Quotes of the day

posted at 10:00 pm on February 21, 2009 by Allahpundit

“The bus ads suggest a utilitarian reason for skepticism: you’ll enjoy life more. The only touchstone that I can possibly imagine for deciding whether or not to adopt any particular belief is its truth, in this case: Does the evidence of human experience support the claim that we are attended to by a loving, personal God? Even if the conclusion that we have no ‘Friend’ in the sky leads inevitably to melancholy or dissatisfaction, it is better to live unhappily in truth than happily in delusion, in my view. (As I have written before, however, I am puzzled by the claim that life would be meaningless without God. Schubert wrote some 600 songs, nearly every one of them a gem of lethal beauty and exquisiteness. You want something more?)”

*
“I will donate $10,000 to him, or give it to any children’s charity he names. All I ask is that he goes into a studio and gives me 20 minutes on why there is no God and why evolution is scientific. Then I will give 20 minutes on how we can know God exists and why evolution is nothing more than an unsubstantiated and unscientific fairy tale for grownups. Then we both will have 10 minutes to respond.”

*
“Brain scanning has indeed shown particular bits of the brain lighting up with activity when people pray, look at pictures of the Virgin Mary or recollect intense religious experiences. Richard Harries said: ‘It would not be surprising if God had created us with a physical facility for belief.’…

When we understand how our brains generate religious ideas, and what the Darwinian adaptive value of such brain processes is, what will be left for religion?”

*
“The truth is, however, that if you go to South America, you will find a huge number of conversions to Protestant Christianity. If you go to Korea, you will find Christian churches with 100,000 members. If you go to China, you will find 100 million Christians. And if you go to Africa, you’ll find that countries whose populations were only five percent Christian 100 years ago are now 50 percent Christian. These trends have not gone unnoticed by historians, who are startled by them and have attempted to explain them away, and they are the empirical basis for my claim that God is doing very well in this world. What’s important to understand is that the New Atheism is not a triumphant cry of success, but rather a bitter reaction to the success of religion.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

a common ancestor, with a plant???? sigh…you did hear that the tree of life has been thrown out now haven’t you? no tree, no common ancestor, no evolution…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 9:34 AM

I hadn’t heard it’d been thrown out by competent biologists. Please provide links to credible scientists.

DarkCurrent on February 23, 2009 at 9:41 AM

It should be obvious that the exact sequence of mutations that led to the evolution of eyes is essentially unknowable at this time.

obviously thats why I ask it.

We’d have to have DNA samples from every stage in the evolution, and DNA isn’t usually conserved in the fossil record.

why not? oh yeah lack of transitional fossils…and what good is partial vision again?? and why have vision at all, since bacteria does real well without it…where are all those proto-organs in humans??? since we’re ‘evolving’??

On the other hand, if you could show definitively that no sequence of mutations (guided by the constraints of natural selection) could ever lead to the evolution of an eye you’d have an argument.

DarkCurrent on February 23, 2009 at 9:39 AM

so in other words, you have FAITH it happened, though you have no idea how..or why…yeah thats how you darwiniacs think you ‘refute’ people like Behe…tell some story…yeah that ‘science’ for ya…

go prove your theory…take a bacteria, and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal. instead of just ‘imaging’ that it can happen..I can imagine you’ll get a clue..doesn’t mean it’ll ever happen…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 9:44 AM

Somebody wakes in the morning, cranks up a corn cob and turns on the computer.

Speakup on February 23, 2009 at 9:50 AM

I hadn’t heard it’d been thrown out by competent biologists. Please provide links to credible scientists.

DarkCurrent on February 23, 2009 at 9:41 AM

competent? and how do you define that? oh yeah they worship at the alter of charlie…

interesting that you don’t keep up with the science…

The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin’s thinking, equal in importance to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection.

For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.

link

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 9:50 AM

why not? oh yeah lack of transitional fossils…and what good is partial vision again?? and why have vision at all, since bacteria does real well without it…where are all those proto-organs in humans??? since we’re ‘evolving’??

What exactly constitutes a transitional fossil to you? Obviously the fossil record still has gaps. Given the relatively rare circumstances under which fossilization occurs and that we’ve only been piecing it together for a relatively short time that’s to be expected. Even with the rarity of fossilization in the first place, I doubt we’ve recovered more than a tiny fraction of a percent of the fossils yet to be found. Meanwhile the gaps steadily shrink.

so in other words, you have FAITH it happened, though you have no idea how..or why…yeah thats how you darwiniacs think you ‘refute’ people like Behe…tell some story…yeah that ’science’ for ya…

Actually, I anticipate the rapidly increasing power of computing technology it will be possible to find a credible sequence (maybe not ‘the’ sequence) at some point in coming decades. In the meantime you can be working on demonstrating that it’s absolutely not possible. That would absolutely undermine the theory of evolution if you were able to do so. Are you working on it?

DarkCurrent on February 23, 2009 at 9:54 AM

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 9:50 AM

As is often the case you apparently fail to understand the information you link to. The article in question suggests genetic material can be exchanged between species in ways besides and in parallel to linear descent. It doesn’t say that branching descent doesn’t happen or even that it’s not the predominant mode. If anything such mechanisms as proposed would enhance evolution by making useful mutations more generally available.

To quote from your source:

Darwin assumed that descent was exclusively “vertical”, with organisms passing traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being closely related in some respects but not others.

So according to your source, we could share DNA with bananas because at some point we swapped genetic material with them. I can imagine how that might have happened ;-)
But I suppose that’s a question regarding further research. I think further research would be interesting. Or we could just rely on what one set of our bronze-age ancestors told us.

DarkCurrent on February 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

What exactly constitutes a transitional fossil to you? Obviously the fossil record still has gaps. Given the relatively rare circumstances under which fossilization occurs and that we’ve only been piecing it together for a relatively short time that’s to be expected

oh please, we’ve had 150 years…and no luck..and we’ve found more fossils than ever…still no luck.

again the faith in time…

We are currently living in a dinosaur renaissance, with unprecedented numbers of discoveries every year,” Wang says. About as many dinosaurs have been discovered in the past two decades as in all of previous human history, he says, largely because of an explosion of findings in countries such as China and Argentina. The number of genera known from these countries has doubled in the past 20 years

link

this is why gould came up with punctuated equilibrium

Doug: What got you started thinking about punctuated equilibrium?

Stephen Jay Gould: It wasn’t broad philosophical or political issues as I think many people assume. It really comes right out of an operational dilemma in paleontology.

I had been trained, as Niles Eldredge had, in statistical methods for the study of subtle changes in evolution. Evolution at that time was defined as gradualism. The two were virtually equated; to see evolution meant finding gradualistic sequences, but every paleontologist knew that they had effectively never been found, and that was a frustration.

link

Meanwhile the gaps steadily shrink

do you have ANY proof of that???

Actually, I anticipate the rapidly increasing power of computing technology it will be possible to find a credible sequence (maybe not ‘the’ sequence) at some point in coming decades. In the meantime you can be working on demonstrating that it’s absolutely not possible. That would absolutely undermine the theory of evolution if you were able to do so. Are you working on it?

DarkCurrent on February 23, 2009 at 9:54 AM

more faith in time..someday over the rainbow…whatever..

you know you cannot prove a negative…you’re the one who says the eye evolved…along with the sexes…rather convenient that they evolved at about the same time, right??? and why not more than 2 sexes??? the more the merrier, right??

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

As is often the case you apparently fail to understand the information you link to. The article in question suggests genetic material can be exchanged between species in ways besides and in parallel to linear descent. It doesn’t say that branching descent doesn’t happen or even that it’s not the predominant mode. If anything such mechanisms as proposed would enhance evolution by making useful mutations more generally available.

laughable…then you have a WEB of life…hint, thats creation…you apparently don’t understand what you are reading..you shouldn’t drink so much of the DARwine…

Or we could just rely on what one set of our bronze-age ancestors told us.

DarkCurrent on February 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

or you could just keep the faith in your hairygod…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM

oh please, we’ve had 150 years…and no luck..and we’ve found more fossils than ever…still no luck.

again the faith in time…
right4life on February 23, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Since any useful conversation or debate requires that we at least have a basic understanding of each other’s language, please define exactly what a transitional fossil/form means to you. Please respond to the specific question posed.

DarkCurrent on February 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM

thats about as easy as telling what a species is…

how about anything that shows the conversion of one animal to another…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM

how about anything that shows the conversion of one animal to another…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Here’s a couple to get you started. Let me know when you’ve read through and understood it all, I’ll get you more

link

link

DarkCurrent on February 23, 2009 at 10:45 AM

right4life, retart is right out of the urban dictionary…it means abysmally and incorrigibly stupid…….and you are obviously unfamiliar with my name…which proves you know absolutely nuthin’ about contemporary quantum mechanics lol.
strangelet

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 10:57 AM

DarkCurrent on February 23, 2009 at 10:45 AM

from the first one…

Living lungfish are virtually unchanged from their Mesozoic ancestors. The living Australian Neoceratodus (left) in particular is a true “living fossil”. Today only a few species of extant lungfish (Dipnoi) and the coelacanth Latimeria remain, the last survivors of a once flourishing group.

I’m not sure what you are trying to show here…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 11:10 AM

right4life, retart is right out of the urban dictionary…

oh thats where you get your ‘science’ at…

whatever strangelove…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 11:11 AM

c’mon, make up your mind retart4life…..is “god” muckin’ around with cell biology? is “god” sequencing DNA? is “god” crafting nano-assemblers?
where is the “design” intervention?

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM

is “god” muckin’ around with cell biology? is “god” sequencing DNA? is “god” crafting nano-assemblers?
where is the “design” intervention?

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 11:14 AM

your hairygod sure isn’t. and never did.

as far as DNA…yeah it just magicall appeared..shazam!! ain’t that evolution sumthin??

moron.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 11:16 AM

I’m not sure what you are trying to show here…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 11:10 AM

I’m not sure why you’re confused. Do you think that the theory of evolution precludes some populations from finding a niche where they can be stable for long periods of time?

In any case, that’s beside the point, other than perhaps illustrating either your complete lack of understanding of the theory of evolution or gross intellectual dishonesty. You asked for transitions, there are quite a few documented for you. If you want to find a viable point, show how some of the supposed transitions on the site are in fact not.

DarkCurrent on February 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Your best bet for holdin’ on to your primitive superstious belief system, retart4life, is to avoid confrontation with Science whenever possible.
Because…..the ongoing process of scientific discovery is going to eventually shred whatever rags of mystical faith you have left to dress in.
My advice is to retreat from prancing and braying in the public square, and hole up in your churches and bible colleges.

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM

pannw on February 23, 2009 at 1:42 AM

You’re arguing what I already conceded–most of America’s Founders were Christians. That does not prove that they founded America upon Christian principles. Besides, you missed a few quotes from Thomas Paine:

It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian church sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand: the statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus; the deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints; the Mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything; the church became as crowded with one, as the Pantheon had been with the other, and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud. …

It is in vain to attempt to palliate or disguise this matter. The story [of Jesus being born of God and being resurrected from the dead], so far as relates to the supernatural part, has every mark of fraud and imposition stamped upon the face of it. Who were the authors of it is as impossible for us now to know, as it is for us to be assured that the books in which the account is related were written by the persons whose names they bear; the best surviving evidence we now have respecting that affair is the Jews. They are regularly descended from the people who lived in the times this resurrection and ascension is said to have happened, and they say, it is not true. It has long appeared to me a strange inconsistency to cite the Jews as a proof of the truth of the story. It is just the same as if a man were to say, I will prove the truth of what I have told you by producing the people who say it is false.

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.

We scarcely meet with anything, a few phrases excepted, but what deserves either our abhorrence or our contempt, till we come to the miscellaneous parts of the Bible. In the anonymous publications, the Psalms, and the Book of Job, more particularly in the latter, we find a great deal of elevated sentiment reverentially expressed of the power and benignity of the Almighty; but they stand on no higher rank than many other compositions on similar subjects, as well before that time as since.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Thom Jefferson–

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.

Not a fan of “god” methinks.

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Creator != judeoxian “god”.

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 11:59 AM

I’m not sure why you’re confused. Do you think that the theory of evolution precludes some populations from finding a niche where they can be stable for long periods of time?

thats the whole point…the fossil record shows sudden appearance…long stretches of no changes..then extinction..

just as creation would predict.

whats funny is when something doesn’t evolve…well thats because evolution says so…and then when it supposedly does..like humans..my aren’t we special? so basically you are saying evolution is arbitrary.

In any case, that’s beside the point, other than perhaps illustrating either your complete lack of understanding of the theory of evolution or gross intellectual dishonesty. You asked for transitions, there are quite a few documented for you. If you want to find a viable point, show how some of the supposed transitions on the site are in fact not.

DarkCurrent on February 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM

uh huh, then why does Gould disagree with you? you know a few nice pictures do not make a transition… and what about this guy…you think he’s just a moron too like gould??

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.

link

now he posted this before the tree of life was blown out of the water…he was right about that…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 12:04 PM

BTW….I am not an atheist.
I am a practicing Sufi.
And there are zero conflicts between Science and my personal-and-private faith.
;)

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Your best bet for holdin’ on to your primitive superstious belief system, retart4life, is to avoid confrontation with Science whenever possible.
Because…..the ongoing process of scientific discovery is going to eventually shred whatever rags of mystical faith you have left to dress in.
My advice is to retreat from prancing and braying in the public square, and hole up in your churches and bible colleges.

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM

you’re amazingly stupid. do you think newton or Keplar would find their faith in opposition to their science? you do realize that many of the greatest scientists of history were men of faith? Pasteur, Mendel, Faraday, kelvin…

The bible is correct, sorry to inform you…while its not a ‘science’ book, science, history, archeology, etc are unable to refute it, instead they support it…

you really need to get a clue…the bible has outlasted the critics…they’re dust..as you will be…and the bible will stand…because its TRUE…its the word of God…and there ain’t nothing you whiny little punk a** atheists are gonna do about it…learn to love it cause its the best thing going WHOOOOOO (a little ric flair lingo there)

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I am a practicing Sufi.
And there are zero conflicts between Science and my personal-and-private faith.
;)

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM

so you’re a muslim…and you’re saying you don’t think god (allah) created life? there are no conflicts???

get a clue, evolution is totally atheistic, how do you square that with allah?? hmmmm??

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Creator != judeoxian “god”.

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 11:59 AM

and if you’re a sufi, then you think the God of the bible is allah..right? but you don’t think God created anything…so in other words, you’re denying allah..you sure you’re a muslim? you may not want to let your friends with the dull knives know about this…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Lol…….we don’t live in a world ruled by Newtonian physics anymore, do we?
We are into Einsteinian worlds now.
The ancients lived in a flat world where Euclidean geometry ruled.
Their paradigm was overruled by the discovery that the earth is round.
Newtonian gravity is superceded by supergravity and quantum gravity.
That is how science works.
The heresy replaces the orthodoxy when it is the better model.

I had the bible as a part of a great books course…..lots of it is contradictory..the various authors contradict each other all the time.
If you are looking for historical consistancy and homogenaity of authorship, the Qu’ran is far superior.
hehe

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Evolution is not atheistic….ask Dr. Ken Miller or Dr. Francis Collins.

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Lol…….we don’t live in a world ruled by Newtonian physics anymore, do we?
We are into Einsteinian worlds now.

I didn’t know they repealed gravity!! why don’t you show us?? take a flying leap, and see what happens!!

The ancients lived in a flat world where Euclidean geometry ruled.
Their paradigm was overruled by the discovery that the earth is round.

this is stupid beyond belief. the ancients knew the world was round…they were much smarter than pompous a*** like you give them credit for.

I had the bible as a part of a great books course…..lots of it is contradictory..the various authors contradict each other all the time.

more drivel and BS. is that the best you can do? duhhhh

If you are looking for historical consistancy and homogenaity of authorship, the Qu’ran is far superior.
hehe

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM

uh yeah right…talk about contradictory..but whatever mohammed said LAST goes…right…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Anyways, retart4life, evolution is not your enemy….cosmology is your enemy.
Go attack Hawking or Susskind.
lol!

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Evolution is not atheistic….ask Dr. Ken Miller or Dr. Francis Collins.

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM

gosh somehow I knew you’d say that..darwiniac talking points are SO PREDICTABLE…well your hero miller said this in a TEXTBOOK:

Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.” (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

any more BS? this is fun!!

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Anyways, retart4life, evolution is not your enemy….cosmology is your enemy.
Go attack Hawking or Susskind.
lol!

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 12:22 PM

evolution doesn’t exist…and the cosmos was created, and is held together by JESUS…and allah is a moon-god..a myth.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 12:23 PM

and yes Israel exists, as the bible says it would..and there ain’t nothing you or you arab friends, or your russian friends, or your dark god is gonna do about it..

and soon the iranians and the russian will learn the hard way the bible is true…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 12:26 PM

the cosmos was created, and is held together by JESUS

LOL!
Good luck with that, retart4life.

Goodbye now goodbye,
Write down all I said
Tell Allahpundit I laffed off my head
Debating with retarts dah loozers game
The bellcurve proves religion is lame

geek credit points for n/e 1 that can say where I boosted the rhyme scheme from.
;)

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 12:33 PM

LOL!
Good luck with that, retart4life.

you’ll find you’ll need much more than luck when you face Him…

thanks for the laughs, loser.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM

I didn’t know they repealed gravity!! why don’t you show us?? take a flying leap, and see what happens!!

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM

You didn’t know, because you’re devoted your efforts to hating on Darwin instead of to learning science. Newtonian mechanics treats gravitation as a force proportionate to the masses involved and inversely proportionate to the square of the distance between them. This is a good approximation in many cases, but it is not the full picture.

In the 20th century many experiments showed that the effects of gravity can be better modeled when thought of as the result of curvature in non-Euclidean space-time. Newtonian mechanics, for instance, does not predict gravity as affecting the behavior of light, as photons are massless. Newtonian mechanics also does not predict time dilation in a gravitational field, but that too has been empirically validated.

When new evidence contradicts existing, enshrined theories, scientists throw out the old theories. They do this because they are actively engaged in an objective search for the truth. Natural selection is still the model used to explain the origin of species, not because biologists are in league with the devil, but because it explains what we observe.

You disagree because you start with the axiom that any evidence which contradicts your literal reading of the Book of Genesis cannot possibly be true. You fail to see on purpose. It’s called “Cognitive Dissonance,” and it is why arguing science with a Young Earth Creationist is exactly like arguing economics with a Marxist.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 12:53 PM

geek credit points for n/e 1 that can say where I boosted the rhyme scheme from.
;)

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 12:33 PM

That would be MC Hawking, correct?

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Well said.

backwoods conservative on February 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM

You didn’t know, because you’re devoted your efforts to hating on Darwin instead of to learning science. Newtonian mechanics treats gravitation as a force proportionate to the masses involved and inversely proportionate to the square of the distance between them. This is a good approximation in many cases, but it is not the full picture.

actually I do know, but it wasn’t relevent to the point, which is that you don’t have to be an atheist wacko to be a scientist…reading is fundamental..sigh…

When new evidence contradicts existing, enshrined theories, scientists throw out the old theories. They do this because they are actively engaged in an objective search for the truth. Natural selection is still the model used to explain the origin of species, not because biologists are in league with the devil, but because it explains what we observe.

talking point BS. when you disagree with the hairygod of evolution, you are sued, silenced, fired, etc like sternberg…all from the ‘tolerant’ brown-shirted high priests of darwinism…a religion.

You disagree because you start with the axiom that any evidence which contradicts your literal reading of the Book of Genesis cannot possibly be true. You fail to see on purpose. It’s called “Cognitive Dissonance,” and it is why arguing science with a Young Earth Creationist is exactly like arguing economics with a Marxist.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 12:53 PM

when you have some let me know…put up or shutup.

you mean like you start with the axiom that any evidence that contradicts darwin cannot be true??

weren’t you supposed to give me the sequence of mutations for the eye??

oh yeah, explain the tuatara while you’re at it…since you’re so ‘scientific’

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Natural selection is still the model used to explain the origin of species, not because biologists are in league with the devil, but because it explains what we observe.

please, natural selection is a TAUTOLOGY..look it up…if its fit it survives…how do we measure fitness? it survives…

natural selection is meaningless…like evolution itself.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Well said.

backwoods conservative on February 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM

what he said was typical darwiniac drivel. oh well guess there’s one born every minute…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 1:57 PM

oh yeah, explain the tuatara while you’re at it…since you’re so ’scientific’

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Science is an enormous discipline, and no one person can profess honestly to know all of it. My interests ran more toward physics than to biology–I do not claim to have any more than rudimentary knowledge in the latter field. You, meanwhile, exhibit an enormous degree of hubris believing that all the knowledge in the world is contained in one particular transcription of the oral traditions of a particular group of illiterate goatherds.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM

hahaha, O i lurvs MC Hawking….even tho he’s wrong, black holes do have hair.
Gerhard ‘t Hooft FTW!!!

No…actually the rhyme scheme is from Joyce’s Ulysses…….
The Ballad of Joking Jesus.
Originally attributed to some 14th century scofflaw street poet.
Its pointless to debate with retart4life….he’s been pithed by Jesus.
lollolollol!!!

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 2:05 PM

You, meanwhile, exhibit an enormous degree of hubris believing that all the knowledge in the world is contained in one particular transcription of the oral traditions of a particular group of illiterate goatherds.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM

you’re an idiot. you set up straw men, and thats about it. why don’t you post where I said that. or apologize. but you won’t that would take integrity, honor, things darwiniacs are lacking.

those ‘illiterate goatherders’ wrote what would become the basis for our laws and form of government. you couldn’t have done nearly as well

talk about hubris you pompous piece of trash.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 2:07 PM

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 2:05 PM

you’re not a sufi…no sufi would say that about Jesus…you’re just another lying atheist wacko.

muslims tend to be honorable and decent too..things you don’t have a clue about..

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Goodbye now, goodbye
write down all I said
tell tom, dick, and harry
i rose from the dead
what’s bred in the bone
cannot fail me to fly
And Olivet’s breezy
Goodbye now, goodbye

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 2:13 PM

LOL!
Issa would have laughed at you too, retart4life.
I’m just quoting James Joyce.
hehe

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 2:15 PM

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 2:15 PM

take the tin-foil off, and get back on your meds..

fat boy.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 2:18 PM

talking point BS. when you disagree with the hairygod of evolution, you are sued, silenced, fired, etc like sternberg…all from the ‘tolerant’ brown-shirted high priests of darwinism…a religion.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 1:53 PM

I’m beginning to agree with the epithet strangelet has been referring to you by. I just gave you an example of a scientific model that had been thought correct for three centuries being overthrown in the very recent past by new evidence.

The modern interpretations of Darwin’s theories are not nearly as enshrined as were Newton’s–biologists are still actively modifying the standard model for the origin of species, whereas Newtonian mechanics were codified into a just a handful of laws for which no contradictory evidence had even been hinted at. If the tuatara or the platypus or anything else really did poke any significant holes in the framework of natural selection, legitimate scientists would as I type this be working on an alternative theory.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 2:21 PM

The modern interpretations of Darwin’s theories are not nearly as enshrined as were Newton’s–biologists are still actively modifying the standard model for the origin of species, whereas Newtonian mechanics were codified into a just a handful of laws for which no contradictory evidence had even been hinted at. If the tuatara or the platypus or anything else really did poke any significant holes in the framework of natural selection, legitimate scientists would as I type this be working on an alternative theory

right..tell it to sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalezm Caroline Crocker, Behe, etc.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM

and of course the darwiniacs have to SUE to try to stop any other alternative to evolution from even being considered…

right they’re just looking for answers…sure…just the democrat party, just wanting to do good for the people..sigh…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Thom Jefferson–
Not a fan of “god” methinks.

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Interesting then that Jefferson in 1774 as a Virginia Assemblyman, personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.
In 1779, As Governor of Virginia he decreed a day of “Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.”
In 1781, he stated,

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forver.”

[That quote can be found engraved on the Jefferson Memorial. BTW I also tremble in this time when God is forced out of the public square, abortion is rampant and gay marriage is a national issue.]
In 1803 he wrote,

“My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. [strangelet?] To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others.”

In His Second Inaugural Address, he stated,

“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessities and comforts of this life, who has covered our infancy was His Providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils and prosper their measures, that whatever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship and approbation of all nations.”

In 1805 he offered a National Prayer for Peace which included,

“Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth. In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen”

In 1820, he wrote,

“I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to man…”

Of course one of the precepts of Jesus from his own mouth is “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me.” (John 14:6-7)

In these and other quotes, and in his actions Jefferson seems to be more of a fan of God [in fact, Jesus Christ] than you methinks.

Christian Conservative on February 23, 2009 at 2:29 PM

you’re an idiot. you set up straw men, and thats about it. why don’t you post where I said that. or apologize. but you won’t that would take integrity, honor, things darwiniacs are lacking.

those ‘illiterate goatherders’ wrote what would become the basis for our laws and form of government. you couldn’t have done nearly as well

talk about hubris you pompous piece of trash.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Now you’re just being an asshole.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Now you’re just being an asshole.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 2:30 PM

check the mirror sonny.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 2:31 PM

hahaha
I’m a grrl.
You can see some pics of me on my old derelict blog.
clik to enlarge

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 2:31 PM

so evolution is not shown in the fossil record, cannot be duplicated, the sequence of mutations for anything is unknown…but ITS GOTS TO BE TRUE!!!! cause DARWIN SAYS SO…and that the BOTTOM LINE..

evolution is nothing more than the faith of atheism posing as science.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM

In these and other quotes, and in his actions Jefferson seems to be more of a fan of God

CC, not by the time he wrote his last letter.
Everyone evolves.
Throw off your monkish chains of ignorant superstition!
lol.

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM

Everyone evolves.

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM

let us know when you evolve some intelligence and manners lol

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 2:42 PM

You can see some pics of me on my old derelict blog.
clik to enlarge

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 2:31 PM

Nice! In more ways than one. Not only is the lady very lovely, but the scenery is beautiful as well.

backwoods conservative on February 23, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Christian Conservative on February 23, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Read Locke’s Second Treatise–it’s where Jefferson and the other founders got most of their ideas from. Locke argued not from the Bible, but from what was evidenced in the world (thus the Declaration’s statement that the truths were “self-evident”). If the correct principles of government can be inductively derived from the world around us, it makes no difference whether one believes the world was created by God in 6 days or whether one believes the world is the product of a Big Bang; one will arrive at identical conclusions.

As Thomas Paine put it,

But some, perhaps, will say: Are we to have no word of God — no revelation? I answer, Yes; there is a word of God; there is a revelation.

THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD and it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.

It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.

That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 2:46 PM

, it makes no difference whether one believes the world was created by God in 6 days or whether one believes the world is the product of a Big Bang; one will arrive at identical conclusions.

really? the french tried it your way…ended up with the terror..

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM

really? the french tried it your way…ended up with the terror..

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Thomas Paine wrote the words I quoted above while in a French prison for not being revolutionary enough. I doubt he would agree they did things his way.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Thomas Paine wrote the words I quoted above while in a French prison for not being revolutionary enough. I doubt he would agree they did things his way.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 2:57 PM

thomas paine was an atheist…the french revolution was an atheistic revolution..a forerunner of the communist revolution…the american revolution was far different

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 3:00 PM

thomas paine was an atheist
right4life on February 23, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Now you’ve come out as a bald-faced liar. From the work I’ve been citing repeatedly in this thread:

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

Paine was a Deist, and you’re a liar. End of story.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM

You’re arguing what I already conceded–most of America’s Founders were Christians. That does not prove that they founded America upon Christian principles. Besides, you missed a few quotes from Thomas Paine:
hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Honestly, how can one expect to hold an intelligent discourse when one party blatantly refuses to acknowledge the EVIDENCE? Seriously, you hold up Thomas Paine, and I give you the Preamble or articles of EVERY state constitution, statements by George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and even Thomas Jefferson, who I will concede was a very confused Christian, but also the man who wrote that All men are created equal at the same time he held slaves, so I think we can reasonably come to differing conclusions on him. However, the others are pretty darn clear. Did you even read the Patrick Henry quote where he point blank says they founded the country on “the Gospels of Jesus Christ”? These people were overwhelmingly Christians, not deists, and one with any understanding of what that means knows that you can NOT divorce those principles from your beliefs even if one individually fails to live up to them. Let me guess, you believe the glove didn’t fit?

But if you wish to play the game of gothcha with picking out anti-Christian quotes, I will see your Thomas Paines and raise you another John Adams: ” The Christian Religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern Times, The Religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity and Humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will. It is Resignation to God — it is Goodness itself to Man. ~Diary, JULY 26. 1796.

George Washington had to go and find a Bible on which to swear the Oath of Office and added, “So help me God,’ to the end of his Oath when he was inaugurated. He also kissed the Bible at the end. That is not the action of a deist, but of a Christian who believes in the God of the Bible.

Washington’s adopted daughter had this to say to those who would call him a deist. “Is it necessary that any one should ask, “Did General Washington avow himself to be a believer in Christianity?” As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic devotion to his country. His mottos were, “Deeds, not Words”; and, “For God and my Country.”

George Washington farewell address: “…reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

James Wilson: “Christianity is part of the common law”
And while we are also discussing the inclusion of ID in education, I find this interesting.

“Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education”
Letters of Benjamin Rush, “To the citizens of Philadelphia: A Plan for Free Schools”, March 28, 1787

“The Bible was America’s basic textbook
in all fields.” Noah Webster.

Interesting, no? When did it finally become ‘unconstitutional’ to have prayer in schools? 1962?

And let me repeat one of Christian Conservatives by Jefferson: “My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others…” April 21, 1803 in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush.

How does this play into your hand that we are not founded on Judeo-Christian principles? Guess where James Madison got the idea of the three branches (Judicial, Legislative, Executive) of government he proposed at the Constitutional Convention. Yep, the Bible. Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”

That’s got to be a bummer for the “we weren’t founded on Judeo-Christian principles” crowd.

Face the facts. It is your history; own it. Be content in the fact that you and your secular/atheist kind are destroying what the founding fathers built by ‘separating Church and State’ after the fact. They, however, clearly did not separate their fundamental beliefs (overwhelmingly Christian) from governance. They simply did not establish one church to rule them all. Having suffered under the rule of Britain and its state religion, it is no surprise that some were suspicious of or even hostile towards ‘organized’ religions. Still, I wonder if any of them foresaw the way secularists would twist that granting of freedom (because of a true grounding in their faith) to claim they were actually deists who only believed in God as a distant uninvolved creator, and they were not founding the nation on their actual Christian beliefs.

thomas paine was an atheist…the french revolution was an atheistic revolution..a forerunner of the communist revolution…the american revolution was far different
right4life on February 23, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Thomas Paine was actually the deist/anti-Christian of the crowd the modern, secular, anti-Christians hold in such high esteem.

Thomas Paine : “ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”

“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God–1810”

pannw on February 23, 2009 at 3:30 PM

And let me repeat one of Christian Conservatives by Jefferson: “My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others…” April 21, 1803 in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush.

Paine said no differently:

Nothing that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many years before; by the Quakers since; and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any.

Like I said, though, proving most of the Founders called themselves Christians does not mean that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. See, for example, one more argument of Paine’s:

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.

To the extent to which principles in the Bible are good principles, honest, objective investigation of the natural world will bear them out. To the extent to which they are evil, America’s founders repudiated them–see, for example, the First Amendment.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 3:37 PM

I love the way our modern day anti-theists pick the one patriot that was an atheist. They also concentrate on Jefferson and Franklin because they think they were deists. (After all, isn’t that what our marvelous public education propaganda system teaches us?) Their own quotes and actions show otherwise. The latter may not have been orthodox in their beliefs, but they were true Theists and attended Christian Churches. And we could publish similar quotes from Franklin as I have above from Jefferson.
By and large, the rest of the founders were not only Christians but many were preachers, many formed Bible societies and otherwise furthered the cause of Christ.
So the evolutionists have to lie about our founders and hang on Thomas Paine threads like they have to hang on Darwin’s theories which have already been refuted by mondern evolutionists. There is a long string of lies and hoaxes created by evolutionists including those involving human embryos (we all had gills and fins), pigs bones becoming missing link humans, etc. And why?
Because the alternative is just too much to bear: There is a God, He created us, and He just might be holding us responsible for our actions.

Christian Conservative on February 23, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Paine was a Deist, and you’re a liar. End of story.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM

you’re a piece of trash. end of story.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Paine argued for a rational religion and he didn’t really present anything new – but he put a famous name to those ideas and spread them widely and the result was that he made even more enemies than he had before. Even people who had previously been supportive moved to distance themselves from him and Paine developed a reputation as an atheist. This reputation has continued down through modern times – even Theodore Roosevelt referred to him once as a “filthy little atheist.”

link

pompous moron.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 4:13 PM

By and large, the rest of the founders were not only Christians but many were preachers, many formed Bible societies and otherwise furthered the cause of Christ.

As I have said repeatedly, I am fully aware of that fact, and it does not prove your point. To say “America was founded by Christians” is not to say, “America was founded upon Christian principles.”

So the evolutionists have to lie about our founders and hang on Thomas Paine threads like they have to hang on Darwin’s theories which have already been refuted by mondern [sic] evolutionists.

New evidence disproved the old theories, so the old theories were modified to fit the new evidence. This is how science works. It is not individuals such as myself who do not reject modern science who cling to Darwin, it is the Answers in Genesis crowd. Modern biology is too complicated, and too irrefutable, for Young Earth Creationists to explain away, so they retain Darwin as a straw man even though the rest of us have moved on.

There is a long string of lies and hoaxes created by evolutionists including those involving human embryos (we all had gills and fins), pigs bones becoming missing link humans, etc.

Both honest mistakes, now corrected. “Honest mistakes,” unfortunately, is far too kind a descriptor for the propaganda of the Young Earth Creationists. Their goal is not to objectively search for correct answers wherever the evidence may lead; their goal is to proselytize by any means necessary. If I may paraphrase Saul of Tarsus, they have exchanged the pursuit of truth for lies.

And why?
Because the alternative is just too much to bear: There is a God, He created us, and He just might be holding us responsible for our actions.

Christian Conservative on February 23, 2009 at 3:44 PM

That is a false dichotomy. A flaw in modern evolutionary biology does not indicate that life did not evolve; it may merely indicate that the existing models are inadequate to describe the process. And even if evidence were to completely disprove evolution, it still would not prove that there is a God. And even if the existence of God were conclusively proven, that still would not prove that the Christian Bible is the infallible Word of said God.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 4:14 PM

you’re a piece of trash. end of story.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 4:12 PM

So much for the ridiculous notion that “all men are created equal” is a Christian principle.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 4:16 PM

So much for the ridiculous notion that “all men are created equal” is a Christian principle.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 4:16 PM

here’s the christian principle that describes you…

romans 1

19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 4:22 PM

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 4:13 PM

You take Teddy Roosevelt’s decription of what Paine believed over Paine’s own treatise on religion? You really are beyond redemption. I hope you’re having fun being a miserable prick in this life–you won’t get a second chance. Paine had this to say about people like you:

…it is by his being taught to contemplate himself as an outlaw, as an outcast, as a beggar, as a mumper, as one thrown, as it were, on a dunghill at an immense distance from his Creator, and who must make his approaches by creeping and cringing to intermediate beings, that he conceives either a contemptuous disregard for everything under the name of religion, or becomes indifferent, or turns what he calls devout. In the latter case, he consumes his life in grief, or the affectation of it; his prayers are reproaches; his humility is ingratitude; he calls himself a worm, and the fertile earth a dunghill; and all the blessings of life by the thankless name of vanities; he despises the choicest gift of God to man, the GIFT OF REASON; and having endeavored to force upon himself the belief of a system against which reason revolts, he ungratefully calls it human reason, as if man could give reason to himself.
Yet, with all this strange appearance of humility and this contempt for human reason, he ventures into the boldest presumptions; he finds fault with everything; his selfishness is never satisfied; his ingratitude is never at an end. He takes on himself to direct the Almighty what to do, even in the government of the universe; he prays dictatorially; when it is sunshine, he prays for rain, and when it is rain, he prays for sunshine; he follows the same idea in everything that he prays for; for what is the amount of all his prayers but an attempt to make the Almighty change his mind, and act otherwise than he does? It is as if he were to say: Thou knowest not so well as I.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 4:23 PM

You take Teddy Roosevelt’s decription of what Paine believed over Paine’s own treatise on religion? You really are beyond redemption. I hope you’re having fun being a miserable prick in this life–you won’t get a second chance. Paine had this to say about people like you:

and I would believe you over TR…why???

you really are a legend in your own mind…thats about it…

still nothing on the list of mutations for the eye huh?

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 4:28 PM

oh and as far as him being a ‘deist’ a distinction without a difference…please.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Though himself “a pious deist,” in The Age of Reason Paine reflected the atheistic feeling that had swept France during these revolutionary times; The Age of Reason became known as the “Atheist’s bible.” On returning to America in 1802, Paine found himself, directly on account The Age of Reason, out of favour, ostracized by political leaders and churchgoers. After seven incredible years of abuse, hatred, neglect, poverty, and ill health, Paine died in 1809, at the age of 72; and was denied burial in a Quaker cemetery.

link

looks like you know as much about history as you do about evolution…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 4:32 PM

romans 1

19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 4:22 PM

Ah, the Book of Romans. It may surprise you to hear that I had to memorize it forwards and backwards when I was the standout performer on my church’s Bible quiz team. How long ago that was!

Anyway, verse 19 touches on exactly the point I have been making, and that Paine wrote The Age of Reason to make: an honest, objective, rational investigation of the natural world is adequate to reveal the truth. Much to the dismay of Young Earth Creationists, the truth that is revealed is that the universe is six orders of magnitude more than 6,000 years old, and that all the events in the universe, with the possible exceptions of the first 100th of a second and the biogenesis of the first organism, can be explained perfectly adequately without the intervention of any hypothetical Deity.

If a literal interpretation of the Bible were truly self-evidently factual, it would be espoused by more than the tiny remnant who have not bowed their knees to the Baal that is rational thought (or by the billions of people who believe as strongly as you do in their own non-Christian religions).

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 4:36 PM

looks like you know as much about history as you do about evolution…

right4life on February 23, 2009 at 4:32 PM

I know how to read even that with which I disagree, which is more than can be said for you. To repeat (and do try to parse the quoted verbiage this time):

From section 1:

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

From section 7:
But some, perhaps, will say: Are we to have no word of God — no revelation? I answer, Yes; there is a word of God; there is a revelation.

THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD and it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.


Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the Creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed! Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called the Scripture, which any human hand might make, but the Scripture called the Creation.

Almost the only parts in the book called the Bible that convey to us any idea of God, are some chapters in Job and the 19th Psalm; I recollect no other. Those parts are true deistical compositions, for they treat of the Deity through his works.

From section 8:

First, — Canst thou by searching find out God? Yes because, in the first place, I know I did not make myself, and yet I have existence; and by searching into the nature of other things, I find that no other thing could make itself; and yet millions of other things exist; therefore it is, that I know, by positive conclusion resulting from this search, that there is a power superior to all those things, and that power is God.


As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of Atheism — a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.

The effect of this obscurity has been that of turning everything upside down, and representing it in reverse, and among the revolutions it has thus magically produced, it has made a revolution in theology.

That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology.

From section 21:
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter.


Were man impressed as fully and as strongly as he ought to be with the belief of a God, his moral life would be regulated by the force of that belief; he would stand in awe of God and of himself, and would not do the thing that could not be concealed from either. To give this belief the full opportunity of force, it is necessary that it acts alone. This is Deism. But when, according to the Christian Trinitarian scheme, one part of God is represented by a dying man, and another part called the Holy Ghost, by a flying pigeon, it is impossible that belief can attach itself to such wild conceits.

Paine went to the trouble of writing a full treatise on what he purported to be his religious beliefs–I can conceive of no reason not to take him at his word. Notice too that he disparages atheists and Christians equally; were he actually an atheist writing a tract on atheism, he would not have done so.

This is what I meant when I accused you of being plagued by cognitive dissonance–the evidence is plain as day and right in front of your face, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it because it is in disagreement with your preconceived notions.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 4:55 PM

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 3:37 PM

Oh, goodie, more Paine…Honestly, do you have nothing else, because your arguments are plenty painful? Ha ha, a pun…

But wait…

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Oh great, even more Paine. So I get it, he’s your hero because he is the ONE anti-Christian you can dig up, but what did he do, really? He wrote a pamphlet called Common Sense that was pro-independence. Fine!

As much as I hate quoting Wikipedia, I am going to in this case, because we all know they are no bastion of conservative or Christian defense.

Paine’s arguments were rarely cited in public calls for independence, which suggests that Common Sense may have had a more limited impact on the public’s thinking about independence than is sometimes believed.[13] The pamphlet probably had little direct influence on the Continental Congress’s decision to issue a Declaration of Independence, since that body was more concerned with how declaring independence would affect the war effort.

He is also described as a ‘failure’ for the first half of his life, having failed out of school at 13 and flopped from job to job for the next 24 years until he more or less became part of the press…how appropriate.

But let’s acceede that he wrote some influential pamphlets. Still he did not actually fight in the Revolution; he did not participate in the Continental Congress which actually convened in 1774, two years before he even wrote Common Sense; he did not sign the Declaration of Independence…

Yet he is apparently your sole source of argument.

Here, I’ll put up yet another founding father in support of my position.

John Jay, who (in contrast to a writer of pamphlets that you seem to find worthy of near worship) was a contributor to the Federalist, Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation, the first Chief Justice of the United States, negotiator of the 1794 “Jay Treaty” with Great Britain, and a two-term Governor of the State of New York. -“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Hmm….

–On June 8,1809, Thomas Paine died, lonely, ignored and virtually shunned as a result of some of his religious views – his funeral was attended by only half a dozen people.

My guess is that he was not representative of the founding citizenry of our nation.

This is what I meant when I accused you of being plagued by cognitive dissonance–the evidence is plain as day and right in front of your face, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it because it is in disagreement with your preconceived notions.
hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Great Scott! The irony is almost painful…pun intended again.

Honestly, if Thomas Paine and a refusal to accept evidence is all you have to support your personal opinion that our country was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles, there is no reason to keep arguing? You quote him as if he is THE founding father, rather than one of the much lesser ones. You present his quotes as if they prove we were not founded on Christian principles yet you adamantly refuse to allow that quotes stating otherwise offer any proof to the contrary. You show yourself unwilling to admit vast amounts of evidence. It is like arguing with a pro-abortionist who keeps saying that the ‘fetus’ is not human despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

No matter what I say, or show you, you will not accept it because you have a view that you will not, under any circumstance relinquish, regardless of how irrational it makes you look. So I will not argue with you any longer. I have presented much evidence, mainly for the benefit of other readers who might have a more intellectually honest and open minded desire for the truth. Now that the thread is hidden away in the archives, it is not worth my effort. I’d as soon bang my head into a wall, and I’m not prone to irrationality.

Have a good day.

pannw on February 23, 2009 at 6:15 PM

pannw on February 23, 2009 at 6:15 PM

You still have not addressed my actual argument:

Like I said, though, proving most of the Founders called themselves Christians does not mean that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 3:37 PM

hicsuget on February 23, 2009 at 6:17 PM

I just have to share this amusement with retart4life.
Goin’ out to Allahpundit, the bomb-dot-com.
From Pharyngula, with love.
;)

Dear Dr. Klinghoffer:

Thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more recent relabeling as “intelligent design”) with a speaker from the Discovery Institute. Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute’s website:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/

However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists.

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.

“Conspiracy” is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn’t live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don’t maintain scientific standards.

Finally, isn’t it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation at a little university in northern New England? Practicing scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science departments around the world, often on controversial and novel topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science, they would receive such invitations as well.

So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn’t science and doesn’t merit an invitation.

In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can’t tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious.

Sincerely yours,

Nick Gotelli

P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.

strangelet on February 23, 2009 at 9:10 PM

Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute’s website:

Oh, he got his feelings hurt.

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist.

Translation: I will not debate with you because every time an Evolutionist has to debate against a true spokesman of ID or Creationism, they lose!

Christian Conservative on February 23, 2009 at 11:51 PM

…every time an Evolutionist has to debate against a true spokesman of ID or Creationism, they lose!

Christian Conservative on February 23, 2009 at 11:51 PM

Every time rational thinkers try to open such tightly closed minds, they fail. That is not the fault of the rational thinkers. A closed mind is not an asset, and refusing to open it is not a virtue.

backwoods conservative on February 24, 2009 at 7:57 AM

…every time an Evolutionist has to debate against a true spokesman of ID or Creationism, they lose!

Christian Conservative on February 23, 2009 at 11:51 PM

errm….no.
Please see Kitzmiller vs Dover.
That is why IDT can never be taught in public school science class.
Because it is not science.
I don’t understand…why you would want your children to learn crap.
But Kitzmiller guarantees that you cannot force crap on our children.
Freedom of religion only guarantees your own children can be forced to learn crap.

strangelet on February 24, 2009 at 8:35 AM

And that would be in parochial schools and bible colleges.
Like I said, keep it in your pants.

strangelet on February 24, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Hey strangelet, glad to see you’re still around. My earlier compliments on the photo referred specifically to the cemetery photo. (I hadn’t found my way to any others.) I do a little amateur photography on the side and I envy the photographer who made that picture. The setting is incredibly beautiful. I can see why it would be one of your favorite places.

backwoods conservative on February 24, 2009 at 9:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6