Quote of the day
posted at 11:20 pm on April 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“Most people equate atheism with intellectualism, but it’s actually an intellectual embarrassment. I am amazed at how many people think that God’s existence is a matter of faith. It’s not, and I will prove it at the debate - once and for all. This is not a joke. I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists.“
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Ignore my email AP, I literally just sent this
RightWinged on April 26, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Please don’t let him use the Banana example…
GoodBoy on April 26, 2007 at 11:32 PM
and by the way, I figured you’d keep it for a daytime post to generate another 300+ comment thread… did you really want to waste a juicy one on a late night “quote of the day”?
RightWinged on April 26, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Aww Jeez, not this sh*t again…
I already saw this story, I guarantee this is gonna be about as credible as James Cameron’s ZOMG!!1!11!1eleventy Jebus Tomb! Ignore teh experts! Jebus is a lie!!!111!111 special. Dude please don’t do this, evangelical atheists are already smug enough in their righteousness, don’t give them an excuse to be moreso, cuz they will take it.
I can’t stand this guy about as much as fundie atheists, running around and pesterign people about their personal religious life and henpecking it when it doesn’t match their ideal in the most obnoxious ways possible. I saw him doing an on the street type bit asking people about sins they were carrying. WTF? What businesss is it to him? I’da told him I just went to confession (even though I haven’t gone in ages, cuz I is gud Catholic) was carrying no sins, my faith is mine, and get he could bent because I’m not interested.
Bad Candy on April 26, 2007 at 11:37 PM
I saw this being kicked around around by the atheist stormtroopers at Fark, but I’m almost afraid to ask, what is this banana thing about?
Please tell me this isn’t some evolution thing…
What is the fixation on disproving evolution? There’s nothing about it that is antireligious…this is the crap that drives me nuts.
I’m not some anti-creation zealot like some, I don’t give a carp if people want creation taught in science classrooms in public schools, they paid for the education, let ‘em. I don’t believe in the literal interpretation of Creation, but I’m not about to kick people around for believing it, I’m just puzzled with irritation toward evolution.
Bad Candy on April 26, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Its about knowing the terror that waits for people without Jesus as Lord and Savior.Its about spreading the good news that there is hope here and in the hereafter.Its about love.Love that pulls one out from in front of the tragedy train and away from disaster.If you really believe(and I do)you get very concerned and frightened for those who either dont know about salvation or dont choose it.Its a heartbreaker folks.Its real.
spazzmomma on April 27, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Whether atheist or Christian, man or woman, Republican or Democrat, who can refrain from trembling in terror at the prospect of being skewered by the rapier intellect of Kirk Cameron?
Ah hell, for all I know he’s a clever guy. I think my favorite thing about being agnostic is that I can look forward to “debates” like this knowing that, almost without fail, both sides will unleash a fair number of pretty good whoppers. It’s a little like pro wrestling.
I have to admit that the Proof of the Divine Banana, aka “The Atheist’s Nightmare,” is a hard act to beat, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk&mode=related&search=
Blacklake on April 27, 2007 at 12:10 AM
yawn.
mattshu on April 27, 2007 at 12:13 AM
P.S. I hate bananas. Does this mean I’m going to hell?
Blacklake on April 27, 2007 at 12:14 AM
I’ll take the bait, then I’m runnin…….
This is how my pop taught me religion…..Keep you faith in the Lord, your eye on the preacher, and your hand on your wallet.
Limerick on April 27, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Yes, but not because you hate bananas.
That’s the banana thing? Are you serious? Goddammit, why are some people so damn stupid?
That’s every bit as dumb as any of the paranoid anti-religious rantings of Dawkins, Hitch and Harris.
Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 12:21 AM
The banana thing is about as well thought out and reasoned as anything these tools and their minions have spouted.
Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 12:23 AM
First of all, if you believe in biblical authority or that the Bible is the literal truth, then you would consider it “antireligious” (which is a word I don’t even want to use, because it puts “religion” in a realms separate from reality, like it’s a backup plan for people who keep it around just in case there’s a hell). You may not believe the Bible literally, but millions do, and that is where they get the (what you term) “antireligious” component.
As for carp? Who said anything about fish?
Seriously though, that’s where the media has mislead you and others… There isn’t some big push by creationists to have creation taught in the classroom. Far from it. The push (if you could even call it that) is to allow criticism of Darwin, to get disproven evolution lies out of text books, etc. It’s not about getting religion taught. Quite the opposite actually.
RightWinged on April 27, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Evolution is considered threatening because of all the lies that surround it. Without evolution, most atheists (no offense intended AP) would have nothing to believe in. Evolution is so unscientific that it drives me crazy listening to a person talking about it as though it were fact. “This fossil is 1 million years old….” Uh huh…. sure…. You know this how? There is literally no way to date anything that exists on the planet as far back as that. Carbon dating is supposed to be able to date things back as far as 55,000 years. But, a little known fact is that it’s extremely inaccurate. It would seem to be exponentially so. An item that was historically dated accurately couldn’t even be dated within 500 years with carbon dating. Most reasoning within evolution is extremely circular, especially on the dating thing. “This fossil came from this layer, and this layer is 2 million years old, and we know this because this fossil is 2 million years old, which we know because this layer is 2 million years old.”
j_ehman on April 27, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Behold the world, spinning right in our hands!
Anwyn on April 27, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Not to mention that they continually revise dates on fossils and even layers when findings contradict the story. As I always point out there is a constant flow of information contradicting evolutionary assumptions, yet because the theory itself keeps evolving, you simply can’t ever disprove it. Evolution is always assumed, and no matter what the contradictory evidence, they’ll take it and adjust the theory to to fit the new data back in. Because of this, nothing short of Jesus coming back and holding a press conference and telling us evolution is a joke after performing some miracles to prove he is who he says he is, would make a difference. And even then, the “science” community would desperately search for and theorize how those miracles were natural occurances, or ponder how he evolved the ability to perform them.
RightWinged on April 27, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Heh, sometimes I replace crap with carp, just because…
Anyway, I get that there are people who accept the Bible as literal truth, I guess I don’t get the aggravation about it, given that many churches accept evolution, including Catholicism. I’m pretty mellow on these sorta things, I tend not to get too worked up over the philosophical and doctrinal stuff, but I know there are a lotta people who do.
As for the evo in classes, I don’t really care what they want, they should be able to do whatever they want if they’re paying for it.
Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 12:37 AM
I’m not sure that’s accurate about the Catholic Church. I think they just prefer not to deal with it, but I don’t know that they accept it… I think JP2 did more than the new guy, but I’m not certain on any of that.
As for the classes, again, there isn’t a push to have creation taught, and I actually disagree… Biblical creation shouldn’t be taught, because you’re talking about a public school and then you’re just going to have every other (non Christian) sue. I’m not a fan of the public school system, but as it stands, they can’t teach Biblical creation. But as I said, creationists (for the most part) aren’t asking that it be taught, they only ask for criticism of Darwin to be allowed, holes in evolutionary theory to be taught, and old lies based on evolutionary assumptions, now proven false, to be tossed from the text books, etc.
RightWinged on April 27, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Actually–and this is one of the things that perplexes me about atheists and their lines of argument–no particular scientific theory of any sort is of any special importance whatsoever when debating theism or secularism. Compared with Creationism, “I have absolutely no idea at all” is just as strong a secular position, for argument’s sake, as any specific evolutionary angle on the origin of life on Earth.
Not that there isn’t abundant evidence for evolution, but that it’s entirely beside the point: The lack of an explanation for an empirical phenomenon in no way entails the truth of a supernatural explanation.
Blacklake on April 27, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Aww crap, did I just start a mile long evolution thread?
I may have to commit seppuku, my shame is eternal…
/stab
//…
Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 12:43 AM
No you didn’t Bad Candy….Allah is giving us all his ‘I am going on vaction’ present.
Limerick on April 27, 2007 at 12:45 AM
damn limerick anyway…..v a c a t i o n….thank you Webster.
Limerick on April 27, 2007 at 12:46 AM
I’m not sure that they officially accept it, but JPII was fairly friendly to it, which is good enough for me given how slowly the church moves to get anything done officially.
Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Dude, look me in the eye and tell me that the Grand Canyon, bioluminescent flowers at the bottom of the ocean, and Jessica Alba are all just freaky random cosmic accidents.
Yep, didn’t think so…
ScottMcC on April 27, 2007 at 1:40 AM
He posts a clip on anti-atheism, and you all go and start debating evolution. AP must be so disappointed in all of you.
Anyhoo, my quick two cents:
mm.
Generally, any ‘ex’-whatever is always going to be the most outspoken basher of it, be it ex-christian or ‘ex-atheist’..
Reaps on April 27, 2007 at 1:44 AM
I can’t speak for all of Catholicism, but we spent plenty of time on evolution in my 12 years of Catholic school. I graduated in ‘86.
We even dissected frogs! Is that even allowed any more?
eforhan on April 27, 2007 at 1:53 AM
Having studied Religion and Philosphy and Psychology, I have come up with the only possible Proof for the Existence of God.
Anything less could be a naive delusion.
(How would we know it wasn’t just a very advanced being or beings screwing with us?)
The Answer:
To become God.
What else could prove it?
God would have to share Everything with us.
Anything less leaves room for reasonable doubt (”brain in the pain” solipcism; semi-omnipotent aliens, etc., etc.).
These believers and skeptics all think too small.
profitsbeard on April 27, 2007 at 2:27 AM
theres no push to have creation theory taught in school again?
ummm what state do you live in? not Kansas I guess..
Kaptain Amerika on April 27, 2007 at 3:14 AM
Dude, look me in the eye and tell me that the Grand Canyon, bioluminescent flowers at the bottom of the ocean, and Jessica Alba are all just freaky random cosmic accidents.
Yep, didn’t think so…
ScottMcC
not only are they “freaky random cosmic accidents” the laws of probability say that there are at least two exact Jessica Albas’ in the universe or maybe even more.
so to burst your bubble… btw worlds not flat and the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth…
p.s. you might want to tell God that too… for the 50th rewrite of the bible…
Kaptain Amerika on April 27, 2007 at 3:17 AM
Heh.
WTF, Allah? You do something bad, and feel the need to flog yourself for like the 5th time this week?
Jaibones on April 27, 2007 at 3:26 AM
Actually, this is what we prefer to tell your side… because these things were “consensus” and overturned, just as evolution (and global warming while we’re at it) are “consensus” today.
In Kansas they’ve simply tried to get criticism of Darwin to get equal time and tried to remove the “mandatory” nature of the teaching and the inclusion on state standardized tests. It was hardly Pat Robertson reading Genesis in science class. Yeah, making evolution (a theory in a state of constant revision, while debunked information continues to be taught, and the speed at which assumptions are overturned make it impossible for any teacher to keep up) teaching not mandatory would have such a harmful impact on kids.
Anyway, the largest (and only commonly known to most) creationist group Answers in Genesis, arguably the only one large enough to make any noise in the realm of pushing a teaching curriculum, isn’t behind any efforts to teach creationism. Quite the opposite actually. They even point out that it would be stupid to have atheist evolutionists, who don’t believe in creation, teach a distortion of it anyway. On the other side whenever criticism of evolution becomes an issue in a particular school district you see the world’s evolutionists come out angry and frustrated at the rise of “intelligent design” belief, and the continuing problems they’re having recruiting new evolutionists, because the vast majority of the public still ain’t buyin’ it.
RightWinged on April 27, 2007 at 4:02 AM
To answer those who don’t understand why some Christians get upset at how evolution is pushed as fact…
First, a person would have to be spiritually schizophrenic to both believe the Bible and accept evolution, since both cannot be true.
Second, since evolution presupposes no God, indeed makes no allowance for His existence or input on how things came to be, the dogmatic presentation of it throughout the formal education establishment applies significant pressure on students to reject God, and to ridiule those who don’t.
I can’t change what you believe, but I don’t have to like it if you try your best to change what my children have been taught to believe.
Freelancer on April 27, 2007 at 4:41 AM
*ridicule. Drats.
Freelancer on April 27, 2007 at 4:42 AM
Bad Candy,
Yeah, yeah.
I see you working there, BC.
Freelancer,
That’s really not true. We watch things evolve, and we know that evolution happens. An easy example is the various bugs that develop drug resistance. That doesn’t necessarily explain why it happens and it doesn’t preclude the possibility that evolution itself is His design.
Pablo on April 27, 2007 at 8:16 AM
OK. With a show of hands, how many of you changed your view of God as a result of these discussions on Hot Air these past few weeks? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Move along folks. Nothing here but a lot of hot air ;-)
ulyses on April 27, 2007 at 9:02 AM
Tell that to a fruit fly, or a bacteria, or a virus.
Then I trust you would agree, an earthquake killing tens of thousands, a cosmic fragment obliterating all life on this planet and a child born without sight or with a disabling, painful disease are all part of God’s beautiful plan for his creation.
Yes, there is awe inspiring beauty to be found on this marvelous blue marble, but there’s no shortage of random death and inexplicable suffering.
fogw on April 27, 2007 at 9:08 AM
Great, RightWinged’s doing his Baghdad Bob impersonation again. “There is a constant flow of information contradicting evolutionary assumptions!” Yet for some reason, actual scientists still haven’t figured it out.
And of course, it isn’t a deceptive attempt to get creationism in the classroom, oh no. Nevermind that the ID textbook Of Pandas and People simply replaced the word “creationism” with “intelligent design”. Nevermind that the Discovery Institute, it ID flagship organization, wants to To “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.”
The saddest part about all this is I have close friends that are devout Christians. And yet many Christians are following these charlatans and setting themselves up for a fall. They’re setting up a fight where there shouldn’t be one. From polls I’ve seen, about 30% of scientists are believers. And about 99.99% of them agree with the theory of evolution. So they’ve found some way to reconcile the two. Yet for some reason people are insisting that 1) the Bible origin story is to be taken literally and 2) this means that the scientific evidence is wrong. This isn’t going to help the spread of Christianity, when your religious beliefs contradict scientific evidence, that’s a pretty good sign your religious beliefs are wrong. I don’t understand why people try and change the scientific evidence instead of the interpretation of a couple of verses in the Bible.
dorkafork on April 27, 2007 at 9:15 AM
Uh oh, here come the evolution truthers!
WisCon on April 27, 2007 at 9:58 AM
dorkafork,
Dr. Francis Collins comes immediately to mind.
Pablo on April 27, 2007 at 10:01 AM
The bible is a book written by men… edited by men… translated by men… rewritten by men… etc.
Did you ever play the game “Gossip” in grade school?
Franklin Hill on April 27, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Pablo, adaptation is not evolution. Never in human scientific history has one creature been shown to change into another. New breeds of dogs emerge, variations in the physiology of species occur. But a dog stays a dog, a rat stays a rat, a roach stays a roach. The complexity of DNA itself shows how completely impossible it is for SPECIES to change through the supposed progression from ‘lower’ to ‘higher’ lifeforms.
– Benjamin Franklin
Freelancer on April 27, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Does anyone notice the slight derangement in Bad Candy? Maybe this topic sets you off-maybe you should see a doctor…this doctor:
http://www.drdino.com/
have a nice day!
Doug on April 27, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Freelancer is dead wrong. There are a number of intermediate animals that have been found in the fossil record that show the evolution of one animal into another.
Get a clue.
WisCon on April 27, 2007 at 10:41 AM
That’s not true, either. Just as no physical phenomenon can provide evidence for the supernatural, no physical phenomon could provide evidence against the supernatural.
Evidence might (and does) refute various empirical claims made by The Bible, which is what I think you’re getting at. But they can do nothing to touch the belief in God (whatever that may be) itself, because that belief is motivated by faith (whatever that may be), not by the observation of any kind of evidence.
Blacklake on April 27, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Allah, I’m not taking the bait this time… REEEEEEALLY tired of debating this with my HA family.
:(
tickleddragon on April 27, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Freelancer,
Evolution doesn’t require that a species jump from being one to being another. It is entirely a matter of adaptation and progression. And the complexity of DNA, along with the fact that we share 60% of the genes found in a fruit fly, shows nothing of the sort, as you suggest. On the contrary, it’s evidence of the palette that He worked with.
Franklin was right. And a scientist.
Pablo on April 27, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Right. The only book written directly by God is the Koran.
/ducks, runs, hides…
Pablo on April 27, 2007 at 11:01 AM
I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
Kahuna on April 27, 2007 at 11:02 AM
If a lumbering unsightly caterpillar can evolve into a delicate beautiful butterfly in just a few weeks, one would be foolish to ignore the possibilities for change over millions, if not billions of years.
fogw on April 27, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Very nice link in the article, Thanks AP
.
Anyone who takes the time to study the Bible will KNOW without a doubt that
.
Jesus is Lord
abinitioadinfinitum on April 27, 2007 at 11:36 AM
I’ve always assumed the (banana = special creation) thing was just a joke.
I don’t think God can be proven to exist scientifically. Logically, yes—scientifically, not so much.
I’d like to see Kirk Cameron debate James Cameron.
jdpaz on April 27, 2007 at 11:40 AM
fogw, the caterpillar/butterfly “evolution” actually supports the need for special creation. Try to imagine what you’d have partway through the evolution to the metamorphosis sequence—a part butterfly/part caterpillar MONSTER!!!11!!
If any step in the process is missing then you don’t get a viable creature.
jdpaz on April 27, 2007 at 11:47 AM
…a butterpillar??!! …a CATERPIFLY??!!!?!/1/1?!//1/1
jdpaz on April 27, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Brundlepillar!
Blacklake on April 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM
The striking metamorphosis from one creature to another, in nature, takes place in a relatively short period of time. One can logically conclude more significant changes, and more of them, would occur over hundreds of millions of years. I’m not familiar with the “partway theory” as it applies to creation or evolution. Could you enlighten me?
Better ease off on the Sci-Fi flicks.
fogw on April 27, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Anyone who takes the time to study science will KNOW without a doubt that
.
Jesus is Lord
.
Albert Einstein
People like us who believe in physics, know the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent delusion
Albert Einstein
Special Relativity ( 1905 )
Length, mass, velocity and time are
relative to velocity of the observers
General Relativity ( 1915 )
No distinction between Time and Space
= a 4-dimensional continuum
This is confirmed 14 ways to 19 decimals
This means we live in > 4 dimensions.
1854 Georg Riemann’s metric tensors
1915 Albert Einstein’s, 4-dimensional space-time
1953 Kaluza-Klein 4+n Dimensions
-Light & Supergravity
1963 Yang-Mills Fields
-Electromagnetic and both Nuclear Forces
1984 Superstrings, 10-Dimensions
All of you know the first 3 dimensions and the past and present of the 4th dimension, but do you have any idea what is in the other 6 dimensions? No , but God knows all
The Stretch Factor of the Universe
-The expansion factor: ~!0 to the 12th
-16 Billion years x 365 = 6,000,000,000,000 days
-6 x 10 to the 12th days divided by 10 to the 12th = 6 days
.
Exponential Expansion
Day one 8 billion years
2nd day 4 billion years
3rd day 2 billion years
4th day 1 billion years
5th day .5 billion years
6th day .25 billion years
——————————————
15.75 billion years
.
God Bless all of you and I pray you all find the truth that
.
Jesus is Lord
abinitioadinfinitum on April 27, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Laws of probab–? Wow! You’ve opened my mind up! I now know that because the 2nd Jessica Alba randomly walked into your house made of bioluminescent flowers at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, EVERYTHING I KNOW IS WRONG!
Oh, I totally agree now. No need to give me the hard sell, O Comrade In Science! I realize now that the explanation of random chance–what all of us smart intellectuals like to call “The Sh-t Happens Theory of Life”–is so much more life-affirmingly plausible than believing that some invisible man in the sky gives human beings the intellect and bravery to warn people about disasters or find cures for diseases!
Yep, I’ve left you stupid godbags behind now that my mind is opened up by the Random 2nd Jessica Alba explanation of existence!
Life is meaningless!
It’s all random!
SOLYENT GREEN IS PEEEEEEOPLE!
ScottMcC on April 27, 2007 at 12:52 PM
I don’t believe in Darwinism but I don’t think this banana illustration is too convincing when you consider that God also designed the pineapple.
Rose on April 27, 2007 at 12:57 PM
fogw,
In order for a caterpillar to change into a butterfly it needs the proper DNA information that programs the metamorphosis. When a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly it is merely acting upon ALREADY EXISTING instructions—exactly the same way that say a single celled human transforms into an adult human. There is no evolution involved in the process.
The challenge for the evolution crowd is to show where the information comes from in the first place. A pre-caterpillar that doesn’t metamorphose needs to get all the new DNA to “learn” to make the change (in really small steps for each generation, thus the “partway theory”—you can’t have a non-metamorphosing caterx and in the next generation have a butterfly-producing caterpillar). Evolution posits random mutation and natural selection as a mechanism for gaining the new information. Unfortunately, there isn’t a single case known of a mutation adding information to the genome except maybe the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Comic book heroes aside, mutations are almost always neutral or negative and don’t add information. These are the opposite of what evolution requires to go from abiogenesis to humans (and BEYOND!!!11!!).
Just to reiterate, the caterpillar to butterfly thing (or tadpoles turning into frogs) is not any kind of proof for evolution any more than kids growing up to be adults is.
jdpaz on April 27, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Is that banana video for real? I mean, are those people saying what they believe, or are they mocking religious believers? Because I can’t tell.
P.S. Rose is right.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 27, 2007 at 1:15 PM
fogw, just to continue beating on this dead horse, if caterpillar to butterfly metamorphosis is evolution, why do we get the same stinkin’ butterfly each time? Shouldn’t we expect something else to emerge from that chrysalis every once in a while? Do you expect cats or platypi to ever come out of caterpillar chrysalae? No, it’s the same butterfly each time.
jdpaz on April 27, 2007 at 1:23 PM
First, to believe in evolution and to believe in the Bible at the same time is contradictory. If the Bible is true, the entire Bible is true, not just part of it. It is not “gossip” as the uninformed person above quipped.
Second, they have transcripts that date back nearly 2000 years. The Bible has been translated to different languages, true, but it hasn’t been changed from the original Hebrew and Greek. Do some research on it before you start saying such things.
Next, for abinitioadinfinitum, each day was a day. Read your Bible again. “and there was morning and there was evening on the ____ day”. It says that every time. The Bible was written for our understanding. So if it says there was morning and evening, then there was morning and evening, not morning(e12) and evening(e12).
For those of you that don’t believe in God, ask yourself a question. Where does your sense of beauty come from? Here’s some help. Society didn’t give it to you, and neither did your parents. If you see something and you find it beautiful, why?
j_ehman on April 27, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Bayes theorem.
Bill C on April 27, 2007 at 1:38 PM
They are serious.
Blacklake on April 27, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Because the group wants to see something happen doesn’t mean they are pushing it in any nonscientific way, or trying to get real science (without the storytelling) banned from the classroom. On the other hand I could list dozens of articles from major science publications on evolutionists gathering together to voice their frustration with the lack of acceptance and formulate ways to gain more acceptance. Why should they care if they aren’t the truly religious? The creation/intelligent design side of course would like people to understand the truth, but you don’t have any organized push to have Genesis taught in the science class… While the evolution side gets pissy that public polls show the public isn’t buying their theory.
RightWinged on April 27, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Amen
abinitioadinfinitum on April 27, 2007 at 4:12 PM
RightWinged, why on Earth do you believe these groups are being honest? Every time this comes up, I point out that these groups have been caught red-handed lying about their intentions, and every time you seem to ignore it. I offer links, sources… Here’s one detailed history. Why do you keep taking their statements at face value? Doesn’t it bother you at all, the deception these groups have been shown to use? Doesn’t it make you the least bit skeptical of their claims?
And why do you keep criticizing the scientists for “get(ting) pissy that public polls show the public isn’t buying their theory”. “On the other hand I could list dozens of articles from major science publications on evolutionists gathering together to voice their frustration with the lack of acceptance and formulate ways to gain more acceptance. Why should they care if they aren’t the truly religious?”
Why should scientists care about the acceptance of well-established scientific theories? Doesn’t that pretty much answer itself? How on Earth does dismay at scientific ignorance become religious belief? The statement of the various National Academies says “Within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science.” Should scientist be happy about that? Should they just roll over and say, “Hey, sure, teach whatever. Sun rotates around the Earth, do whatever you want. If I oppose that it’d mean I’d have some sort of religious belief in heliocentrism.”
dorkafork on April 27, 2007 at 4:40 PM
For all you Christians and non beleivers as well
Friday night, April 27th, at 7pm, 9pm and midnight eastern on CNN Headline News will show a special on the Middle East and Bible prophecy with Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins and Joel Rosenberg.
If you want to know what time it is in Bible time. IMHO
Mat 16:2
He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, [It will be] fair weather: for the sky is red.
Mat 16:3
And in the morning, [It will be] foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O [ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not [discern] the signs of the times?
abinitioadinfinitum on April 27, 2007 at 7:07 PM
J_ehman, I don’t imagine there’s a paleobiologist on Earth who would disagree materially with your remarks about the limited applicability of the carbon-14 dating technique. Will you tell us about the dating techniques that rely on these other radioisotopes: uranium-235, potassium-40, uranium-238, thorium-232, lutetium-176, rubidium-87, and samarium-147?
You’re not required to be scientific; as far as I’m concerned, you’re welcome to be a strict, six-day creationist. But if you’re going to try to use scientific doctrines to dispute scientific doctrines, either make a detectable effort to do it right, or expect someone to embarrass the hell out of you. Really, if all you know is one fact, then won’t everyone on both sides of the debate be better served by your simple faith and respectful silence?
Kralizec on April 27, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Kralizec. Simply put, the dating methods involving the uranium-235, potassium-40, uranium-238, thorium-232, lutetium-176, rubidium-87, and samarium-14 isotopes are based on assumptions. Similar to the assumptions involving carbon-14. The assumption is that the amount of these isotopes that exist on the planet has been changing over time, i.e. they have reached their half lives at some point. When working on such assumptions you can never be certain that your results are accurate. Since carbon-14 only has a half life of 5730 years it is certain to me that isotopes of its type have reached their half lives. You cannot assume that because uranium-235 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years that any such isotope would have already reached its half life. To assume so is to already have the belief in an old earth. The evidence that exists points to a young earth. There is also the case of our magnetic field, but I’ll let you say your piece on this issue first.
j_ehman on April 27, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Instead of going around in circles, root around and find these two subjects first, then come back and debate:
1) South Park: evolution explained by Mr. Garrison.
The most fiendish summary of evolution theory ever ever.
2) Evolutionary Theory applied to practical agricultural purposes:
T.D. Lysenko and his concept of vernalization:
Result: Soviet agriculture production collapses. Half a century of chaos in the Soviet farm production.
Scientists who objected to the “enlightened” new methods of trying to force an evolutionary conversion in plants (wheat) lost their jobs, were jailed.
Many terrifying parallels to today’s Global Warming “consensus,” led by Neo-Lysenkoian Al Gore.
Google or whatever, links easily found for both …
naliaka on April 27, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Why? Should I take at face value the dishonest representation of creationists in the media?
You’re dishonestly mixing up two issues, teaching and acceptance. The scientists who get pissy over acceptance aren’t pissed about curriculum, they are frustrated that their methods for convincing people that evolution is true haven’t worked. They meet (and write in the world’s major science publications) to voice frustration and formulate plans for converting more people. This isn’t hidden, it’s very blatant. Again, why should they care? Why should it concern them that the vast majority of the public doesn’t buy evolution? Are they concerned that belief that we are unique among species will make us value human life? Are they concerned that we’ll keep behavior in check because we answer to a higher power? Why do they care if the general public buys what they’re selling?
RightWinged on April 27, 2007 at 11:10 PM
You do realize Mrs. Garrison is intended to depict an individual who’s a bit less than stable, don’t you?
Blacklake on April 27, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Acceptance is one measure of successful teaching.
It wasn’t the media, this was evidence introduced and accepted by a court. Did they or did they not subpoena and receive early drafts of Pandas and People? Did or did these drafts not have nearly identical passages with the words “intelligent design” replacing “creationism”? Did or did not the DI say their goal was to “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”?
dorkafork on April 28, 2007 at 8:53 AM
dorkafork
I’m still trying to understand what your objection is. I must be missing something. Did someone lie about something? Please elaborate more.
j_ehman on April 28, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Since I cannot edit previous comments, I would like to add to my response to Kralizec.
The assumptions I spoke of previously are more specifically identified as the following (my apologies for being too general before):
credit to http://www.answersingenesis.com
http://www.answersingenesis.com/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
j_ehman on April 28, 2007 at 2:07 PM