism is the lack of a PARTICULAR POV, namely, theism.)

“They are mere categories of grammatically defined knowledge, and therefore projections of the linguistically constrained human mind, not in any way accurate or complete comprehensions of the totality of reality.”

That may be. On the other hand, either you believe in a god, or you don’t.  Believing in a god is an ACTIVE move one makes.  Saying that you don’t know whether or not you believe in god is basically saying that you are ignorant of the contents of your own mind, which is a little bizarre (but, I suppose not impossible).  You still either believe or you don’t, though.

Comment #18708

Posted by plunge on March 1, 2005 02:50 PM (e) (s)

“The problem isn’t so much that there is no definition of what God is, but that there are all too many definitions. God is variously described as an entity or as being qua being, as first cause, perfect being, being whose essence implies existance, spirit (whatever that is), cosmic consciousness, gaseous vertebrate, alien superanimal, old guy with a beard—a vast and heterogenous stew of concepts and images. Everybody knows the bit about the wise men and the elephant, but how do the wise men know they are feeling up the same animal?”

This is another reason the weak definition of atheism makes more sense as a useful term.  Such questions are not important. One can merely survey their beliefs and note that there are NO god beliefs of any sort.  That’s a lot easier than going through and having a special term or separate consideration for not believing in each particular god.

“Maybe that doesn’t matter. In the U.S. belief in God seems to be more an assertion of loyalty to society than a statement of fact. Truth is irrelevant to such loyalty oaths just as sacrificing to the emperor was about being a good Roman, not an endorsement of the actual divinity of some guy in a toga.”

Dawkins has an amusing essay on this.  Look everybody: check out what crazy things _I_ can believe in!

Comment #18710

Posted by Pierce R. Butler on March 1, 2005 02:58 PM (e) (s)

The “Answering Diepenbrock’s Challenge” thread elsewhere on Panda’s Thumb has already been derailed by a small set of creationists, and this one seems very near to suffering the same fate.

There is a place, even on this site, for those who wish to harangue and counter-harangue, but to allow this wrangling to spill over onto each and every attempt to discuss other specific topics pollutes the value of the whole project.

As a relative newcomer to Panda’s Thumb, I’ve greatly enjoyed much of what I learn while here - but if current trends continue, I’ll have to be counted as a relative newdeparter.

Reiner Protsch. Chris Stringer. Science journalism. That’s what this discussion was about, no? Arguably Smijer’s post # 18456 was the first to drift off-topic, but in a reasonable/relevant way, quickly & constructively handled. Davescot’s # 18488 was clearly the banana peel on this stairway; why did none of the next four respondents, and nearly none who followed, remember to grab the railing and stay on track?

Comment #18711

Posted by Buridan on March 1, 2005 03:04 PM (e) (s)

DaveScot wrote:

“I didn’t serve four years of my young adulthood in the United States Marine Corps defending the constitution to see liberal retards like Judge Clarence Cooper make a mockery of it”

Yes you did.

Comment #18717

Posted by Colin on March 1, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

Buridan - excellent post.

Comment #18719

Posted by aarobyl on March 1, 2005 03:52 PM (e) (s)

Pierce R. Butler wrote:

Davescot’s # 18488 was clearly the banana peel on this stairway; why did none of the next four respondents, and nearly none who followed, remember to grab the railing and stay on track?

The solution is rather simple, and has been allready writen right up here, in post #18511.

Please don’t feed the trolls.

Anyone should follow that rule.

Comment #18721

Posted by steve on March 1, 2005 04:20 PM (e) (s)

Davescot’s # 18488 was clearly the banana peel on this stairway; why did none of the next four respondents, and nearly none who followed, remember to grab the railing and stay on track?

Sad but true, there’s no better way to get attention and excitement on this board than by saying creationist jibberish. These guys can write TrollFood all day long.

Comment #18728

Posted by ts on March 1, 2005 05:35 PM (e) (s)

If someone asks you if you believe in life on Mars “No I don’t: it’s certainl possible, but it has yet to be proven to my satisfaction, so I remain agnostic about it.” is a reasonable answer.

Not in English, wherein “no, I don’t” means “I believe that to be false”.  Also, “agnostic” means “not knowable”, not “I’m not sure”.

“I neither believe it nor don’t believe it” is incoherent (logic of the excluded middle, no less in natural language)

It is indeed “less in natural language”, because natural language is idiomatic.  In English, “I don’t believe P” generally means “I believe not P”.  For instance “I don’t believe George Bush is telling the truth” means “I believe George Bush is not telling the truth”.  It does not mean “It is not the case that I believe that George Bush is telling the truth”, which is equivalent to “I either believe that George Bush isn’t telling the truth or I’m not sure”.  There is no excluded middle, because any of “I believe P”, “I believe not P”, and “I believe neither P nor not P” is possible — where that last is idiomatic for “It is not the case that I believe P and it is not the case that I believe not P”.

If you really would like words to mean what the don’t mean, perhaps you’d enjoy making your own language?  I’d prefer that we all keep speaking English.  The plain meaning of “I don’t believe in X” is is just that, not something else that was not said.

You are the one making up the language since, in English, “I don’t believe in Santa Claus” means
“I believe there isn’t any Santa Claus”, not “I either believe there’s no Santa Claus or I’m not sure”.  That’s because natural language is idiomatic, and belief statements are propositions about propositions, and either the inner or outer proposition (or both) can be negated.  You can deny all this, but you’ll be wrong.

There are plenty of theist agnostics.

It’s logically possible for someone to be one, but you’ll have trouble finding anyone who self-identifies that way, because believers hold faith to have epistemological status — they know their God, they will claim.

Saying that you don’t know whether or not you believe in god is basically saying that you are ignorant of the contents of your own mind, which is a little bizarre (but, I suppose not impossible).

Minds aren’t containers, and beliefs aren’t mental objects.  Quick — do you believe that 45955783 is prime?

Comment #18748

Posted by Mark D on March 1, 2005 07:19 PM (e) (s)

1)  Your basic argument is this.  If you want to be taken seriosly pointing out the holes in evolution then you need to do MORE footwork and show examples.  Each of those examples being only a single example will be easily discredit by the fact that they are single examples and it is only after a large number is presented that you will respond.  When you put the burden of proof on the other guy its usually a sign that you have nothing constructive to support you and rely on destructive arguments.

2)  For an example of a demolishing of a text book see the stupid text book argument thread on this website.

3)  The Carl Sagan types claim that because there is 10^21 stars that there MUST be live on other planets.  This sounds very convincing until you read a book like “RARE EARTH” that breaks down all the aspects that make up life as we know it and is able to say that although there may be simple life on other planets the odds are there is no complex life on any other planet in our galaxy.  So while you can hand wave about how there MUST be life on other planets because there are 10^21 stars that is obviously BS if the odds of evolving complex life are 10^(-30+) which is a number I made up cause I can’t be bothered pulling down my copy of RARE EARTH and getting their estimate.  Oh and I didn’t get his name but there was a clip of a PHd. saying the 10^21 on Jon Forgothislast name’s comedy central news program when they covered Peter Jennings and the UFO report he will be doing.

What on earth does any of this have to do with “fraud?”  Talk about a non-sequitur.  Do you even know what you’re arguing about?

I’m beginning to think fraudulent arguments are the only ones Creationists know how to make.

Comment #18749

Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 1, 2005 07:21 PM (e) (s)

ts wrote:

Quick — do you believe that 45955783 is prime?

I have no beliefs regarding the primality of 45955783.  In a moment or two, I expect that I will have a belief.

mdr@lusz ~ $ ispr 45955783
6143 7481

Now I believe that 45955783 is the product of two numbers other than itself one, and therefore is not prime.

What is the value of this exercise?

Comment #18752

Posted by Mark D on March 1, 2005 07:44 PM (e) (s)

I’ll add that “DonkeyKong” displayed laughable ignorance about Carl Sagan and what he said about Venus.  Sagan explicitley argued AGAINST there being life on Venus, as he was one of the people who deduced that the atmosphere of that planet was far too inhospitable for life.  That’s an entirely seperate issue from that of the abundance of life elsewhere in the universe.

If you’re going to flail about desperately looking for material to discredit evolution, at least do some basic research before shouting out things about which you know little.  Your foolishness just compounds every day.

Comment #18753

Posted by Randall on March 1, 2005 07:45 PM (e) (s)

1)  Your basic argument is this.  If you want to be taken seriosly pointing out the holes in evolution then you need to do MORE footwork and show examples.  Each of those examples being only a single example will be easily discredit by the fact that they are single examples and it is only after a large number is presented that you will respond.  When you put the burden of proof on the other guy its usually a sign that you have nothing constructive to support you and rely on destructive arguments.

The reason the burden of proof is on creationists is that evolution has already amassed a huge amount of evidence in its favor. We’ve already done our work collecting evidence. Why haven’t you?

2)  For an example of a demolishing of a text book see the stupid text book argument thread on this website.

I read that thread and found nothing but you making empty claims with no support. (Similar to what you’re doing here.) As you may recall if you actually read the post which started that thread, evidence was presented that textbooks do not present evolution by natural selection and mutation as a “fact,” but rather remind the reader that all scientific theories are subject to future refinement.

3)  The Carl Sagan types claim that because there is 10^21 stars that there MUST be live on other planets.  This sounds very convincing until you read a book like “RARE EARTH” that breaks down all the aspects that make up life as we know it and is able to say that although there may be simple life on other planets the odds are there is no complex life on any other planet in our galaxy.  So while you can hand wave about how there MUST be life on other planets because there are 10^21 stars that is obviously BS if the odds of evolving complex life are 10^(-30+) which is a number I made up cause I can’t be bothered pulling down my copy of RARE EARTH and getting their estimate.  Oh and I didn’t get his name but there was a clip of a PHd. saying the 10^21 on Jon Forgothislast name’s comedy central news program when they covered Peter Jennings and the UFO report he will be doing.

Um, what? What does this have to do with my complaint? I asked for evidence that biology PhDs claimed that evolution could not in principle be disproven. Claiming that there must exist life on other planets is not the same. For example, if I actually agreed with the idea that Earth-like conditions are very rare, and that as a result complex life had not developed on other planets, this would have no bearing on the question of evolution of life on earth. Not to mention that evolution makes no claims about “complex” life; even “simple” life would count for the “Carl Sagen types.” As Mark D said, this section of your post is a total non-sequitur.

Comment #18762

Posted by plunge on March 1, 2005 10:30 PM (e) (s)

“Not in English, wherein “no, I don’t” means “I believe that to be false”.”

Not, it doesn’t.  Look at the words.  Do you believe that there is a giant teacup orbiting Mars?  No, I don’t.  What does that mean?  It means: that belief?  No, I don’t have it. 

“Also, “agnostic” means “not knowable”, not “I’m not sure”.”

That used to be the usage, but its no longer common.  In part because claiming that something is by nature unknowable is a laughably silly self-contradiction, since knowability is a characteristic in itself, and indeed a secondary one.

“That’s because natural language is idiomatic, and belief statements are propositions about propositions, and either the inner or outer proposition (or both) can be negated.  You can deny all this, but you’ll be wrong.”

Oh, ok.  Good to know you can invent your own idioms without consulting common usage. 

“It’s logically possible for someone to be one, but you’ll have trouble finding anyone who self-identifies that way, because believers hold faith to have epistemological status — they know their God, they will claim.”

That’s precisely the point: they claim that they BELIEVE there is a God, but that God by nature is not knowable and not known.  Good old Martin G. and most fidelists are theist agnostics. Pantheists are as well (since it is belief and not knowledge that defines their god).

“Minds aren’t containers, and beliefs aren’t mental objects.”

Look, do you believe that I have an apple in my left hand right now, or not?  Either you actively believe that I do, or you don’t believe it.  There is no alternative.  You can go on about minds and containers all you want: the fact is, if someone asks me whether I hold a god belief, the honest answer is no.  And yet that doesn’t preclude me from also not holding a “no god belief” either.  Anyone who thinks about this for two seconds will realize that it is so.  Believing in something is a positive act.  Either you’ve stepped off the cliff towards belief, or you haven’t. 

“Quick — do you believe that 45955783 is prime?”

No.  Until now, I’d never even considered it so HOW COULD IT BE HONEST TO DENY THAT I HAD NOT BELIEVED IT??!  I’m also agnostic (weak sense) about whether or not is.  Show me some evidence first, and maybe I’ll believe it.

Comment #18824

Posted by Sam Lewis on March 2, 2005 07:29 PM (e) (s)

“Quick — do you believe that 45955783 is prime?”

I neither believe nor disbelieve. I simply don’t know. If I were to spend a few minutes checking then I would “know” weather it is or not.. “Believe” implies faith, math is about the last place faith belongs.

Comment #18827

Posted by Don T. Know on March 2, 2005 07:51 PM (e) (s)

Fundies are just there to be stroked for their vote at election time. Stroke and Vote Xians!

It’s like stealing candy from a baby. What could be easier than convincing dunces to fall for one more lie?

Comment #18830

Posted by steve on March 2, 2005 07:55 PM (e) (s)

No one is asked to justify their atheism about Santa. I don’t see why anyone should be asked to justify their atheism about any other magic man in the sky.

Comment #18831

Posted by Don T. Know on March 2, 2005 07:58 PM (e) (s)

The key word for atheists and theists is BELIEVE, not “know.”  Whether or not one is an agnostic, one is still either an atheist or a theist: they either believe in a god or they don’t (you’d have to be pretty messed up in the head to not know whether or not you believe there is a god, same as whether or not you have an apple in your left hand right now).  There are plenty of agnostic atheists, agnostic theists (indeed, all agnostics are either one or the other).

Well, not exactly. There are two flavors of atheism — positive and passive. Positive atheism asserts (positively) that there are no gods. Passive atheism is a lack of belief in gods. An agnostic may be in philosophical limbo, but he is usually a practical atheist (i.e. behaving as if there are no gods).

Comment #18843

Posted by plunge on March 2, 2005 10:50 PM (e) (s)

“Well, not exactly. There are two flavors of atheism — positive and passive. Positive atheism asserts (positively) that there are no gods. Passive atheism is a lack of belief in gods.”

I suppose that’s as good as any other way to define it (all I really care is that people be consistent and clear about what they mean), though I still don’t see why we don’t just call the whole shebang atheism, or which anti-theist claims are just a subject (all anti-theists are atheists, but nto all atheists are anti-theists)

“An agnostic may be in philosophical limbo, but he is usually a practical atheist (i.e. behaving as if there are no gods).”

And, indeed, not believing in any gods either.

Comment #18854

Posted by DaveScot on March 3, 2005 12:07 AM (e) (s)

45955783 is not a prime.

Next!

Comment #18906

Posted by Jim Harrison on March 3, 2005 12:23 PM (e) (s)

For people who want to know something about reality, both atheism and theism are pointless obsessions since neither the existence of God nor the nonexistence of God explains a damn thing about how the world works. “God” is a counter in the culture war game. There is  no “God” in the science game just as there aren’t any rooks or knights in a game of checkers.

Comment #18914

Posted by plunge on March 3, 2005 02:47 PM (e) (s)

“For people who want to know something about reality, both atheism and theism are pointless obsessions since neither the existence of God nor the nonexistence of God explains a damn thing about how the world works.”

At least atheism doesn’t purport to explain anything, other than to note that one is not a god believer.

Comment #19015

Posted by DonkeyKong on March 5, 2005 12:47 AM (e) (s)

Mark D

Ha Ha he who laughs last laughs longest…

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,902127,00.h…

Oh ya he also said Moon and Jupiter.

But like evolution he had the sense to stop claiming the parts of his theory proven wrong…

But no one wants to talk about what he proved that is now laughable……

THAT is ignorance…

PS

www.anb.org/articles/13/13-02612-print
.html

Comment #19025

Posted by thegaryson on March 5, 2005 02:13 AM (e) (s)

perhaps it is foolish of me to jump into this already entrenched debate, but I have a few points to make. 

I do not get worked up when I hear about evolution or some new find; I am not threatened by it.  You see I am a born-again Christian who believes that God created the universe, the laws of physics and all that lives.  I believe that he did this just a little while ago, when compared to the amount of time involved in old universe and evolution theories.

I admit that I do not have a formal education, but I am still pretty bright and score highly on all intelligence tests.  My IQ is 143 according to the WAIS test, which is not five minute, 30 question mouse clicking session on some obscure web site.  In fact, that score puts me in the top 99.7 percentile.  That means that on average only one out of 400 people are as intelligent as I. 

I take the time in my personal life to study various subjects.  One of those subjects was evolution, a subject which fascinated me for some time.  At first I gobbled it up, thinking if scientists say it, then it must be true!  Thankfully, my creationist cousin, whose IQ is also up there, revealed to me the many flaws and impossibilities of the evolution theory.  At the time I was really into the BBC’s prehistoric earth videos.  Did you know that in video one of prehistoric Earth which takes place about 49 million years ago depicts a prehistoric mammal called Ambulocetus, from which whales supposedly evolved.  Now the fossil remains that scientists have found of this animal are slight, in fact one set of fossils of a mammal in this chain of descent only contained a skull and a few ribs!  How on earth can a scientist determine what features an animal had from such few bones, much less that it evolved into a whale!

That was just one example that helped convince me of the fallacies of this so-called theory.

The next and biggest joke of evolution and cosmology is the big bang theory.  How on Earth can all of the matter in the universe be compressed into a space the size of an atom.  How on earth did that hydrogen turn into all of the other elements?  Did the laws of physics simply come into existence on their own?  Did you know that if the pull of gravity were any weaker that the universe would fall apart and that if were any stronger it would compress; both situations making life completely impossible. 

The evolution of non-organic matter into organic matter.  There a few theories out there on the origins of life that scientist entertain.  The two that I am familiar with are

1) That four billion yeas ago on primordial Earth puddles of chemicals were struck by lightening and formed into amino acids, which arranged themselves into the first unicellular organism.  I know that there have been laboratory tests in which less than half of necessary proteins were created in a very optimal environment consisting of chemicals being cycled through tubes and repeatedly charged with electricity.  The problem with those experiments is experiments they excluded oxygen, which was present on primordial earth.  Life cannot form in the presence of oxygen, that is why it was excluded from the experiments.  But how then did life form on the oxygen filled primordial earth?

2) The comet theory that states amino acid proteins may have been deposited on Earth by ancient comets.  That is so ridiculous, it almost sounds a cult.  How on Earth could any organic matter form in such a harsh environment?

I have read and seen many evidences presented by creationists that totally debunk the theory of evolution.  Look it up on the web if you care to see them.  Try calling Robert V Gentry a dumb ass.

Evolution is science fiction and the complex explanations and rationale for them are as sound as the techno babble uttered on an episode of Star Trek.  Geordi could give you an hour long detailed tutorial on the warp drive engine and it would all be mere fiction.  That is what evolution is, nothing more than a complex work of science fiction.

Many scientists, unable to explain how the complex laws of physics and life came into being by chance, concede that the universe may have been designed.  Yet the still refuse to acknowledge the God of the Bible; their loss.

I believe that evolution is the refuge of those who rebel from God.  I have been mocked and ridiculed for being believing in God and creation.  “That’s impossible” they say, how can you believe that “God” created everything?  I ask them how can you believe that everything as created by nothing and by chance?

I also reject the evolutionists who arrogantly throw bones to those who believe in creationism, by saying that God may have started the universe and let develop on its own, or some other garbage.  You can make fun of us all you like, I and hopefully other creationists do not seek the approval of evolutionists.  All we want is for you to stop lying to children and students and crushing their faith in God.  If you want to believe that everything in the universe exists as a result of cosmic coinci